Apparently I've drawn the ire of someone with my latest Live and Local review. Even though he doesn't like me or my music, he was kind enough to link to my page. Check out his comment for the LOLz.

http://sacurrent.com/music/story.asp?id=70678

I've been a photographer for the San Antonio Current since around August of last year. I wrote my first article last week; a review for the weekly Live and Local section. You can check out the review here: http://sacurrent.com/music/story.asp?id=70102

My favorite comment has been the one from "UNLCE SPICY MIKE".

The Sohns show was fucking ridiculous. It had been I while since I shot a band for fun, so this was great. Click the picture for all sorts of insanity:

I recently read a blog entry from a friend concerning religious prophecy and it's value as proof of Christ's divinity and as an apologia for Christianity itself. This rather reminds me of Tertullian when he said "credo quia absurdum (I believe it because it is absurd)" or when Augustine said that he would not have believed in Christianity if it were not for the miracles. Taking the time to dismantle each "fulfilled prophecy", while certainly possible, is unnecessary. Exposing the spurious nature of primary prophecies should make known the fraudulence of all lesser claims to prophetic vindication - which I will attempt to do here.

"If you pick up any of the four Gospels and read them at random, it will not be long before you learn that such and such an action or saying, attributed to Jesus, was done so that an ancient prophecy should come true. If it should seem odd that an action should be deliberately performed in order that a foretelling be vindicated, that is because it is odd. And it is necessarily odd because, just like the Old Testament, the "New" one is also a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right (...) the Gospels disagree wildly about the Sermon on the Mount, the anointing of Jesus, the treachery of Judas, and Peter's haunting "denial," and, most astonishingly, they cannot converge on a common account of the Crucifixion or the Resurrection. Thus, the one interpretation that we simply have to discard is the one that claims divine warrant for all four of them. (Hitchens)"

Cases in point:

The genealogy of Jesus, to which there is little to no scholarly or religious consistency - Is he a descendant of David through Joseph and through Adam (who widely accepted as allegorical by virtually all theologians) as in the book of Luke, and/or Abraham as in Matthew? In all actuality, the whole case is rendered moot in that Joseph did not conceive Jesus and lineage to David and Abraham are only traceable (and only recognized in religious text) through Joseph. Mary is only vaguely recognized as a descendant of Eve, though this is rather strange, as Noah and his descendants are the only ones purported to have repopulated the earth after "the great flood".

Further, Matthew traces Jesus from Joseph to David by way of King Solomon (in order to establish a more royal lineage), while Luke (who wished to have Jesus appear more priestly) traces Jesus to David through Nathan. Again, both are ultimately incorrect as Jesus is said to have been born of a virgin, therefore could not have come from the line of Joseph.

One might be inclined to overlook these glaring errors if Mark, John, or perhaps even the apostle Paul could correct them; however, the whole enterprise is again dismantled because only Matthew and Luke bother to mention the virgin birth - the same two that go through the pains of establishing genealogy to David in the first place. As Matthew and Luke are the only ones who credit Jesus' birth to a virgin, it would seem as though they would understand more than anyone (save Joseph and Mary themselves) that Jesus could not have come from the line of David - which negates Old Testament prophecy.

Old Testament prophecy also declares that Jesus be born of a virgin. This is certainly a popular belief today, but as I've stated, only Matthew and Luke make mention of the virgin birth. In fact, Mary, as depicted by Mark and John, appears to have no memory of giving birth to Jesus without the precondition of consummation, nor does she appear to have any memory of her being confronted by the archangel Gabriel. One would expect a slightly stronger maternal memory, especially from a woman who, alone amongst all women, has just conceived a deity with virginity intact. Also, are we really to look past this obvious violation of free will, the deistic rape of Mary (a story that draws similarities to other immaculate conceptions as described in the prior Greek, Roman, Norse and Egyptian theologies)?

"Old Testament prophecy (Micah 5:2) had led Jews to expect that the long-awaited Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. In the light of this prophecy, John's gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem: 'Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?' (Dawkins)"

In order to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, the Gospel of Luke states that a census ordered by Caesar of the entire Roman world, during the reign of King Herod in Judea and while Quirinius as governor of Syria is what forced Mary and Joseph to Jerusalem. However, there is no record of any Augustan census by any Roman historian, Herod died in 4 B.C., and Quirinius was not governor of Syria during his tenure. That's the closest the bible tries to get at any triangulation of historical dates, and it misses completely.

