Christmas Presents Past

So everyone and their brother knows that Jesus got three presents for his first Christmas: Gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Setting aside the question as to just what the hell myrrh is for the moment, I have a question. What became of these gifts?

First of all, you'd think that with the gold Ma and Pa Christ could have finally left the stable and rented an actual room in the inn. I don't care if the inn keeper claimed there were no vacancies; you know how inn keepers are. I'm betting that if a gold sovereign had been slipped surreptitiously to the manager on duty a room would have "suddenly" become available. Plus, they'd still have had gold left over to purchase some pay for view movies or whatever.

Furthermore, if they'd invested some of the gold I'm quite sure that Jesus could have gone to a respectable university (I hear Judea Polytechnic was a fine school back then) instead of having to become an apprentice to a carpenter. Sure, carpenters can make good money, but there's always the problem of union dues, etc. If he'd graduated and gotten a real job, moreover, I'm betting he could have afforded to just bring the damned wine to that wedding in Cana instead of having to resort to cheap parlor tricks.

Now let's unset aside the question of what myrrh is. Wikipedia informs me that is

...a red-brown resinous material, the dried sap of the tree Commiphora myrrha, native to Somalia and the eastern parts of Ethiopia.

So that clears that up.

I'm guessing the Christs didn't know what the hell it was, either, and probably fed it to the goat or something.

But that still leaves the frankincense. What happened to the frankincense? We never hear of it again in the Gospels, so I'm guessing that maybe they regifted it or something. For all we know, John the Baptist got a shitload of frankincense for his first birthday or something. Who knows.

Godparents?!

So my friend Tom asked C i n d y and I to be his daughter's godparents. I know what you're thinking:

Whoa, whoa, Hank... You a godfather?

...to which I reply,

What the hell do you mean by that?

But yeah. I reminded him that we were both Atheists, or at least we were an Atheist and at best an Agnostic, and was he sure, yadda yadda. He questioned my Agnosticism, calling me basically a closet God-Believer. The nerve.

In the end, we told him that if he understood our views on religion and still wanted us to do this, that sure, we'd do it. I warned him that when the priest was shaking the holy water and some got on me I might be tempted to scream in agony just for the humor value, but he was non-plussed. I warned him that he'd be asking us to lie, because I'm quite sure that the priest would ask us if we accepted Christ as our savior, etc, but he reminded us that since this ceremony would be taking place in Mexico, the priest would be speaking in Spanish, and thus we could just pretend we didn't understand and answer "si" [1] to everything. Well okay.

So after we cleared our schedule and took out a small-term loan to pay for all the god parent stuff (did I mention that as Catholic godparents, at least in Mexico, we were supposed to pay for the christening dress, the candle, the holy water, the sterling silver cup that held the holy water, and the child's first year college tuition? No? Well it's (mostly) true, but Tom knows we're cheap bastards and wasn't requiring us to actually do all of that), we get word from Tom that The Church has spoken and in fact we won't be allowed to be god parents after all.

Why? Well, first of all, godparents have to take a course in the church before they can be god parents... you know, sort of like they demand that potential bride and grooms must take classes prior to their wedding.

That's crap. Are you telling me that Don Corleone took these classes? I think not.

But whatever. Tom bribed the church so we didn't have to take these classes. Oh... he doesn't call it a bribe, but "for a small donation you don't have to take the course".

Yup. Bribe. Sort of like back in the middle ages when this same Church would guarantee you a first-class ticket to heaven for the right "donation"... (cf: indulgences)

Well, apparently it didn't work. The church asked Tom for a copy of our baptism and confirmation records. Believe it or not, dear reader(s), I actually was baptized, and actually did get confirmed, albeit in the Lutheran church. Cindy, of course, has not undergone either rite and thus will burn in a river of sulfur for all eternity. When Tom told them this, they realized that we weren't even Catholic, and told Tom to search for new, less godless, god parents.

As Tom says and will blog about shortly, clearly we need a Vatican III. I mean come on; on the one hand, I can understand the Church wanting it's baptized flock raised as Catholics by potential god parents, but can they really be this choosy in today's era? Isn't it enough if the said god parents agree to raise them as Catholics even if they themselves are not? Why quibble over such matters when the eternal soul of Tom's daughter is at stake, for after all she now sits unbaptized and thus vulnerable to Satan while he frantically searches for a new set of married people who the Catholic church will give their official "okey dokey" to.

