Author Archive for Lord J-Bar

And Heeeeere’s Pat!

Of course, there can't be a natural disaster anywhere without Pat Robertson making up reasons why it's punishment from God. Here's what he said this morning on The 700 Club:

And you know, Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heal of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal.

And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other. Desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It is cut down the middle on the one side is Haiti the other is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we meed to pray for them a great turning to god and out of this tragedy I'm optimistic something good may come. But right now we are helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable.

I'm going to assume this isn't just Pat being blatantly racist, assuming the Haitians were better off under their French masters. It probably has more to do with the distinctly pagan elements of Haitian religious beliefs, including animal sacrifice and the like. Even then, it's not much better. Way to blame the victims, ass. You may remember, Robertson said something similar after 9/11, blaming Americans for the terrorist attack.

Robertson's entire business depends on stoking his followers fears and taking advantage of catastrophe. Every year, he claims to hear from God, who personally warns him of impending catastrophe. Of course, these "prophecies" are always wildly wrong. When disaster does strike (and always in places and ways he never predicted), Robertson is quick to jump on it as proof that God is vicious and vengeful, punishing those who disbelieve. Nevermind God's seemingly arbitrary vengeance.

It's disgusting. Robertson's version of Christianity is built on nothing but fear, fear, and more fear, and he uses the fear of his followers to pump them for money. Sure, Robertson is clearly insane and hearing voices in his head, but why do so many people listen to him? How is this clown influential? It reminds me one of my favorite Star Wars quotes: "Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" Seriously, what's worth following there? Try living without fear of the celestial dictator for a little bit. It's quite refreshing, and I promise, God's pretty slow getting around to His vengeance.

Haiti

Haiti's capital of Port-au-Prince has been devastated by yesterday's 7.0 earthquake. With the extreme poverty of the nation (it's the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere), I can't imagine how terrible the destruction must be after a quake that strong. Hopefully, too many weren't killed, but I'm glad to see the US is responding quickly to offer aid.

Quote of the Week

“We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk or hazard…Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.”

- Voltaire

Oh, the Possibilities

National Geographic has short article on their site about a recent study which determined roughly 15 percent of all stars in the Milky Way galaxy may be similar to ours, which increases their likelihood of harboring life.

From the article:

The research is based on surveys of stars with gas giant planets—similar to Jupiter and Saturn—that orbit far from their stars.

As in our solar system, vast distances stretch between these stars and their gas giants. This creates ample room for rocky planets to thrive in the stars' habitable zones, the regions where liquid water can exist.

And that boosts the likelihood that other Earths, and maybe even other forms of life, abound in the Milky Way.

Hopefully, the Kepler Space Telescope and future missions will be able to support this article's conclusions. Unfortunately, it will take a couple of years before we have any answers from Kepler (to see how Kepler works, I recommend Phil Plait's explanation). Being patient sucks!

Anyway, I love imagining the possibilities. There is just so much out there waiting to be explored. I only wish I would be able to see some of it in my lifetime. But who knows? Humanity might be able to send an unmanned probe to some of our nearest neighbors and send back pictures in time for me to see them. Only time will tell.

What Are They Hiding?

As a sort of follow-up to yesterday's post, the first "Tea Party Convention" at Nashville next month will feature speeches from Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Interestingly, neither woman has allowed the media to cover their speeches. Of course, one shouldn't be surprised when it comes to Palin. She is particularly careful to keep her well-crafted public image intact. Any unrehearsed moments would probably be disastrous for her.

As the Star Tribune reports:

Convention spokesman Judson Phillips informs us that most of the sessions are closed “at the request” of the presenters. “Given the media interest, I don't want the sessions disrupted and overrun with the media,” he said.

While organizers are offering to help set up interviews with speakers, they said Palin will not be available.

We know why Palin's hiding from the press, but why are the other leading Teabaggers doing the same? If they want a popular revolution like many claim, don't people need to actually know about it? Just sayin'.