Also, why is Judas Iscariot is branded as a traitor? Presumably, so that Old Testament prophecy be fulfilled. Why then does Luke have Judas possessed by Satan at the time of his "betrayal" of Jesus? This would make the betrayal be of the will of Satan - not Judas, therefore Judas could not have betrayed Jesus. In addition to demonic possession, John has Judas selling Jesus' identity for 30 silver pieces. This version of the story must be dismissed, as Judas would be "performing a redundant act of identifying a very well-known preacher to those who had been hunting for him. (Hitchens)" - so well-known in fact that he was instantly recognized as the Son of David in virtually every town he entered.

Also, Jesus wanted to redeem us of our sins and knew that, in order to accomplish this (rather, in order to fulfill Old Testament prophecy), he must be captured and put to death.  "If Jesus wanted to be betrayed and then murdered, in order that he could redeem us all, isn't it rather unfair of those who consider themselves redeemed to take it out on Judas and on Jews down the ages? (Dawkins)" In fact, Jesus went to Jerusalem in order to die. "Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 'Never, Lord!' he said. 'This shall never happen to you!'" (Matthew 16:21-22)

There is no need to brand Judas a traitor. There is no need for the Jesus' "blood to be on their heads," in regards to the Jews. There is no need to demonize the Romans for the crucifixion. All of these acts were done to fulfill prophecy. All of these acts were the will of God. This again brings up a major violation of the core tenets of free-will. If these acts (or any acts) are pre-ordained or "foreseen" as a matter of theological justification, they cease to be of free-will.

It is rather easy to write down a sequence of events so that they vindicate a prior foretelling or "prophecy". However, it is quite hard to get multiple sources to agree on the sequence of events leading up to that vindication, or to even get them to agree that such prophecies or vindications ever took place. The bible is a perfect example of this difficulty as none of the writers appear to agree on relatively anything.

"From looking at just the birth accounts several conclusions can be reached, all of which will be further reinforced by examining other parts of the New Testament:

1. The gospel writers contradict each other.

2. The gospel writers rewrote history when it suited their purposes.

3. The gospels were extensively edited to accommodate the evolving dogma of the church.

4. The gospel writers misused the Old Testament to provide prophecies for Jesus to fulfill.

From the birth accounts alone, it is obvious that in no way can the New Testament be considered 'the inerrant Word of God,' or even 'the Word of God, inerrant regarding matters important to faith and practice.' (Carlson)"

My band, Ever Onward, is moving our base of operations to San Antonio. We will now be full-fledged "San Antonites," if you will.

Hopefully we'll be able to tap into the greater wealth of musicians in the San Antonio scene and get this stuff moving again. We've got some new material written, but we'd really like to meet up with some musicians that could make immediate contributions.

If you're in the San Antonio area and interested in playing some Shai Hulud worship music, hit us up! SERIOUSLY!

- Steven

Edit: * It's important to note that the following is little more than a list of observations and coincidences. My sentiment is generally implied, if not outrightly stated; however, the purpose is only to convey information that you might not normally go out of your way to find. *

I watched the Spurs game a second time, and I noticed an absurd amount of calls (and non-calls) that came in at pivotal moments for Lakers. The calls became consistently biased when the Lakers dropped to the 20 point deficit. It has always been apparent that the NBA and the majority of its viewers do not have any interest in Texas teams being successful (with the slight and most recent exception of Dallas). For evidence, let's look at the Nielsen Ratings going back to when Michael Jordan's Bulls entered the finals for the first time (ratings in bold).

NBC 1991 Chicago Bulls 4, Los Angeles Lakers 1 15.8
NBC 1992 Chicago Bulls 4, Portland Trailblazers 2 14.2
NBC 1993 Chicago Bulls 4, Phoenix Suns 2 17.9
NBC 1994 Houston Rockets 4, New York Knicks 3 12.4
NBC 1995 Houston Rockets 4, Orlando Magic 0 13.9
NBC 1996 Chicago Bulls 4, Seattle Supersonics 2 16.7
NBC 1997 Chicago Bulls 4, Utah Jazz 2 16.8
NBC 1998 Chicago Bulls 4, Utah Jazz 2 18.7
NBC 1999 San Antonio Spurs 4, New York Knicks 1 11.3
NBC 2000 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Indiana Pacers 2 11.6
NBC 2001 Los Angeles Lakers 4, Philadelphia 76ers 1 12.1
NBC 2002 Los Angeles Lakers 4, New Jersey Nets 0 10.2
ABC 2003 San Antonio Spurs 4, New Jersey Nets 2 6.5
ABC 2004 Detroit Pistons 4, Los Angeles Lakers 1 11.5
ABC 2005 San Antonio Spurs 4, Detroit Pistons 3 8.2
ABC 2006 Miami Heat 4, Dallas Mavericks 2 8.5
ABC 2007 San Antonio Spurs 4, Cleveland Cavaliers 0 6.2
(link)