It's maddening.

I'm wondering what would have happened, furthermore, if we did pass the first hurdle: would we have had to be interviewed and asked how we stood viz-a-vis stem cell research, transubstantiation, capital punishment, and abortion? Would they have asked us who we would have voted for Pope this last time? Would they have demanded our opinions on John Kerry and asked to see our ticket stubs proving we'd seen "The Passion Of The Christ"?

Where would have it ended?

Meanwhile, an innocent little girl has a dry forehead while The Church twiddles its thumbs...

[1] Spanish for "yes"

That Damned Fish Bumper Sticker.

You know what annoys me? I mean besides multiple rereleases of DVDs and important stuff like that? What annoys me is the fact that The Conservative Right have somehow usurped religion... like now only Right Wing Conservatives can be religious in general and Christian in particular. Those of you who know me or read my blog know that I'm not religious, so it should be no skin off my nose, but my family (grandparents, etc) are, and it bothers me that one particular political persuasion can lay claim to an entire religion. Contrary to what many believe, Liberals can indeed be religious, accept Christ as their personal savior, yadda yadda.

Which brings me to the fish bumper sticker. You've all seen it:


This means that the person who owns the car is a Christian. Why? Something about the Greek word for fish, which is something like ichthis (I can't be bothered to look this up, that's close enough) is sort of like an anagram for Jesus Christ, Son of God (or something like that. Again... close enough).

Fine and dandy. But as I've said, what is the political affiliation of said fish-bumper-sticker-person? You shouldn't really be able to tell, but more and more the religious politically outspoken person is Conservative. Whatever. And more and more, the religious Conservative is not a fan of evolution. Thus I really get a kick out of this sticker which I occasionally see:

Get it? Get it?! See, the fish has feet... an obvious nod to evolution, thus this person is proudly proclaiming to everyone on the highways and byways of this great nation that

"I may be religious, but dammit, that doesn't mean I've abandoned science. The two can coexist".

Or something like that. I like that. I like especially the fact that you know this riles the Religious Right, who just can't fathom such thinking.

However, I'd like to improve upon this. Liberals have a heart, so I'd edit the sticker to reflect this:


See? This says,

"Hey, I'm a Christian who still understands science, and I truly care about my fellow man as well."

Succinct and to the point. But I think there's still room for improvement, since Liberals aren't only ruled by the heart. They use their brain, too. Logic is on their side, not simple dogma or Kool-Aid-induced fervor that makes them unable to think for themselves. So let's see what we have now:

Much better. This bumper sticker goes a long way towards showing the driving public that someone can believe in Jesus, understand and accept evolution and science in general, as well as having a heart while still being logical. That, my friends, is a bumper sticker for the ages.

It doesn't have to end there, however. Why stop when we have a good thing going? What if you also like to play the occasional game of tennis? Here you go:


I think you get the point.

Heart, brain, and tennis racket (c) yours truly. The fish I yanked off some site.

Shhh... Listen... The Voice Of God is Speaking...

I for one am proud that we have a president who has a personal relationship with God. It makes me feel safe. I also envy him. GBW, not God. Well, I guess I envy God, too. He probably never has to pay for parking, for example. But I digress.

I envy GW Bush because evidently God talks to him. They have personal conversations. Me, I'm lucky if God even pretends to laugh at my jokes. I mean, c'mon... throw me a bone every once in a while, Lord.

Once, however, I thought God was talking to me.

It was a couple of years ago, early in the morning. As I lay in bed I thought I heard God speaking to me in his soft, melodious manner (aside: isn't it lucky God speaks in such a manner as opposed to sounding like some 70 year old guy from Queens? That would be grating, what with the "yoose" this and "yoose" that. Or is that Brooklyn? I get my burroughs confused. Thank god God speaks with a good Midwest dialect).

I was all excited until I realized it was just my alarm clock radio going off. Turns out that it was not God but rather radio talk show host Glenn Beck wistfully speaking into my ear.

I hit the snooze button and all was well.