On a related note, Sarah Palin just signed a contract to be a FOX News contributor. Yeah, can't wait to see what asinine lies she spreads from there. When will Murdoch just rename the network Conservative Propaganda, and stop the charade?

Sarah Palin: The Ongoing National Embarassment

I'm going to say this very plainly: Sarah Palin is an absolute farce. Her public persona is so well shielded and crafted, that few of her supporters know how horrifically uninformed she really is. What's worse is that she has virtually no desire to learn more. Perhaps her supporters are just projecting their hopes and preferences onto her. She's been so well shielded from the press and from any sort of direct inquiry, that her overall ambiguity makes this projection fairly easy.

However, the ugly truth has been slowly leaking out. Recently, 60 Minutes featured an interview with several McCain campaign strategists concerning their choice of Palin as the GOP running mate:



Andrew Sullivan did a nice job summarizing the ignorance of Sarah Palin as revealed by her old campaign managers:

Palin had no notion of basic high school history. She barely understood what the Cold War was.
She didn't know what the Federal Reserve did. She believed that her First Amendment rights meant she was protected from press inquiries. She couldn't tell you why there's a North and a South Korea. And she had an inability to distinguish between her own view of the world - which always rationalized everything that Sarah Palin did - and reality.

While her complete lack of knowledge was appalling enough, what's worse is that she was chosen without any real consideration of her credentials or her stances on any of the major issues. When the McCain campaign realized her gross ignorance of even the most basic facts, they moved quickly to shield her from all media scrutiny. She conducted no press conferences and held only a few interviews with friendly media outlets such as FOX News. The only time the campaign managers let her speak on the record with a non-friendly interviewee was for the now infamous Katie Couric interview, where her shortcomings were laid bare for the world to see. Even after the campaign, Sarah Palin has continued her media blackout, refusing to speak with media sources that don't share her partisan views. The only time she divulges anything is through carefully controlled sources such as her book or her Facebook page.

As a result, her fans only know the crafted, fictional version of Sarah Palin. Any attempts to point out her obvious lies or gross ignorance are considered liberal smears. Palin supporters even insist the "smears" are why Palin stepped down from the governorship of Alaska, even though she never gave an actual reason. Besides, if she really wanted to escape the supposedly unfair "liberal" media, she would have dropped out of public life completely. But she hasn't. In fact, she continues to insert herself into the political dialog, holding up her Downs Syndrome child as a political prop (quite disgusting, really). But despite all evidence to the contrary, her supporters continue to believe she is "just like them" and that she would make the perfect president. I think projection is the obvious explanation for this. On most issues, Palin has remained purposely noncommittal except for the few issues that drive the Religious Right, including abortion, gay marriage, and patriotism (read, nationalism). Beyond that, no one really knows where Palin stands (it seems she has no idea either), and that makes it easy for her supporters to assume she shares their beliefs. After all, she unquestioningly loves Jesus and sticks to the party line on the major issues that Fundamental Christians care about. She must be exactly what they want, right?

Before I am accused of being a liberal, partisan hack, let me point out that a lot of liberals were guilty of the same problem with President Obama.  This is also why there's such a liberal backlash against Obama right now.  Too many projected their wishes onto him, and are now deeply disappointed he hasn't been everything they dreamed of.  However, President Obama differs from Palin in the fact that he never hid his views or his stances during the campaign.  He was always open to the press, and has largely followed his proposed agenda.  More importantly, he's knowledgeable of the issues and shows a remarkable degree of open-mindedness.  Sarah Palin is the exact opposite.

Frankly, I fear for the future of America if incompetent know-nothings like Sarah Palin can get anywhere near the presidency just because she's attractive and can convince enough people she's "just like them". It's a sign that America's infatuation with celebrity has risen to dangerous new heights.

Tetrapods Evolved Earlier Than Previously Thought…Cue the Creationists!

