Was Saint Patrick a slave-trading tax collector?
A man dressed as Saint Patrick waves to spectators during the 2010 Sydney St. Patrick's Day Parade.
March 17th, 2012
10:20 AM ET

Was Saint Patrick a slave-trading tax collector?

By Nick Thompson, CNN

(CNN) - While Saint Patrick's Day has long been the preserve of Guinness-drinking revellers painting the world's towns green while wearing shamrock hats, Irish Catholics have always taken pride in their nation's patron saint.

Now a new study from Cambridge University based on his writings suggests Saint Patrick was not brought to Ireland as a slave, as the legend has it, but that in fact he may actually have sold slaves his family owned to pay his way to Ireland - in order to avoid a job as a tax collector for the Roman empire.

The findings fly in the face of the classic account of the life of Saint Patrick, who grew up as a member of the Roman nobility in western Britain and was supposedly abducted and forced into slavery in Ireland around 400 A.D. According to this history, Patrick escaped and became a priest before having a vision and returning to Ireland to convert the Irish to Christianity.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Catholic Church • Christianity • Holidays

soundoff (132 Responses)
  1. Father O'blivion

    My children, please....today is a day for darts and drinkin'. Bottoms up!

    March 17, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
    • Dosser Dan

      Ay! Time to get mouldy and motherless on black stuff, then take sharp shit and throw it as hard as we can! Almost as good as a fecking soccer riot!

      This is Ireland, where a fag is a fecking cigarette and not a pooter pirate!!

      March 17, 2012 at 10:06 pm |
    • Father O'blivion

      Dat's me boy boy Danny, and no throwin' pee bombs at the udder team! I tip this one to you lad!

      March 17, 2012 at 10:23 pm |
  2. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    just sayin, I am curious. What was the most recent good work you have performed? When did this miraculous occurrence take place?

    March 17, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
    • just sayin

      Your questions are too va gue to be answered properly. Are the two questions somehow related? Good works are prepared beforehand for the Christian to do, it is not given to boast about the works. If there is to be boasting let us boast in the Lord Jesus Christ who has set works before men to do.

      March 17, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Code for "not a dam.ned thing"?

      March 17, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • just sayin

      You should not compound your ignorance.

      March 17, 2012 at 8:51 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      AGuest nails it in one.

      just sayin never did a thing that could be considered 'good' by anyone. When would it have time? It's too busy lying on the web all day. Must have the fattest azz in the county. Probably in the whole state.

      March 17, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
    • just sayin

      If web use equates to fat,the Tom ,Tom must look like Jabba the Hutt

      March 19, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  3. This_blank

    My grandma always used to tell me theres only two kinds of people on this earth the IRISH & those who wish they were! HAPPY SAINT PATRICKS DAY EVERYONE!!!

    March 17, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
  4. William

    I heard MLK was a womanizer too. But that is conveniently forgotten lest someone be branded a racist. I see its still fashionable in Liberal circles to attack Christians, and of course, Irish. Why put a story out like this on St. Patrick's?

    March 17, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
    • GodsPeople

      Actually, it's "attack Whites." Anything to take down whites.

      March 17, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
  5. Jesus "mr moral perfection" Christ

    Slavery? Don't see anything wrong with it.

    March 17, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
  6. jesus loved slavery

    jesus loved slavery.

    March 17, 2012 at 5:41 pm |
  7. Don Camp

    May goodness, some people will believe anything, especially if written by a professor. Read Patrick's writings for yourself. I have. And I have a very hard time reading into them what our learned professor does. The humility, reverence, and openness of his writings, cannot be the work of a man wanting to create a new persona for himself. And what other evience do you have? Be serious, sir.

    March 17, 2012 at 5:00 pm |
    • iamdeadlyserious

      I love that the generic response of a person of faith to any attack on their beliefs can be summed up as, "Well, who would make that up?" There are a lot of brilliant writers out there, yet the assumption is that men of faith are somehow illiterate mimeographs.

      I have no idea which version of Patrick is true, but there's certainly a rational case to be made for him having owned slaves. You can't negate that case by saying, "but-but-but he sounds so nice on paper."

      March 17, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
  8. 0G-No gods, ghosts or goblins

    Seems to me that every time some part of The Babble or a cult is investigated, it never turns out to be quite what the believers have be brainwashed to believe or would like. When will they learn that their silly myths are all part of a giant fantasy role playing game?

    March 17, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • Father O'blivion

      Have a shot and a chaser!