When Jordan's Bulls dominated, you had high ratings share. 3 years of consistent play by Jordan, before his brief retirement, created a major shift in interest towards basketball. In '94 and '95, the Houston Rockets had back to back finals appearances/championships. What's interesting about those 2 years is that the Houston Rockets were playing against high market teams, the New York Knicks and Orlando Magic. So why the shift in ratings? If New York, (arguably the biggest market city in all of sports) enters the finals, one would assume that you'd have a higher ratings share for coverage. The Knicks had Patrick Ewing and the Rockets had Hakeem. This "twin towers" match-up produced one of the most interesting, hard fought battles in finals history.

I realize that many of you may not remember all the way back to '94, but for some inexplicable reason I was a Knicks fan - so I remember it vividly. My own bias and proximity aside, I'd say (IMHO) that it was the best, most dramatic finals series I've ever seen; that is up until the Spurs played Detroit in '05 - both of which were 7 game series.

The following year ('95), we saw the introduction of Shaq into the finals - making him one of the NBA's biggest and most marketable stars. Shaq possessed the least basketball skill of all the "big men" of his early day (Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, etc...), but he was a commodity and the NBA treated him as such. However, despite having to high market teams with high profile players in the finals, the NBA experienced a drop in ratings. What's the common denominator for those two years? Texas.

Prior to the Rockets back to back wins, the Bulls played the Portland Trailblazers and the Phoenix Suns - two of the lower/mid-range market teams in the NBA, but Clyde Drexler and Cliff Robinson led the Blazers and did have a certain amount of flair, and the Suns had Barkley and Kevin Johnson. However, the talent on the other side of the ball was absolutely irrelevant and overshadowed by the phenomenon that was Michael Jordan. Granted, those were two very entertaining finals ( though I'm a bit too young to accurately recall the Bulls v. Blazers series, I do remember the Suns series rather well), but the games coverage was about Jordan and America was enthralled.

Excepting brief moments in the '93 series (game 3 was a triple overtime game in which the Suns prevailed), no one ever doubted the inevitability of a Bulls win. Two years without Jordan saw a slump in ratings, but the ratings returned with Jordan the three following years when the Bulls "three-peated," playing against the Sonics and back to back finals appearances against the Jazz (the 1998 series posted an all-time high rating of 18.7). I don't know if any of you remember those finals, but they were painfully boring. Unless you had a vested interest in Jordan, they were almost unwatchable and entirely predictable. Now, the Rockets sweep of the Magic in '95 was likely the most bored I have ever been while watching a finals game, but the outcome was no less predictable than any of the Bulls finals.

The '99 finals is subject to a certain amount of scrutiny, as the NBA suffered from a strike-shortened season, but the Spurs set a new NBA Finals single-game attendance record when 39,554 fans attended Game 2. Game 1 was attended by 39,514 spectators (link), and they played a high market Knicks team that featured and incredible amount of high profile players like Patrick Ewing, Latrell Sprewell, Larry Johnson, Allan Houston, and Marcus Camby. Even though the Spurs won in 5 games, each one was decided by an average of about 10 points, with game 5 being decided by 1 point.

In 2000, we saw the beginning of the Lakers dominance with a "three-peat" of their own. 2000 was Reggie Miller's first and only finals appearance, 2001 featured Allen Iverson (who torched the Lakers for 48 points in game 1), and 2002 had the Lakers sweep a Jason Kidd led New Jersey Nets team. Average ratings for those series was 11.6, 12.1, and 10.2 respectively.

The 11.6 rating was up from the 11.3 rating of the previous year ('99) when the Spurs beat the Knicks, but the 2000 finals was the first finals series to follow the strike season, and the NBA was still in serious pop-cultural decline. The ratings increased (as did the NBA's return to cultural significance) the following year pitting the Lakers against the Sixers, but fell against the Nets to 10.2. While that 10.2 rating may seem low, it dropped to 6.5 when the Spurs beat the same Nets (4-2) that had been swept by the Lakers the previous year. 6.5 was the lowest average rating since 1981, when the Celtics defeated another Texas team for title, the Houston Rockets (rating of 6.7).

The following year, when the Pistons beat the Lakers, the ratings jumped from 6.5 to 11.5 - a full 5 points! Why? Two high-market teams. It makes sense. Now, which series was more profitable for the NBA - one that posted a rating 6.5 or one that had a rating of 11.5? The answer is as obvious as the question is rhetorical. It is in the best financial interest of the NBA to post higher ratings; therefore it's economically best for the NBA to feature high-market teams (Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia, etc...) in the finals.