Paleontologists recently described a fossilized trackway discovered in Poland that dates to 395 million years ago.


Illustration and photograph by Grzegorz Niedzwiedzki, courtesy of National Geographic

What's cool about it is that paleontologists previously believed tetrapods evolved around 370 million years ago based on finds such as the Tiktaalik rosa which seemed to be a transitional form between fish and amphibians.  However, this new find reveals that tiktaalik was in fact an evolutionary holdover from a transition that occurred at least 20 million years earlier.  Unfortunately, we need more fossil evidence to properly pin down when the transition took place, but at least this find gives us a better idea of where to look in the rocks. Clearly, 395 million years old is too young!

Of course, the usual suspects are tripping over themselves to show that this invalidates tiktaalik's place as a transitional fossil and disproves evolution.  PZ Myers does a nice job explaining why that's simply not the case.  In short, evolution isn't a ladder, but a branching tree.  Creatures that were once transitional forms can continue to survive for millions of years as long as they can continue to reproduce (look at the coelacanth).  In this instance, tiktaalik is the descendant from a population of creatures that were the transition between fish and tetrapods.  Some of that ancestor population continued to survive in their transitional form, eventually becoming the tiktaalik, while others continued changing into tetrapods, including the ones that left their footprints behind in prehistoric Poland.  None of the scientists involved ever claimed tiktaalik was a definite ancestor of all tetrapods.  It was just a prime example of what the direct ancestor might have looked like.

It might be easier to explain using human evolution.  Imagine alien paleontologists are studying the Earth 350 million years in the future, and they have only a rough understanding of human evolution and few fossils to go on.  Then they find a fossilized chimpanzee skeleton followed a couple of years later by a more ancient set of Homo erectus footprints.  Would the alien paleontologists have to rule out evolution entirely because the more human-like footprints come before the apparent transitional form in the geologic record?  Of course not.  As we know, the chimpanzee is little changed from the transitional form between humans and all other primates.  However, we also know it is not our direct ancestor, just a good example of what the common ancestor between apes and us might have looked like.  On the other hand, Homo erectus obviously lived before modern chimpanzees, but was well on its way to becoming human while still living at the same time as the chimp's ancestors.

Applied to the recent discoveries of tetrapod evolution, the tiktaalik is like the chimpanzee.  It's an approximate representation of a common ancestor, which continued to coexist among the ever-changing tetrapods.  When those early amphibians walked across an ancient beach in Poland, somewhere in the shallow waters of the world were the ancestors of the tiktaalik.  They had changed little from the common ancestor to both and would remain virtually unchanged for several million more years.

Anyway, this showcases part of what I love about science.  It's always changing in response to new evidence, bringing us closer to an accurate understanding of the world around us.  Isn't reality awesome?

I Don’t Think They Know What “Militant” Means

I can’t begin to describe how tired I am at of seeing the label “militant atheist”. This meme has made the rounds ever since the surge in vocal atheism started a few years ago (maybe the meme has been around longer, but I never noticed it beforehand). But are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, PZ Myers, Christopher Hitchens, et cetera really militant?

Sure, all the above mentioned atheists and many others, including myself, feel that humanity would be better off without religion, and we don’t censor our views. The high profile atheists have published a few books, written blogs, and have gone on lecture tours. But…what’s militant about that? None of these “militant atheists” have ever taken up arms against any believers. They’ve never committed acts of terrorism. They’ve never even advocated for bans on religious belief. No, all they’ve done is advocate an atheistic worldview to any who will listen and work through legal means to maintain a separation of church and state.

How is that any different from a Christian who seeks to gain converts to his faith and looks out for his religion’s best interests? When Brit Hume said on FOX News that Tiger Woods should abandon Buddhism and become Christian to receive forgiveness for his sins, was he being militant? Of course not. Sure, he was proselytizing from a wildly inappropriate forum, but he wasn’t being militant. He wasn’t using his faith to justify any sort of violent action. What about the Mormon Church sending millions of dollars to support the successful campaign to ban same-sex marriage in California? Sure, I feel the result was an outrage against civil liberties, but the Mormons were operating within their rights and they were certainly not “militant” about it, orchestrating a violent campaign to ensure their preferred outcome.