      March 17, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  9. Father O'blivion

    Well a foin St. Pats to ya all then. Let's not bicker on day lake this. Drink up! Even you English folks are me friends today. Just remember this, if you be havin' a half and half, don't be calling it a Black and Tan! Dat is a sure way to start scrum in the bar boys. I prefer Boddington's anyway, and me Scots side likes a bit 'o whiskey to be sure. Now but down the knives and CELEBRATE! This is the finest day of the year! Bless ya all then. FO

    March 17, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Oye hope you started out the dae w' a wee bit o' Lucky Charms. They're magically delicious!

      March 17, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • Father O'blivion

      If ya be meanin' some Irish Stout....Aye! And I just had a wee nap to prove it.

      March 17, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
  10. PsiCop

    Sure, it's possible the story Patrick told about his earlier life was his own fabrication. False claims about one's personal history are rather common, actually. But the possibility that the capture story is fiction, is not enough to force the conclusion that it definitely MUST BE fiction. For better or worse - and barring some other kind of historical discovery about him - Patrick will just have to remain a figure who is more of a legend than anything else. We may know he lived and that he was an early Christian cleric in Ireland ... but going much further than that forces one into the field of conjecture and speculation. The sooner people admit that, the better off they'll be.

    March 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      Thank you for being a voice of reason, especially considering what some of the others are coming out with. Simply dealing with the "facts" regarding someone who lived about 1700 years ago is especially daunting. Add to that the destruction of much of the early writings about Patricius starting with the followers of Roman Catholicism (as opposed to the Celtic-Hellenic form practiced within a generation of Patricius), Norse raids (before they built the first places in Eire that could be called cities), the destruction of Abbeys and Monastaries by the Tudors and Cromwell, etc. That results in very little first-hand information regarding Patricius written by those who knew him, as well as his own writings, that has survived these 1700 years. Inference and Speculation are what gives the writers of such the ink they need to keep their names in the public. I would have been more accepting had the studies come from Trinity College in Dublin, as opposed to Cambridge.

      One more thing to stir the craws of some of the readers of these posts – St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin is the Anglican Cathedral, not the Roman Catholic one.

      March 18, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
      • PsiCop

        I may not be religious myself, and I may even be a critic of religion ... but I know "ridiculous" when I see it. And when I do, I say so.

        March 19, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
  11. Propaganda from the Pundits

    Another fine 'article' from the Wahhabi-funded anti-American branch of your local radical left 'media' friends of Certainly Not News.

    March 17, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      chrisitans sure hate facts.

      March 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
    • PsiCop

      So this is anti-Christian propaganda, eh? Are you sure about that? Can you demonstrate it with evidence? But even if it's the case ... so what? It's not as though Christians historically haven't cooked up centuries of pro-Christian propaganda of their own. Propaganda is a game that anyone can play. If you don't like this "anti-Christian" article, then write one of your own. Assuming you're in the US, you're in a free country and are free to write virtually anything you want. I suggest instead of bellyaching that other people are writing articles you subjectively dislike, to write your own articles and get them published. Whining that other folks are insolent enough to write articles you disapprove of, is childish.

      March 17, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Joe from CT, not Lieberman

      I suppose you are also going to deny the split in the Baptist Church in the early 19th Century over Slavery, too? The churches based in the Northeast and Midwest were Abolitionists, while the Southern based churches were pro-slavery. Many "saints" were also slave owners. The Jesuits were involved with the African Slave Trade. The Dominicans owned galleys that were manned by slaves. Where the irony here lies is that during the time of Patrick, it was the policy of the Church to encourage the clergy to buy slaves and manumit them.

      March 19, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
  12. God-Fearing Irishman

    Happy IRA Day! We're celebratin' th' ole Magic Green Santa of Eire, the one who chased the snakes out of Ireland, really he did.

    I know that some of you wonder why people like St. Patrick and St. Nicholas are very famous for things they did not do, but that is because you are atheist dry bones lake-of-fire burners, cursed with horns on your head and long red tails between your lopsided legs, with warty noses and fathers that smelle of elderberries!

    March 17, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
    • chief

      yes... spoken like an irishman..... if you are in the south we call people like you redneck, in the north we call them bostonians, in europe they call the irish names that are deemed as racial slurs ..... go ahead and have fun you lucky charms ingorant catholic...

      March 17, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
    • God-Fearing Irishman

      It appears I'm in jail for breaking Poe's Law again.