My favorite finals series of all time is the one the following year (2005) when the Spurs defeated the Pistons in 7 games - the first 7 game series since the Houston Rockets beat the New York Knicks in '94. The 2005 series had more heroics, more flair, and more on and off the court dramatics than any finals series I remember - and I say this with all bias aside. This series put up an 8.2 rating.

Next years' series posted a rating of 8.5 and featured the Miami Heat (Shaq and Wade) defeating the largest market team in Texas, the Dallas Mavericks. That rating seems a bit lower than I would've expected, but it featured a team from Texas, so the rating makes sense.

The lowest rated NBA finals series of all time is the 2007 series in which the Spurs swept the Cleveland Cavaliers (two of the lowest market teams in the NBA). Even with the finals debut of LeBron James, the series posted a paltry 6.2 rating.

We are currently looking at 4 teams (San Antonio, L.A., Detroit, and Boston). Which 2 of these 4 would produce the highest rating, as well as stimulate the most cultural interest? The answer would be a series featuring the Lakers and Celtics. Aside from being high market teams, the 2 have faced each other more times in the finals than any other team in NBA history. Pundits will have a fucking field day with a series involving L.A. and Boston. We'll see endless commentary from Bird, Magic, McHale, West, Russell, etc..., and nostalgia will run rampant!

Which series would likely post the lowest rating? Spurs and Pistons.

Given all of this, I think it might be a little more than coincidental if the Celtics end up facing the Lakers this year in the NBA finals. So watch the calls, and listen closely to the commentary... maintain your skeptical eyebrow. The Spurs don't have many years left to dominate, and the it's in the best interest of the NBA to move out the older, more team oriented clubs in favor of teams like the Lakers and Suns. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical... maybe these are just coincidences... but with millions upon millions of dollars at stake, the situation demands cynicism.

edit: You have to actually click the links and read through this stuff before you can criticize the content. I read your Bible - so I gave you that respect before I criticized what you believe. You should grant me the same. I know it's a lot of work, and maybe I'm being a bit of a "pompous ass" in this regard, but so is religion in every regard.

See for yourself:

Billions of people attend millions of churches around the world to worship God.

Yet the God they worship is completely imaginary. Their belief represents a delusion.

It is easy to prove that God is imaginary. Start at the beginning with Proof 1, or try these five all-time favorites:

• Analyze prayer
• Imagine heaven
• Notice your church
• Understand delusion
• Think about science

It is easy to prove to yourself that God is imaginary. The evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:

1. Try praying
2. Statistically analyze prayer
3. Look at all historical gods
4. Think about science
5. Read the Bible
6. Ponder God's plan
7. Understand religious delusion
8. Think about Near Death Experiences
9. Understand ambiguity
10. Watch the offering plate
11. Notice that there is no scientific evidence
12. See the magic
13. Take a look at slavery
14. Examine Jesus' miracles
15. Examine Jesus' resurrection
16. Contemplate the contradictions
17. Think about Leprechauns
18. Imagine heaven
19. Notice that you ignore Jesus
20. Notice your church
21. Understand Jesus' core message
22. Count all the people God wants to murder
23. Listen to the Doxology
24. Ask why religion causes so many problems
25. Understand evolution and abiogenesis
26. Notice that the Bible's author is not "all-knowing"
27. Think about life after death
28. Notice how many gods you reject
29. Think about communion
30. Examine God's sexism
31. Understand that religion is superstition
32. Talk to a theologian
33. Contemplate the crucifixion
34. Examine your health insurance policy
35. Notice Jesus' myopia
36. Realize that God is impossible
37. Think about DNA
38. Contemplate the divorce rate among Christians
39. Realize that Jesus was a jerk
40. Understand Christian motivations
41. Flip a coin
42. Listen when "God talks"
43. Realize that a "hidden God" is impossible
44. Think about a Christian housewife
45. Consider Noah's Ark
46. Ponder Pascal's Wager
47. Contemplate Creation
48. Compare prayer to a lucky horseshoe
49. Look at who speaks for God
50. Ask Jesus to appear

I have a hard time maintaining this MySpace as a co-personal/music profile. My intent was to consolidate things so that I wouldn’t have to monitor multiple pages. I maintain personal contact with any and everyone who takes the time to message or comment me. I would initiate more contact, but MySpace (fucking useless waste of html) no longer shows bulletins on my front page. I’m told that it has to do with how many friends I have, but I don’t know for sure why they’re not there.