If you want to see people actually being militant about their beliefs, you don’t need to look far. Al-Qaeda is a perfectly obvious example since they have regularly killed innocent people in an attempt to achieve their ideologically-driven goals. Another example is the “militia” groups scattered throughout the US who favor and actively prepare for a violent overthrow of the US government. Without fail, you’ll find those groups justify their radical views through their Christian faith. Timothy McVeigh is just one such example. He was what one should consider militant. Nothing the “New Atheists” have done or said comes anywhere near the aforementioned examples.

So, I’d love to know what actually makes vocal atheists “militant”. My wild speculation is that so many believers have become so wrapped up in their faith that the mere existence of someone advocating views antithetical to their own must feel like a direct, personal attack. But that is not the case. I am not going to go out and try to violently end Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and so on. In fact, I find the idea repugnant. Freedom of and from religion should be an absolute right. So unless atheist terrorists start blowing up churches in the name of nonbelief, please stop calling us militant. We just want to make our views heard and respected in a free exchange of ideas, and there’s nothing militant about that.

Theocracy in Alabama

Bradley Byrne, a GOP gubernatorial candidate for Alabama, recently clarified that he believes the Bible is true. "Every word of it." As depressing as that is, what's worse is that he had to make that statement as a rebuttal to his opponent's primary line of attack.

Last November, he made the mistake of saying, "I believe there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not." Sounds reasonable enough, right? Of course, that won't pass muster with GOP voters these days, especially in the South, so Byrne's busy saying all the right things to soothe Christians' riled feathers. Yeah, that's way better than focusing on, you know, actual issues.

Can the South just hurry up and declare itself a theocracy? It's already there with garbage like this.

Now This Is Refreshing

Personally, I've been more or less pleased with President Obama's performance.  Sure, he hasn't been able to make the sweeping changes we'd hoped for, and he's been rather disappointing when it comes to his refusal to change several Bush policies regarding the prosecution of terror suspects being held by the government.  However, the burden of reform falls on the legislative branch, which has become completely hamstrung with the now routine use of the filibuster in the Senate.

Nevertheless, President Obama said this yesterday in regards to the failure to stop the Underwear Bomber:

I am less interested in passing out blame than I am in learning from and correcting these mistakes to make us safer. For ultimately the buck stops with me.  When the system fails, it is my responsibility.

What a refreshing change from his predecessor.  George W. Bush seemed incapable of admitting any mistakes.  Apparently, he thought it made him look weak.  In reality, it just revealed his cowardice, since it takes real courage, political and otherwise, to own up to one's mistakes.  Good job President Obama for actually being a leader.

On a final note, I cannot stand the chorus of blame being thrown around.  Depending on where they sit on the political spectrum, you see pundits and politicians blaming Obama, the intelligence community, Homeland Security, and so on.  Hey, shit happens.  A terrorist is going to sneak through from time to time.  Stopping all of them is virtually impossible, especially if we want to maintain a free and open society.  It's the cost of having our style of life.  I understand that.  Besides, you're far more likely to die in a car accident or succumb to heart disease than ever experience a terror attack.  Everyone just needs to take a deep breath, and go on with their lives.

Dubai’s Shiny New Energy Waster


As you may have heard, Dubai's Burj Khalifa (formerly Burj Dubai) now holds the record as the tallest free-standing structure ever built. At an opening ceremony on January 4th, the official height of the skyscraper was announced to be 828 m (2,717 ft). To get an idea of the size, you would need to stack both of the old World Trade Center towers on top of each other to reach the same height, While I have to admit I always find enormous building projects fascinating (doesn't everyone), this particular record-breaker seems extremely foolhardy.

