The Arrogance of “I Am Right, You Are Wrong” Thinking

Below is an article a church recently posted about former Pastor Jerry Dewitt’s deconversion from Christianity.  I am pasting the article–then inserting my comments in red as it goes:

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Former Pentecostal preacher turned atheist Jerry DeWitt: How Could a former minister of God’s Word Change Into a Nonbeliever?    (My thought is, maybe he took his blinders off???)

 

When we read this article, regarding Jerry DeWitt, we feared for his soul, simply because he once knew the way (the typical Christian assumption that the Christian “way” is THE way and no one else’s “way” can possibly be right), but something must have happened in his life to make him think (my guess is what happened in his life is he stopped ignoring that little voice of reason inside that kept telling him belief & devotion to a genocidal child killer didn’t make sense) God does not exist.  Jerry DeWitt was a Pentecostal preacher for more than 25 years (Well, we all make mistakes in judgement, don’t we?), but eventually became a nonbeliever (like so many of us brainwashed who then finally snapped out of it).  He began ministry when he was 17 years old.  This story is very sad (actually I consider it a huge victory and a triumph–inspiring and very moving), because the Bible (a book of myths and magic very much akin to Harry Potter only instead of a childish, tantrum-prone god we have Voldemort–also very bigoted & having chosen people.  Oh, and Harry is rather the Jesus figure–he more or less dies, then comes back to save the day.  The only difference really is Harry throws away the Elderwand–having no desire to rule over others.) speaks about these sort of individuals (individuals?   We can’t call him a person now or a man?) who once knew the way (the way again.  How arrogant, this “way” of thinking!) but made a choice to turn away from God (that free-will thing Christians like to brag about.  Oh, except if you actually practice it, you get punished and thrown into hell forever). Jerry DeWitt reminds us (us?  Do you have multiple personality disorder?) a lot of Bishop Carlton Pearson, the only difference is Bishop Pearson claims to believe in God, but no Devil and no hell. (oh well, at least Bishop Carlton Pearson is on the right track toward using his brain).  Pearson is yet an unbeliever (how is he an unbeliever for just not believing in god’s creation Satan or god’s creation, hell?   I seem to recall when I was a Christian the only necessary criteria for being saved was belief in the divinity of Jesus and asking him into your heart?) and might as well join atheists in our opinion (and we won’t judge him like Christians do, or threaten him with hell forever for not believing exactly as we do, or tell him he’s an abomination for not believing in a book of fairy tales).  However, we must continue to pray (the Christian’s way of saying fuck you!) for not only Bishop Carlton Pearson, but also this man, Jerry DeWitt. (How patronizing can you get?)

