“Why talk of spirits when you don’t understand men?”

Confucius

It’s not All Shamrocks and Green beer

Even for a woo woo peddling Huffington Post denizen loon like Byrne, her “Spirituality of St. Patrick’s Day” piece is way over the top. I’m fine with people making any manner of nonsensical claims they want about their own beliefs but applying them to an entire ethnic or national groups is unacceptable not to mention idiotic and false.

She opens the post with this gem:

“Every one of us who has even a drop of Irish blood has a special spirituality engrained within us – a flame that burns deep down within our souls, connecting us to the deep spirituality of our roots. This is what we celebrate on St. Patrick’s Day.”

She’s wrong on both counts.  My ancestry happens to include Irish, Scottish, Welsh, English, and French. I can assure you I have never been “spiritual” and barring unforeseen circumstance will never be spiritual. I guess Irish blood isn’t quite the magical elixir Byrne thinks it is. I also have serious doubts that most American’s think in terms of spirituality while they dress in green and down green food-colored beer. I actually don’t have much of a problem with the silly campy celebration that St. Patty’s is for most of the country. I take issue when people begin rambling on about the origin and “true” meaning of St. Patrick’s Day when it is so obvious that they have not bother to do the slightest bit of research or fact checking.

Byrne certainly did not bother looking into it despite writing as if she had. I suppose this level of error should be expected from a woman who repeatedly reminds us of her claims to “see angels every day.” I might actually consider it plausible that it’s her “angels” who do her research. Regardless, her grasp on church history is just as weak as her grasp on reality. At various points she reveals her blindly ignorant acceptance of all the various myth and legends attached to Patrick. One such statement has her regurgitating, “St. Patrick brought the wisdom that there was only one God and that they each had a soul that would live forever.” Despite some apocryphal tales of Patrick converting specific individuals he did not convert Ireland. Ireland was already predominantly Christian by the time he arrived. Ireland had already received numerous missionaries, had at least one Roman Catholic Bishop, and is on record as having various disputes with the Holy See in Rome.

That last point actually seems to be the main reason Patrick was sent Ireland. There can be no doubt that there were still pagans on the island but their numbers were declining. The Roman Catholic Church viewed the majority as heathens more because they did not belong to the “one true” Christian faith, their own. The Celtic Christian Church was established before Patrick was ever born. There is very little known about Patrick’s history but what is known seems to support his main mission to be the reigning in of another theologian that the Vatican deemed a heretic. Pelagius was hated by the Roman Catholic hierarchy not because he did not accept them as having authority, he did, but because he refused to accept that they were The authority of all Christians. The Celtic Christian Church had its own liturgy. Patrick brought in the monastic system and through it began dismantling the Celtic Christian Church's influence.

Somehow, I don’t think Byrne’s idea of spirituality includes Christians, harassing, abusing, and even killing each other. At least I hope it doesn’t. I have to assume that my assessment of her complete lack of knowledge regarding the religious history of Ireland is accurate. It just so happens that the Roman Catholic Church succeeded in wiping out the Celtic Christian Church. This was done largely through social and political maneuvering, with occasional violence. Patrick seems to have been canonized and sainted more as a thank you to the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland and as a “Fuck You” to any remnants of Celtic Christian culture than for any actual merits of Patrick. Patrick does seem to have hated the Irish. Oh yeah, Patrick was not Irish. He was kidnapped and sold into slavery by Irish raiders. Details are a little sketchy about his early years. He was probably from either the northern coast of modern France or the southern shore of modern England. He was probably in his early to mid teens when taken. Holding a grudge against the Irish is understandable but does not excuse some of the stories, assuming they are as accurate as those related to his saintly behavior, of his brutality.

Despite not necessarily knowing for certain many of the details that have attached themselves to St. Patrick there are quite a few we know are not true. Patrick did not drive the snakes out of Ireland. There weren’t any. Patrick did not convert Ireland. It already had two Christian churches vying for control of the island’s faithful. Patrick was named “patron saint” of Ireland by the church that won out. That does not actually make him a “patron” of the people.  So if you want to dress in green and talk about leprechauns go for it. But if you want to talk about Irish history and culture please do some fact checking first. And for goodness sake stop repeating the false notion that a guy who apparently hated Irish culture is somehow a patron of the Irish.

Whether you believe in such things or not, an excellent book on Celtic spirituality that I would recommend is:

Davies, Oliver and Fiona Bowie. ed. Celtic Christian Spirituality: An Anthology of Medieval and Modern Sources. NY: Continuum Publishing Company, 1995.

It even has a few pieces from Pelagius.

Don’t Sound So Certain, Mr. Giberson

It is time again to play the irritatingly amusing game of wack-an-ignorant-weasel. In Karl Giberson’s most recent Huffington Post piece, “Take an Atheist to Church”, he makes a number of statements with a great deal of confidence. He really shouldn’t. He clearly knows little about atheists.