First off, the building requires almost as much electricity as the rest of the city to operate, a fact that certainly won't help Dubai's largest per capita carbon footprint in the world. Second, the building fills no real need. As the LA Times' Christopher Hawthorne recently detailed, most of the building remains vacant. When the construction company broke ground in 2004, Dubai was in the middle of a huge growth binge fueled with debt in an effort to boost its economy. The reason why is understandable enough because Dubai's oil reserves have been mostly depleted. Since selling sand isn't known for is huge returns, the only remaining option for Dubai was to try and boost tourism through spectacular building projects including manmade offshore islands and luxury hotels. The Burj Khalifa is a huge part of this revitalization as a center for business and luxury residences.

Though Dubai was able to attract wealthy tourists, mostly from Europe, the global recession has brought most of that to a halt. Furthermore, the collapse of the real estate market has left Dubai with far more real estate than its economy can hope to maintain. Furthermore, the city recently had to secure a $10 billion loan from its neighboring emirate, Abu Dhabi, just to pay for the loans on its building projects.

As for Burj Khalifa, most of the residences have been booked, but they were all sold in advance before the economic downturn and few people have actually moved in. Even worse, there is virtually no need for commercial office space in Dubai for the foreseeable future. As a result, most of the tower's 3.5 million square feet sit empty, sucking up energy and resources.

More than anything, this is a perfect example of the mindset we need to discard if we want to have a sustainable and productive future. Sure, tall things are awesome, and there are legitimate reasons to build them. However, Burj Khalifa seems to have been built more to stroke the egos of Dubai's ruling family and as a shiny toy they can show off to the rest of the world. And now it sits there, sucking up energy from our planet’s ever diminishing supply of hydrocarbons while serving no real purpose. Thanks Dubai.

The Known Universe

If you haven't seen the video below, you really should check it out:



Sure puts things into perspective, doesn't it? And to think, there are people who think all of that is devoid of life and meant solely for us. Man, reality is so much more awesome.

Thanks to the American Museum of Natural History for making that video.

I’m Back on the Atheist Blogroll



Due to my lack of posting, I was removed from the Atheist Blogroll. However, I'm now back on it, and I've added the widget to my blog. You can find it on the right at the bottom under "This Blog is Listed At." Please take some to check out the other atheist blogs on the blogroll. You never know what insights or cool discussions you might find. Furthermore, if you have an a blog that discusses atheism or nonbelief, you should join the blogroll and get your name out there to potentially interested readers.

You Go Irish Atheists!

I know this has been thoroughly covered already, but I wanted to highlight the Atheist Ireland's campaign to overturn Ireland's new blasphemy law.

When the law passed last July, it was buried in a defamation bill, and it seems most of the Irish were uncertain why the blasphemy portion even passed. Nobody seemed to be calling for it. However, I know nothing about how the Irish government works, so I won't even being to speculate. Anyway, the law came into effect at the start of the year, so a group calling themselves Atheist Ireland have published 25 "blasphemous" quotes online in an effort to highlight the stupidity of the law and get it repealed.

My hat's off you Atheist Ireland. Hopefully you can force the removal of this blight on free speech from your nation.

The Soviets’ Revenge

Even though I was on an extended blogging hiatus, I’ve kept an eye on the news as closely as ever. Out of everything that’s happened over the past year, what bothers me most is America’s complete inability to fix its growing problems. On issues as wide-ranging as healthcare reform, energy independence, sustainability, and financial reform, we have frighteningly huge problems staring us in the face. I don’t blame Obama, and I’ve been generally pleased with his performance. He’s curtailed the power of his office from the severe overreach of his predecessor, focusing on his constitutionally mandated task of enforcing laws and being generally constructive on foreign policy. All in all, it’s what I voted for. Unfortunately, this retraction of executive power means the legislative branch has the burden of reform. But even with 60 Democrats, the Senate has struggled to pass any substantial legislation this year beyond the economic stimulus and the Senate version of the healthcare bill—and even that had to be severely watered down with tax cuts just to garner enough votes. In many ways, it seems clear the United States federal government has fast become ungovernable.