We question any person whom once believed in God, but now is an atheist (I would question too.  I would ask myself, why so many people are starting to actually read the bible and see all those verses you try very hard to steer people away from reading.  Perhaps you should change your approach during your sermons or…rewrite the bible so as to remove all those nasty embarrassing verses about god ordering rape and slavery and the butchery of pregnant women that keep tripping people up?).  If something very bad should happen in Jerry DeWitt’s life, our question is, would he call on God?  (In extreme moments people don’t think rationally so it’s entirely possible he might revert to deeply ingrained supernatural thinking–and then feel embarrassed later that he did.)   We understand there are some backsliders whom once knew God who walked away, because they became bitter (no, that’s not it.  That’s only your assumption of what it is and your assumption is wrong) and felt God did not love them (no, it has more to do with the belief that there is no god and there never was a god and all this bullshit was only contrived to brainwash and rule over people and get their money and not having to pay property taxes) or because maybe God did not give them an answer (it’s really hard for imaginary beings to answer questions.  Santa has tried it, but he hasn’t had much luck either) to their problem or they did not receive a blessing they fasted and prayed for (very hard to receive blessings from Unicorns too, I’ve heard).   However, to not believe in God, after serving him for so long is very scary. (No, it’s called being born again–more born again than the Christian notion of that phrase.  It’s called being liberated from superstition-instilled fear of death, fear of never being good enough, fear of an eye in the sky judging your every mood and policing even your thoughts.)   Then, to invite others to follow your movement (Jerry Dewitt has not invited anyone to become an atheist–that’s what Christians do.  Only Christians go door to door and preach on street corners and try to shove their “way” down other people’s throats) as an atheist is even more scary and also dangerous (dangerous, how?  Oh, you mean that invisible make-believe supernatural being in the sky again?), because people are souls and they have some place to go at the end of their lives (and your proof or evidence of this is where, exactly?)   Here is another interesting question, how would Jerry DeWitt or any other former believer of Christ feel, if they should die and discover their mistake of becoming an atheists?  ( Implying a self-serving reason to be a Christian and love god–so you can go to heaven when you die!   Now that is a kind of love a supernatural being can really respect.  But then that’s what he commands, doesn’t he?  Love me or else burn in hell for ever!   Just what I want to do–love a tyrant and a bully who needs to threaten people to get them to love him.  Personally I would rather go to hell than spend one more minute worshipping a god that did what this monster did as described in the much-ignored (by Christians) Old Testament.)  there would be nothing they can do to save their souls, because God gave them a chance to believe (and this loving god punishes them with an infinite punishment for committing a finite crime!).   Saints, this is a very serious issue, (saints?   LOL!!!!) because after the various testimonies we shared with you on our videos page that revealed people who actually been to heaven and hell (isn’t it funny how, when Catholics die they see Mary, and when Muslims die they see Muhammad and when Christians die they see Jesus?  We never hear about a Muslim who sees Jesus or a Christian who sees Muhammad, no.  It’s always a vision exactly matching that person’s earthly beliefs, no matter what those beliefs are.  Hmmmm…)  , we know God is real.   Although, we cannot see Him, we as true followers of Jesus Christ can feel Him (speaking as a born again Christian for over 30 years I can say I “felt him” too and I can reproduce that feeling right now.  It’s a placebo effect.  Same thing happens to large crowds at rock concerts or football games), and also we know He is real, because of the blessings of being alive (that’s right.  Nature has nothing to do with it!).   Our hearts cannot pump alone (Lol!  Oh, really?  I’m starting to wonder if the author of this article even graduated from High School.)  We cannot wake up without God waking us up (LOL!   And you cannot think without god thinking for you or feel without god feeling for you or move your legs without god moving your legs for you!).   We cannot see, hear or feel things without God.  We cannot walk or move our limbs without God (you actually go on to say this yourselves?  LOL!  Puppets–actually bragging about having strings and a puppeteer controlling them!).   We cannot use our minds and think without God (well, this much IS true for many Christians, unfortunately.)  Those of us whom are born again Christians would not have never been blessed with the free gift of salvation, if Jesus Christ had not of died on the cross (actually I think it happened when Mithras, god’s only son, came into the world and was crucified, dying for our sins and was then resurrected.  Jesus was only a faded copy of Mithras) and took the ridicule.  God gave us a choice to serve His Son (which one again?), if we give up sin (what Christians call doing wrong as opposed to doing right, only “sin” implies consequences that happen in the imaginary world that you live in after this one.   Therefore, God is very real (hmm, maybe if you say it over and over enough it will be true?) and there ought to be nothing negative that happens in our lives to change our belief in Him.   (That’s right.  You want to only surround yourself with happy brainwashed Christians who never challenge your beliefs or pressure you to think on your own!) Yes, we go through pain and cannot understand why there maybe some people that have more than us and  many of us have faithfully been serving the Lord for a longtime, but we cannot risk losing our souls (and um, if you were born in Iran to Iranian parents, for example, would you be saying/believing these same things about Islam?) by making a choice to stop believing in Him.


In the meantime, we will pray that God gives Jerry DeWitt (so magnanimous of you–wow!) and others like him to turn around from atheism (you mean to turn off our brains and blindly believe and follow a god that approves slavery, genocide, infanticide, abortion, etc., etc., )before it is everlasting too late.   We have faith God will reveal to Him, He is real (again!  You keep saying this like you think saying this makes it fact) and loves him very much.   