Maybe someone needs to tell George W. Bush about the snooze button.

The Flesh Is Willing (Part 3)

...in which the author, in part three of the series, discusses the nature and fate of Christ, and the series comes to an end and we get back to inane posts quickly.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (The Bible, John 3:16, King James Version)

I read that, and I see nothing about the need for a resurrection. In fact, what kind of gift would have it been otherwise? How can you sacrifice something if there is no real sacrifice? It would be like a man donating $10,000 to a charity, making a big show of it, and then getting that sum paid back by the charity a year later. Or 33 years later. What kind of magnanimous act was that? Sure, the $10,000 helped out the charity during those 33 years. And sure, the charity probably invested that ten grand and thus is still getting returns on the original principle to this day... And... wait. See? There was no need for the $10,000 to be given back; keeping it would not mean that it did not help the charity.

"Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
(The Bible, Matthew 26:38-39, King James Version)

Why was JC sad about death? Furthermore, why was he asking God for a reprieve? Why would he feel this way if he didn't face real, permanent death? Is this the way for an all-knowing deity to act? Shouldn't he know his fate, and not only not fear it but welcome it? He's saving mankind, for crissakes! Why is he acting human?

Ah. Maybe he was human. Maybe that's the point. Maybe, just maybe, his sacrifice (I'll forego the capitalization of the pronoun given my thesis) is that much more real, important, and meaningful given that he was making a real sacrifice and not simply performing some David Blaine style magic trick. And these examples, and many more, are actually found in the Bible. Imagine what didn't make the cut!

Now, if JC was human, wouldn't he partake in human activity? Hell, even as it is we see examples of him eating, drinking, sleeping... all innate human activity. Natural drives. If he was a deity, why the need to eat? Why debase himself so by taking in matter so needlessly, especially given the poverty of the time? Why waste food like this? If Christians accept that he ate and drank and slept, why do they for some reason draw the line at marriage and marital sex? Why is that human drive taboo while the others okie-dokie?

Furthermore, in a round about way the New Testament comes right out and says he was married by referring to him as "rabbi" (examples include John 1:49 and John 3:2) First of all, clearly JC was Jewish and well-versed in Jewish scripture. Marriage and even having children would have been known as mitzvahs, and this would be especially true for rabbis, where the obligation to marry and have children was even more of a stringent obligation (see this, et al, or just read your Talmud, dammit. Why must I do all the work for you?).

After all, Protestant clergy can be married. I assume the same is true in Islam. So why are so many people skittish about this when it come to Mr. Christ? Again, if you think this was "beneath him", then wouldn't eating be "beneath him", too? Even if you believe him divine, why couldn't he marry and have kids? The world's religions are replete with examples of gods and demigods who fathered children, and most of that out of wedlock. At least JC was married.

So, Jesus could have been married and the father of three, and he could have died on the cross and buried forever, or he could have survived the ordeal, or it could have never occurred in the first place. What would this change? Would his sacrifice be any less? (Again, I argue that it would be more). He still accomplished a great deal. Look at how many Christians there are now, and thanks to John most of them did not come from Jewish family trees, either. If you believe in that sort of thing, look at how many souls have been saved due to his martyrdom and teachings. How does this change if it turns out that some dude living in France is Yeshua ben Joseph's (great-great-great-great-great-great-great)³ grandson?

To me, it matters not one wit. Though, of course, if true that guy has a hell of a lot of book royalties coming his way from the sale of Gideon Bibles alone...

Three Steps To Success (Part 2)

...in which the author continues with Part Two in a three-part series on religion, faith, and the proper application of caulk to a bathtub

The first blow to my High Religious Ideals happened because my parents, like so many middle-class suburbanites in the 1960s/ early 70s, belonged to the Book Of The Month Club. Most of the books were on some shelves in our library. When I was bored I'd either grab a random volume of the Book of Knowledge encyclopedia (my favorite was 'M') or one of these book club editions. One day when I was about ten or eleven while I was scanning the spines for something to read, the title "The Naked Ape" jumped out at me, so I removed Desmond Morris' book and started to read. It was fascinating and eye-opening. He theorized why women wore lipstick. He postulated as to the reason why humans had just as much hair as chimps but hair that was soft and light and thin. He hypothesized as to why human females have prominent breasts. And guess what? None of the reasons were "because God said so." I looked at human beings differently from that point on.