I’ve contemplated the reasons behind this for a while. And while hyper-partisanship and Republicans becoming too wrapped up in their own ideology are certainly contributing factors, they’re only symptoms. The root cause goes far deeper, but it’s easy to find in the rhetoric of those who oppose any effort to fix things.
The best illustration of this rhetoric comes from the issue the American political world has revolved around for the past few months: healthcare reform. Throughout the process, Republicans have refused to even discuss ideas for reform, instead labeling anything and everything as “socialism”, “communism”, or even “fascism”. Sadly, the Teabaggers seem to believe this nonsense and have no idea what “socialism” actually means. It’s not Marxism, and it sure as hell isn’t Nazism. Regardless, Republicans have no choice but to resist reform to have any chance of being reelected by their increasingly reactionary base.

Fearing communism I understand, particularly of the Marxist variety. But why the angst over socialism? It exists in varying forms throughout the world, and the vast majority of those countries are no less respectful of individual freedom than the US. In fact, there’s little correlation between the two. And how does providing even a public option constitute a complete loss of individual freedom? Many argue that it would result of rationing of healthcare. Well yes, but rationing has to happen at some point. To have no rationing would require infinite money. Unfortunately, we have to deal reality, so there has to be some decision making process to determine where to allocate limited resources. In the US, it’s the health insurance companies making those decisions. However, those companies also need to look after their profits, which means resources have to be devoted to insurance companies’ bottom lines rather than towards the health of their customers. At least a government entity would not be profit driven, and would have some accountability to the voters through their representatives. I digress, but it’s important to show how there is no real loss in individual freedom. We just transfer the rationing to a more accountable entity. Nevertheless, this basic fact seems irrelevant to conservatives who continue to recoil instinctively to the idea of socialism, no matter how weak. The question remains, why?

I would suggest it’s because many Americans are still living in the shadow of the Cold War. In the first part of the 20th Century, the US was able to institute a number of socialist reforms including labor laws and Social Security, many of which were models for the rest of the world to follow. However, after World War II, we fell behind when the Soviet threat emerged. It seems Americans felt they had to embrace unbridled capitalism just to prove the communists wrong. Plus, any government action became suspect because it was “socialist”, and that’s what communists do. Can’t have any of that now can we? This seems to be a recurring theme in human history. To show our superiority over our enemies, we embrace that which makes us different wholeheartedly. This also happened with religion in the US throughout the Cold War. In the 50s, belief was overwhelmingly Christian, yes, but was mostly relegated to private. However, the rigid atheism of Marxism led the US government to highlight our nation’s overall religiosity (much to the detriment of those who aren’t religious, I might add). “Under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and “In God We Trust” became the official motto of the US over the de facto “E Pluribus Unum” in 1956. Then the Religious Right’s entered politics in the 1980s literally demanding Conservative Christianity be at the forefront of all activity, public and private.

The only lessening of this trend came in the 60s when the Counter Cultural Revolution provided a brief window to pass the last major socialist programs in the US. But that window quickly disappeared with Nixon’s rise to power. For the rest of the century, America doubled down on its differentness from the USSR. Now, that enemy has been gone for over 20 years, but the rhetoric remains. So here we are unable to fix America’s domestic problems even though the liberal political party has its largest supermajority in decades. We have plenty of examples of successful programs in other countries which would solve our problems, but conservatives cannot escape the battles of the Cold War and continue to rely on 50 year old arguments for why America is perfect and trying to change is evil and communist. The Soviet Union might be gone, but their crippling effect on our national discourse might just carry America with it. I hate to be a pessimist, but it seems like reform will be nearly impossible until the Cold Warriors are no longer in a position of power. Maybe then we can stop being haunted by foes long gone and deal with the problems we put off for half a century.