      March 17, 2012 at 10:08 pm |
  13. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things

    March 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      go outside and do something - it will be much more affective than sitting alone pretending to commune with your invisible friend in the sky.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
    • just sayin

      There is on pretense in talking with God. Prayer is made available, as God is available to all mankind through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      you are in a cult. when a cult is accepted by society, it's called a religion. get deprogrammed. think for yourself, it's the most liberating feeling you will ever have.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • just sayin

      The fool has said in his heart there is no God.

      March 17, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
    • Jesus

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!!! .

      March 17, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
    • PsiCop

      Prayer changes nothing whatever. I defy you to demonstrate – using objective, verifiable evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny – that it does. Here's a test: Pray that I convert to Christianity. If that works, you'll have convinced me about the power of prayer to "change things." OK?

      March 17, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • just wondering

      Why would God want you?

      March 17, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
    • just sayin

      God does want you, I am asking you if you know why?

      March 17, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Ah....wait just a second

      So god *wants* huh ? If your god is not a human projection, please name one non-human quality, or non exaggerated human quality that it has. Take your time...

      March 17, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
    • just sayin

      Always existent, the Alpha and Omega.

      March 17, 2012 at 7:57 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Thought takes place in the brain, not the heart. That explains a lot.

      March 17, 2012 at 8:40 pm |
    • just sayin

      The "heart" or "soul" exists after the brain has rotted away. Your brain is available for three score and ten, more by strength but your heart is eternal.

      March 17, 2012 at 8:54 pm |
    • AGuest9

      An exposed human body can be reduced to bone in 10 days, heart included. There is no such organ as a "soul".

      March 17, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
  14. Reality

    Irish beer even in Patty'd day caused visions. Now we label them hallucinations akin to JC's resurrection.

    March 17, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
    • Ah....wait just a second

      The first Synoptic gospel, (Mark)..scholars know...originally just ended with the "empty tomb". That other stuff was added later.

      March 17, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • Reality

      Saving Christians from the Infamous Resurrection Con:

      From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15 St. Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

      Even now Catholic/Christian professors of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.

      To wit;

      From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:

      "Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
      Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.

      Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

      Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.

      The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

      Only Luke records it. (Luke mentions it in his gospel and Acts, i.e. a single attestation and therefore historically untenable). The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "

      "In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."

      The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.

      With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:

      An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,


      "Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

      p.168. by Ted Peters:

      Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "

      So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.

      March 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm |
  15. Bootyfunk

    hard to believe? not really.

    the bible supports slavery. even jesus supports slavery:
    Luke 12:37-38 (New American Standard Bible)
    37 "Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.
    38 "Whether he comes in the second watch, or even in the third, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves.”

    nice guy. maybe st patty was just trying to be like "compassionate" jesus.

    March 17, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Reality

      Luke 12: 35-38,

      "Be dressed for action and have your lamps lit; 36 be like those who are waiting for their master to return from the wedding banquet, so that they may open the door for him as soon as he comes and knocks. 37 Blessed are those slaves whom the master finds alert when he comes; truly I tell you, he will fasten his belt and have them sit down to eat, and he will come and serve them. 38 If he comes during the middle of the night, or near dawn, and finds them so, blessed are those slaves."

      Said passages have been tested for authenticity by many contemporary NT scholars. i.e. number of attestations, content and time of publication. Luke 12:35-38 failed the test.

      e.g. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?ti-tle=188_The_Unknown_Time and from Professor Gerd Ludemann's book, Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 349, "These passages presuppose the delay of the end or coming of the Son of Man. Since Jesus knew of no delay, they are therefore all unhistorical."

      March 17, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      oh, don't like that one? how about these? are all these "unauthentic"? and if any are unauthentic, then the bible is unauthentic.

      Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

      When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11

      If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6

      However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46

      When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21

      March 17, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • Reality

      Exodus? Hmmm?

      origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 NY Times review and important enough to reiterate.

      New Torah For Modern Minds

      “Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

      Such startling propositions - the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years - have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity - until now.

      The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument.

      The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."

      March 17, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • Fr. Jake

      Dear "Bootyfunk,"
      Might I suggest a course in Biblical exegesis?
      Lifting phrases out of the Scriptures to proof-text does little to support a valid argument.
      What one leaves behind when doing so is the context and cultural melange in which the passage was written.
      Further, when we critique Scripture through the lenses of our own time and culture and do so without metacognition, our interpretations run the risk of being polluted by contemporary cultural notions and values.
      Anyone interested in learning more about the science – yes, I said science! – of Biblical exegesis, pick up a copy of Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament. A whole new world awaits your discovery!