In the first paragraph he rather ironically states, “Atheists, however, speak with great confidence about the evils of a religion that they seem to have encountered only in headlines…” Really? Setting aside for the moment the fact that there are a number of prominent atheists who started out as fundamentalist/evangelical Christians (like Robert Price, John Loftus, Dan Barker…), how does he know that so few atheists have ever attended church? I consider myself to be a natural born atheist since God and religion have never made any sense to me. However, I have been to plenty of church services. I have also read multiple versions of the Bible and more importantly paid attention to what I read. Then, of course there is the fact that I have been studying religions in general since middle school. I can’t think of a single major world religion that I have not read at least one sacred text, multiple commentaries on (from perspectives of both believer and non-believer), and text books on individual faiths as well as comparative texts.

So when Karl Giberson, Ph.D, further states, “Atheists should go to church and do some research if they want to keep talking about religion.” I feel confident in answering that I have and continue to do so.  These days I prefer not to set foot in church, especially a Catholic one. If the current Pope ever apologizes for all the nasty things he’s said about atheists I might reconsider.  I’m not holding out for that unlikely event.

Giberson manages to dispel any doubts about his ignorance regarding atheists when he throws in, “Even Richard Dawkins charitably – and honestly – admitted recently that his atheism was less than 100 percent certain.” There are so many things wrong with this comment I’m not completely sure where to start. Why is it “even Richard Dawkins”? If he ever read Dawkins, did “some research”, he may have pick up on the fact that Dawkins has never claimed 100 percent certainty. This is not new so it is not “recently”.  The implication that Dawkins is dishonest smacks of an ad hominem attack. Not a particularly scholarly approach to the subject of atheism. I also wonder what makes Dawkins long established views on his own beliefs “charitable”? What is charitable about seeking to understand the world around you?

It seems to me that Giberson is trying to paint a picture of atheists as being ignorant antagonists while he himself is just passing off tired old myths and stereotypes as if they are facts. Not exactly an inspiring approach. Then, again the point clearly isn’t to inform atheists but to attack them.

Well Mr. Giberson, here’s my 100 percent certain statement: You’re an ignorant hypocritical whiney asshole!

Flipside Jesus: Anti-Intellectual

Since Christians seem to love speculating about the “true” nature of Christ and what Jesus would do I figure why not throw in my own interpretations. After all, any discussion/commentary on Jesus is a matter of interpretation. Assuming, and it’s a huge assumption, that Jesus ever existed the details of his life and works as portrayed in the New Testament is laced throughout with discrepancies and contradictions.

The first aspect of Jesus I’d comment on is the view that he was a wise teacher. A a former teacher I have always felt that beyond specific content a teacher should instill a love of learning or at the very least seek to increase students ability to think. There are numerous passages that lead me to believe that not only did Jesus fail to do this he actually sought to do the opposite. Jesus seems to prefer followers that were both childish and ignorant. For the sake of brevity I will only include two such passages. There are others. I encourage people to look for them. You’ll probably find all sort of other interesting tid-bits along the way.

“And said, verily I say onto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 1:3)

“In that hour Jesus rejoiced in Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them onto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.” (Luke 10:21)

If anyone can offer an alternate interpretation I’d love to hear it. Please, do not use the tired “humble” apologetics. It was lame the first time I heard and I have heard too many equally pathetic variations. If you’re creative I promise not to grade too harshly.

I should also add that it is the King James version that I quote.  I don’t necessarily have a preference. I don’t want to give the impression that I favor Protestants.  I tend to go with the King James because it is the first version I read cover to cover and the one I have most often re-read (and therefore the one with the most book marks and notations).

Misused and Abused: Sin

I can't count the number of times I have come across the term "sin" being used as if it meant unethical, immoral, or criminal behavior. It is possible that any or all of those could be involved (generally by coincidence) but they are not synonyms of sin. Sin has an expressly religious meaning.

According to The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions sin is:
"Anything, including attitudes, actions, or omissions which separates a person from God. It is a theological or religious term in distinction to crime, a legal concept. Most conventional definitions such as 'disobedience' or 'rebellion against God' are too limited in scope."

I fail to see any reasons beyond ignorance and laziness to use sin in such a general and erroneous manner. The media should certainly not used it the way it frequently does. There are a variety of better more accurate terms that can and should be used. The constant use of sin only accomplishes dumbing down discourse and reinforcing a number of myths and stereotypes.

Ironically, it is possible to interpret this and other definitions of sin to mean that atheists by their nature are incapable of sin. The tense of the definition implies that is to become separated that results in sin. If you are already separated you can't become so at any future point. Therefore, I cannot sin. I have also heard others define sin as a "losing of God's way." Again, I cannot lose what I never had and therefore am completely without sin.

I would also point out a contradiction that arises from the basic premise. If the church insists that we are all born with sin and need Jesus to absolve us how do the basic definitions of sin not become a contradiction. If theology insists we are all connected to God to begin with how can we then be born with sin?