At any rate, I feel as though there’s a bit of an issue here. In the past, I have used bulletins to rant and rave about the poor state of my existence, my physical ailments (of which there are many), my clinical depression and various other psychological maladies.

I must clarify that I do this not for pity or anything of that nature; rather so that you can gain insight into my conscious and to better understand where I and my songs are coming from. I’ve always enjoyed it when other artists have done it, and I’m disappointed that more have not.

Now it seems as though every time I bring them up in public forum I am being told that "this (being my state of mind) is the face of atheism." I’d like to say that my own personal problems, of which are vaguely mentioned via bulletin or blog, have nothing to do with religion or lack thereof, unless such explicitly stated. In fact, I feel most at ease and pleasant while listening to atheist lectures or researching atheist and Christian literature.

As a matter of fact, have most of you even read the Bible, let alone St. Thomas Aquinas’ "Summa Theologica," or any of the various other theological texts written by the true champions and believers of your faith? If you have not researched your own religion, I beg you bite your tongue when looking to criticize me or anyone else for a lack of religion. Furthermore, if you haven’t delved into your own belief structure (e.g. actually reading that filth you call the bible is a good start), why then do you identify yourself as a Christian? If your interpretation of the bible is allegorical or metaphorical, then doesn’t that discredit or at least call into question the validity of your creator and Christ?

If you don’t believe the bible, word for word, then you are picking and choosing scripture in order to support your own personal beliefs; in which case, you are in essence discrediting the bible altogether. Who are you to pick and choose scripture? How is it that you have found God’s true message where centuries of far more adherent believers have not? Isn’t that pretty audacious? Of course it is.

I am not trying to be controversial just for the sake of being controversial or shock factor, rather I am truly upset and truly disturbed by the state of things - to which I find Christianity (at least here in the states) is ultimately to blame.

This is what being vocal about atheism can do to your friendships. We’re preconditioned to look the other way when Christians spout their rhetoric about being saved, the grace of the lord, or the love of God - but when an atheist speaks (no less passionately than a Christian) about their beliefs (or lack thereof) we face scrutiny. This is an injustice, and I beg you continue to delete me, should you be so insecure in your own faith.

Which prompts the question: Is one so truly insecure in their faith that they cannot allow it to bear the brunt of rational inquiry? Is your faith so easily shaken that a lowly human, such as myself, could rattle your cage so easily?

One person comes to mind who has now deleted me. I will not mention names, but it suffices to say that the loss of his friendship brings me great sorrow, and I am sorry that he felt my convictions were too intrusive on his own beliefs for him to continue extending me the bonds of friendship. At the same time, I am not sorry for my convictions, and if anything it has only stirred me to be even more vocal about my discontent, be it political or theological. Friends who offer false consolation are false friends.

Some would go so far as to call me disrespectful. Again, I ask you find something disrespectful in anything I’ve stated in regards to religion. Engage me - I implore you. I’ve read your book, and I’ve read the works of Aquinas, Augustine, Descartes, Pascal, Lewis, etc... I’ve devoted many years to learning your religion, yet you’ve afforded me such little time in understanding me and my viewpoints?

What does that say about you and your character? To be sure, it speaks very little.

So delete me. I don’t care about the music, and I don’t care about the pictures.
I’m in this for the message, it’s more than just a song.

Isn’t this charming? At Christmas-time one year my daily newspaper, the Independent, was looking for a seasonal image and found a heart-warmingly ecumenical one at a school nativity play. The Three Wise Men were played by, as the caption glowingly said, Shadbreet (a Sikh), Musharaff (a Muslim) and Adele (a Christian), all aged four.

Charming? Heart-warming? No, it is not, it is neither; it is grotesque. How could any decent person think it right to label four year-old children with the cosmic and theological opinions of their parents?

To see this, imagine an identical photograph, with the caption changed as follows: ’Shadbreet (a Keynesian), Musharaff (a Monetarist) and Adele (a Marxist), all aged four.’ Wouldn’t this be a candidate for irate letters of protest? It certainly should be. Yet, because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, not a squeak was heard, nor is it ever heard on any similar occasion. Just imagine the outcry if the caption had read, ’Shadbreet (an Atheist), Musharaff (an Agnostic) and Adele (a Secular Humanist), all aged four. Mightn’t the parents actually be investigated to see if they were fit to bring up children?


---


Nothing upsets me more nor breaks my heart harder than the Christian youth movement. This shit needs to be stamped out at the source. The systematic brainwashing of young children is absolutely appalling, and the face of Christianity is no more pleasant than the face of any other religion or cult - to which there is no difference.