Quote of the Week

"The bomb blast brings the building crashing to the floor.
Hear the laughter while the children play war.
Funny the way it is, if you think about it..."

- Dave Matthews Band

Book of the Month: Jesus, Interrupted

Since it's a new year and I've been doing a serious amount of reading lately, I think it's time to bring back my old book of the month feature.

January's book of the month is Bart Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them).

If you want a primer on Biblical research from a scholar's point of view, then this is an excellent place to start. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where he specializes in Biblical scholarship. Basically, he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the Bible.

Now the central thesis of Jesus, Interrupted is that the Bible is a historical document like any other, and should be treated as such. Ehrman stresses he is not trying to destroy anyone's faith or convert believers to nonbelief. He simply wants to make well known knowledge available to the masses.

Starting out, Ehrman recounts his experience in the seminary where he first learned about the errors and contradictions and the wrongly accredited books within the Bible, all of which have been well known to theologians for centuries and are not particularly noteworthy. As for why the general public does not know about these basic facts, Ehrman doesn't really have an answer, but his speculations sound plausible enough considering the nature of religious discourse in the US. Generally, he figures most seminary trained pastors have little interest in damaging their parishioners' faiths or delving into scholarship when they have preaching to do.

Then Ehrman gets into the meat of the book, focusing on the differences and inconsistencies of the Gospels. He discusses the timeline of when each book was written and which book was based on the other, including which were based on texts that are now lost. Then he examines the differences in the actual stories told within and how they really don't line up no matter how much hand-waving is done.

Next, he covers the evolution of Christian doctrine in century following Jesus' death. In the beginning, Christianity was far more egalitarian and subject to wildly differing interpretations depending on the sect. However, this changed as time progressed and a particular sect or sects (the details have been lost to history) sought a more hierarchical approach, either discrediting rival sects or incorporating them into the growing, centralized church. This evolution is evident within the Bible, if one understands the background of each book and who actually wrote them.

The last few chapters deal with what a historian can actually say about Jesus and early Christianity, based on the available evidence. First off, a scholar can't really say whether or not Jesus performed miracles or was resurrected. Historians must stick with the most plausible explanation when the evidence is lacking. Obviously, miracles and resurrections wouldn't exactly fit. Instead, Ehrman offers a more likely explanation: Jesus was a heretical rabbi who learned his apocalyptic views from John the Baptist. Eventually, he took his end of the world sermons to Jerusalem, where he upset the temple priests, leading to his execution. The rest of the story is simply the work of legend as the tale grew with the telling.

I could keep sharing the nuggets of wisdom contained within Jesus, Interrupted, but you'd be better off reading the book yourself. It's a delicious tonic for biblical literalism.

Am I Back?

Dammit, I intend to be. It's been a crazy year for me while I've been away from blogging. Work was insane and now I find myself in a nice sandy place on the far side of the world. I also got married to a wonderful woman, henceforth known as Lady J-Bar.

As for the time away from blogging, it was nice. I got time to work on my novel (still not done, but getting there). Will it be published? Hard to say. I have no illusions about my chances, but I've had fun writing it, and I have my next tale formulating in my mind.

However, I've come to miss blogging. There was a time after Republicans were swept from power that I had hope and felt less compelled to speak my mind (or ramble, whatever). However, that has been short lived. The Democrats haven't been able to take advantage of their majority, and the Religious Right hasn't gone anywhere. There's plenty of craziness left from them. Then there's the Teabaggers (not gonna lie, best derogatory name ever!), the Birthers, the Antivaxxers, and so much more. Internationally, there's been the ongoing efforts to do something about climate change, and the ongoing revolution in Iran. Yeah, I think there's more than enough to keep me going.

Now I just need to start cleaning up my blog. Seems I've been removed from the Atheist Blogroll...damn. Anyway, I hope you'll join me again as I explore atheism, politics, science, history, and everything else that fascinates me.