Then, when I was an undergraduate, one night I did what I usually did in order to put off writing a term paper and went to the library for a book. I found Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene." Very interesting reading. Basically, Dawkins puts forth the case for humans simply being the vehicles that genes use to propagate themselves through the millennia. If this was indeed true, it left little room for "the soul", etc, because if anything "religious beliefs" were simply yet another thing genes used in order to ensure their survival.

If Morris made me look at humans differently from a macro level, Dawkins accomplished the same thing at the micro level. Not only were we just animals, but we were really a bunch of genes fighting it out with other genes; the bodies and brains and fingernails and kidneys were just necessary baggage that were really there to protect the genes in the same manner that a house with its plumbing and siding and shingles and foundation and grout and dry wall only really serve to make the people living within more comfortable.

Finally, the third in my triumvirate was put in motion by my girlfriend in college. I don't think she knows this, and would probably find it funny since she chides me over my apparent atheism, but she was the catalyst. It happened this way:

Texas A&M University, like most schools, had its own movie showings in the large auditorium on the weekends. This one Saturday, around 1984 or so, the movie was "Jesus Christ Superstar". I'd always liked the music, so we went. During the movie I made the comment to girlfriend that, "Gee, Jesus and Mary Magdalene seem awfully close", at which point she whispered to me that there was a theory by some that they in fact were married and had children. I had not heard this before, and after the movie she told me about this book called "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" that put forth this theory. I of course found the book in the library and read it. It made a good case, in my opinion, that Mr. Christ was not killed on the cross (and thus had no need for a resurrection) and did in fact have children with Mary Magdalene, and that the Holy Grail was really the bloodline of The Christs, brought to England by Mary and Joseph of Arimathea .

Now, as I'll discuss in Part Three, this alone shouldn't have necessarily changed my religious views, but given the other two books mentioned it didn't help. If we add to that my basic growing belief that I'd later learn was already put forth by one Occam... that being that given multiple explanations, usually the simplest is the correct explanation... and if we add the problem I always had with the nature of Free Will and its confliction with the idea of an almighty deity (yes, believe it or not this always bothered me, even as a young child. And yes, I know this is a peculiar thing for a third grader to worry about, but there you have it), and if we add to that my study of the split-brain patient literature that to me showed that what we call "consciousness", "personality", etc, are really just a manifestation of various neural pathways and brain formations... well, the notion that The Church might have been propagating a myth about the divinity of Christ didn't help any.

(As an aside, I might mention that I think I've solved the Free Will Problem, at least to my satisfaction... i.e. I've come up with a way that one can have Free Will and still have an Omnipotent Being. Someday I'll post said explanation as a sort of appendix to this series).

Next: Does it really matter if JC rose from the dead and was celibate his whole life?

Fall From Grace (Part 1)

...in which in the first of a three part series the author, in honor of the upcoming High Holiday, espouses some stuff.

People who have only known me for 20 years or so my find it surprising to believe that I once was what one would consider a highly religious person. Of the Christian faith, no less. Needless to say, I would not label myself in this manner today (though truth be told I'm not the complete atheist that some might think). How did this change come about, you ask? Well, I'll try to explain, but first let me describe myself when I was younger.

I went to a private Lutheran school for Kindergarten and First grade, and loved it. When I went to public school starting in Second grade I carried my Bible with me. I grew my hair long when most of my friends had crew cuts, partly because it was the early 70s, partly because of David Cassidy, but mostly because Jesus had his hair long. Really and truly... I was that shallow even as a child. I truly loved everyone and everything, because it was part of God's creation. Once, when walking home from school in early spring, I happened upon a little twig with a bud about to blossom on the sidewalk. I was so excited about the rebirth of the season and of God's majesty that it represented that I picked it up and carried it home to show to my friends, who proceeded to break it in two and squash the bud, laughing at me.

This Really And Truly Happened.

Once, when playing with a friend of mine in his backyard during a family cook out, my friend saw a couple of ants crawling on the patio cement. He proceeded to stamp on them to much glee. I poured some of my Hawaiian Punch on another ant, wondering if it would drown. Then I felt bad and went to ask my mom if when it said, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" God meant ants, too.