      March 17, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Four Jumps to Insanity

      No BF, best to use an objective source, if you wish to learn. A highly reputable one would be John Dominic Crossen, (ex-priest), or Dr. Bart D. Ehrman. Raymond Brown, while a professor at Union Seminary, (protestant), was an ordained Catholic priest, and thus occupationally obligated to "toe the line". There are many better, more current exegetes since him.
      Part 2 of the Frontline "From Jesus to Christ" is a good place to start .. but BF ain't no beginner. And we did all notice the good father did not even attempt to refute even ONE of BF's points.

      March 17, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • Four Jumps to Insanity

      Fr. Jake,
      "Biblical exegesis" is NOT a science.
      a. Why would you have to assign THAT term to their activities ? Is THAT the only activity you know modern humans really value ? Obviously YOU value science.
      b. The scientific method requires testable theories. Biblical exegetes NEVER use the null hypothesis, and look for evidence, attempting to nullify their hypothesis, or look for other explanations. It is anti'thetical to what you believe. YOU have the truth. What do you need science for ? They propose opinions, and attempt to support them , some with archaeology, some without. THAT is not science. No matter what explanation they cook up, it will never be the ONLY one possible, or rule out the other possible ones.

      March 17, 2012 at 7:08 pm |
    • Reality

      A "must read" for all those interested in contemporary historical Jesus studies: earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

      Some conclusions from said "must read"

      ::Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ

      Earl Doherty
      Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

      Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past

      Alvar Ellegård
      G. A. Wells

      Jesus the Hellenistic Hero

      Gregory Riley

      Jesus the Revolutionary

      Robert Eisenman

      Jesus the Wisdom Sage

      John Dominic Crossan
      Robert Funk
      Burton Mack
      Stephen J. Patterson

      Jesus the Man of the Spirit

      Marcus Borg
      Stevan Davies
      Geza Vermes

      Jesus the Prophet of Social Change

      Richard Horsley
      Hyam Maccoby
      Gerd Theissen

      Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet

      Bart Ehrman
      Paula Fredriksen
      Gerd Lüdemann
      John P. Meier
      E. P. Sanders

      Jesus the Savior

      Luke Timothy Johnson
      Robert H. Stein
      N. T. Wright

      Father Raymond Brown would be included with the last grouping.

      March 18, 2012 at 8:53 am |
  16. Melissa B

    Okay. And some of our 'founding fathers' owned slaves and some slaves were freed in this country and turned around and bought slaves themselves.I'm sure St. Patricks Day will still be celebrated.

    March 17, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • GodsPeople

      Shhh.. don't tell any truth.. it might offend the jooz!!

      March 17, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
  17. AGuest9

    Are you referring to the "patron saint of drunk and disorderly"?

    March 17, 2012 at 12:22 pm |
  18. GodsPeople

    I'm getting really tired of the "let's attack white people and white traditions" crap going on in this world. No, St. Patrick was NOT a f***ing slave trader. F*** those pu**ies at Cambridge, they should be burned at the stake.

    March 17, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • Melissa B

      Why? Didn't you know we're evil and responsible for all the evil that goes on in the world. Duh. It's all our fault!

      March 17, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • GodsPeople

      That's what they want us to think anyway.. Fortunately, I'm one of the non-brainwashed few.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      believing in God is the very definition of brain-washing.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
    • GodsPeople

      Being self-centered and amoral is the very definition of Satan, as well as Atheist. What does that tell you?

      March 17, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • iamdeadlyserious

      Yeah, how dare people do research?

      Don't they know that it's not acceptable to ask people to accept the reality of history instead of a sanitized myth?

      March 17, 2012 at 1:38 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      yes, thinking for yourself is amoral. we all get what you're saying, koo-koo. go ask your cult leader for further instructions.

      March 17, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • GodsPeople

      @iamdeadlyserious: I've aced every history class I've ever taken, as well as every hard and soft science. I'm a college student working on a Bachelor's degree in IT Security. I think I know and undertand the value of both science and research.

      March 17, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
  19. Qwerty Elemeno Huac

    St. Patrick: The patron saint of getting ugly drunk.

    St. Patrick: The guy who, thanks to his invisible friend who was never really there, drove out a bunch of snakes that were never really there.

    March 17, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • Nii

      This may just be one of those English Cambridge Professors. I don't know but I smell a kettle of fish.

      March 17, 2012 at 11:31 am |
  20. Nii

    As for the historical theories they keep flowing. How did this one too make it into broad daylight. Ok now! Osama bin Ladin wanted to establish a christian state in the Middle East. In his youth he just loved Lebanon and felt everyone should share in its benefits. Now I just need to be a Prof

    March 17, 2012 at 10:32 am |
1 2 3
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.