The ugly truth is that these so called leaders use fear to whip like minded people into a frenzy to promote their agenda.

Well, no kidding. I think most of the people here understand that.

I don't know about others, but as long as guys like Inhofe have any authority, we'll be left in the lurch. The joke is--if one can put it that way--so will he, his wife and all his precious little darlings. They'll suffocate just like the rest of us.

I don't morn for the dinosaurs or the wholly mammoths.

If you'll allow me a bit of end-time humor, I've never feared for the "wholly" mammoths since, I assume, they were wholly mammoths and nothing less.

Now, if they were "wooly" well, that'd be a different matter, and perhaps all of human history would be different.

But, speaking seriously, I'm truly sorry that we (humanity) are going to end in a very bad way. The pathology of this, the way we behave and organize ourselves, this is a peculiarity that isn't easily resolved.

And, I suppose, since it'll end up badly, I guess it just doesn't matter.

But it's a real shame.

Don't you live with a few Adventure Dogs??

I have no adventure dogs, but two adventure kitten brothers who charm the neighbors by splaying themselves on the bay window ledge for all to see.

People walk by, stop, comment, scratch at the window, and the kittens stare with utter disinterest.

Yet when I step outside, they start to cry like the children they are--and when I return? More passiveness, disregard, a shrugging of cat shoulders, as if to say, "Yeah, bud, aren't you the slave that fills dry-food bowl?"

Don't know if any of this relates to your conversation, but it amuses me and I thought I'd pass it on.

Interesting about the Q theory. It posits a single source for Matthew and Luke, beyond Mark. They got most of their stuff from Mark, but the rest, according to that theory, comes from Q.

Yes, indeed. What interests me most is the complex nature of how humans develop their sense of knowledge. That is, whether it's a religiously-based belief system or a political foundation, how and why and what those parameters are, how they take shape, and so on, that--to me--is really of the greatest significance (because this is something we should be able to learn from).

Essentially, how we learn, draw our conclusions, why we reject certain elements, why we embrace others.

Very mysterious, to my mind.

But specifically, regarding Christianity, I think of that debate that raged for some centuries about, for example, the nature of Christ.

Was he fully human? Was he human at all? Was he merely God in human form? And if so, what does that signify about his "suffering"? Can we say he suffered if he wasn't really human? And if he really suffered, what sort of relationship did he have with his "father"?

Now, these seem like silly questions in our time, but they were profound issues for centuries.

And that really underscores my point. How do we learn? What are we learning? And why?

Today, we have GOPers declaring all sorts of things about taxation, political freedom (from Democrats--but when it's Republicans calling the shots, it's patriotism), and--bizarrely--citing the 10th Amendment when an issue arises that they don't like.

So, not wanting to beat a dead dog, I'll just restate that I find this whole thing fascinating (but depressing--since I'm human, too).

Good post.

I often ponder this since it affects so much of humanity (and not just Christianity, but Islam and Judaism as well). You mentioned Bart Ehrman; there's also a fellow named Burton Mack who wrote The Lost Gospel, which is a detailed study of the so-called Q source as the underlying origination of our four "accepted" gospels.

In any case, I often think of how this belief system drives (and has driven) western policy. Our actions in Iraq, in Afghanistan, our vaunted "War on Drugs," our attitudes toward same-sex marriage, toward pornography, our mean-spirited attitude toward health-care reform, food stamps, unemployment benefits, student loans--and on and on; well, the idea is clear enough.

We've based our society on a foundation of brutality--and we call it freedom.

Personally, I feel much of this is a "gift" from Paul, since he was and remains the primary doctrinal force in Christianity (not Jesus, despite what so many believe) and, not to be too unfair, perhaps he'd be appalled at what his writings have wrought.

Although, frankly, I think he was a real fanatic so I doubt he'd be appalled at all.

nothing of Virginia politics or this guys Deeds, but I can opine that

I do not see how endorsing a proposal to have more handguns brought into our cities and suburban areas qualifies as any type of urban renewal plan

this statement from Wilder is pretty spot on.

When did liberals/Democrats/progressives (cowards) become so fragile in the face of opposition?

I guess it's always been this way. We're the pussies while the other guys are playground bullies--and despite the experience of being bullied, we smile, bow, curtsy and flinch and let the fascists among us beat us up while covered in the flag, citing George Washington, Lincoln (while simultaneously condemning those socialists FDR and LBJ, who created Social Security and Medicare, respectively--those creatures of communism that keep the parents of these idiots from being destitute).

We're noble, proud, strong and brave people, are we not?