This is a Real Event from my childhood.

Once I rode my bike down the street of another block, a block known to have a house in which Bad Kids lived and congregated. Sure enough, the Rotten Kids were on the porch with rocks, and they started throwing these missiles at me as I rode down the street past them. Why? Probably because my hair was so long. Or maybe because I had a nice green Schwinn Stingray complete with a tall chrome Sissy Bar and banana seat and they didn't, but most likely simply because they were No Good Rotten Kids. Did I pedal away in fear? Did I yell at them? Did I not ride my bike down that same street about three more times? No. Why? Because I knew God and/or Jesus (probably Jesus, because of my hair) would protect me from the Rocks From Naughty Children. And you know what? He did. No rock hit me or my bike. A couple of rocks even somehow zinged through the spokes of my front wheel without hitting anything. This, of course, did not sit well with the Awful Adolescents. They started yelling and saying bad words (did I mention that I never swore as a kid, and that my friends found this very funny indeed, me saying stuff like "drat!!" ? Well, it's true. I didn't) and throwing even harder and faster. Still, I was protected by my Faith in The Lord, and actually smiled and sat up even straighter on my banana seat while I pedalled the Stingray Bike for Jesus.

All of the above is a Factual Anecdote from my Early Adolescence.

You get the point? I was a sanctimonious goody-two shoes with a Bible in my desk. Oh, I got in trouble, I always sassed my teachers and constantly questioned authority. But when it came to The Good News of JC, I was as good and righteous as they come.

So what happened? We will explore this in Part Two.

A Tale Of Two Grains

From a story by AP:

An 8-year-old girl who suffers from a rare digestive disorder and cannot consume wheat has had her first Holy Communion declared invalid because the wafer contained none, violating Catholic doctrine.

complete story from CBS News

Evidently her wafer had rice, and I guess rice just doesn't cut it. Let's take a look at the two grains in question:

	Rice	Wheat
Kingdom	Plantae	Plantae
Division	Magnoliophyta	Magnoliophyta
Class	Liliopsida	Liliopsida
Order	Poales	Poales
Family	Poaceae	Poaceae
Genus:	Oryza	Triticum

Hmmm. I don't get it. It looks pretty much the same.... WAIT A MINUTE!!! Right there!!!

Genus:

Oryza

Triticum

The genus is different!!! Ah, I see now. Clearly, The Lord approves of Triticum, but frowns on Oryza for his transubstantiation needs. You'd think the same class or order would be enough. Surely, the same family would suffice; but no, I guess it all comes down to the genus.

Let's look at some photos, shall we?

First, here's rice:

Sort of grass-like, isn't it? Definitely a plant.

Next, here's wheat:

Ahhh.... I see. Much different. You see, the little stalks appear to be closer together, more dense if you will. Looks grass-like, too... but you know, it must be the denseness that makes it the better and proper transubstantiator.

Let's hear some more from the Catholic church on this issue:

The Diocese of Trenton has told Waldman's mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten host, drink wine at communion or abstain entirely, but that any host without gluten does not qualify as Holy Communion.

complete story from CBS News

AHA! So it's the gluten, then, that miraculously transforms into the body of Christ. Why didn't they say so right off? Of course, I only have the Revised Standard Edition of The Bible, but a quick cursory look yielded no mention of gluten. Too bad I've misplaced my King Jame's version; it must be mentioned in there.

Let's take a look at gluten:

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Gluten \Glu"ten\, n. [L., glue: cf. F. gluten. See Glue.]



(Chem.)



The viscid, tenacious substance which gives adhesiveness to

dough.

Well, that cleared that up. Apparently, rice flour doesn't have enough viscid, tenacious substances, and/or its dough is not adhesive enough.

I think it's interesting that according to the Catholic Church one doesn't have to partake in the wine for the communion to be official, but damn it, you have to eat some gluten!!! I'm just glad the Church has grabbed this Very Important Issue by the horns. After all, the Church has absolutely no other problems, so they can afford to spend time and energy making sure that only the proper genus of Poaceae grain is consumed in the name of Christ.