There was once a true story about an atheist whom went out camping by himself and he fell asleep out in the wilderness and he told the Lord (why would an atheist talk to god?), He said, ‘God if you are real, when I wake up, if that rock is gone, I will believe in you.’  When the man woke up that rock was gone.  (Can you please provide the reference to this “true” story?  Or did it come from Reader’s Digest?) This should reveal to anyone, God exist and has always proved himself to be real (really?  When?  Oh, that’s right.  Before we started actually recording our history in written form).  Therefore, we will have faith for Jerry DeWitt to be proven wrong (yes, when you die and experience the permanent black out that happens after you die I’m sure you’ll have some way of knowing Jerry Dewitt was proven wrong) and return back into the family of God.  (of which I believe Satan belongs to too, doesn’t he?  After all, god made Satan and Satan has carried out all God’s wishes to the letter!)

Note: Since CNN.com did not have a video of Jerry DeWitt explaining why he is no longer a Pentecostal minister and now an atheist, we felt led by God not to post the various videos we found on You Tube.   


If you need God to come into your life, we invite you to go directly to our Salvation page (I have that in my bucket–it’s right up there with stabbing myself in the eye with a knitting needle).  God is real and proved His existence when He created each and every last one of us (actually I think there’s this little fact called evolution…  You know, science?   That thing that requires fact and reproduceable evidence to back it up before it can even call itself a theory).  When He formed the earth, He already had shown us, He is real (did you ever actually take grammar classes in school?).  The sun, moon and the stars cannot hold up in the sky (brilliant display of your knowledge of science here!) without the Lord who created them.   Day cannot turned to night and night cannot change to daytime without God (yes, the creator of all the universe with its billions of galaxies actually hovers above this planet and nudges the planets stars and cosmos to revolve around the earth all just for OUR benefit while he worries about gay people getting married and whether or not so and so will have an abortion.)   We would not have different seasons (this is so incredibly beyond absurd it’s making my brain lock up) and they cannot change without the Lord (says who again?  Oh, yes, the bible.  Written by anonymous men who claimed to have been inspired by god.  Sure, I’ll believe that…)  So, we invite you to make a choice to not only believe in Him, but make a wise (?????) decision and serve Him (and stop thinking for yourself and believe everything we say hook line and sinker and give us your tithe!) before it is everlasting too late.   If after you make a choice for Jesus to come into your life, you are going to have trials (very much like you had before you accepted Jesus, and in fact nothing really changes except that placebo effect I mentioned earlier.  That and the fact that you start thinking that little voice you hear in your head is GOD rather than your own inner dialogue that we all are simply born with!)  God never said our walk as His children would be easy (that’s true, and in fact, God never said anything really because he doesn’t exist), but it does not mean He is not real (actually it does) and it does not mean He does not love you (that’s why he’ll roast you slowly and eternally in hell if you aren’t convinced by us saying he is real over and over and over and over).   Many times, you will go through bad situations, but they happen to make you strong (because god didn’t make you strong enough to begin with, apparently) and so you will have a testimony when you come out.   If you want to be saved (saved from what–oh yes, saved from dying because human beings are so special that they should get to live forever!), you must (absolutely MUST!!!) visit our Salvation page and follow the steps there.  God bless you dear brothers and sisters and welcome to the family of God.

Unbelieving preachers get help to ‘come out’ as open atheists

By Dan Merica, CNN
 

(CNN) – Jerry DeWitt entered the ministry when he was 17, launching a 25-year career as a Pentecostal preacher. He traveled all around his home state of Louisiana, preaching and ministering wherever he could.

All these years later, DeWitt, 42, is still on the road, and now takes his message all over the United States. But the nature of that message, along with his audience, has changed dramatically.

DeWitt is now an avowed atheist, and his audiences are made up of religious “nones,” the growing number of Americans who are atheist, agnostic, humanist or just plain disinterested in identifying with a religion. Today, DeWitt preaches a gospel of disbelief.

During his speeches, he talks about the process of leaving his…Read full article, here.

Source and Photo Courtesy: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com

 

Gender Inequality Was Man’s Idea, Not God’s

Let’s assume the Christian or Jewish YHWH exists.  Let’s assume that the collection of myths and legends are based on actual fact and history.   Well then, riddle me this, Batman.  Why was the story of Adam’s first wife Lilith removed from the bible (almost completely) before the 16 century AD?

So who was Lilith?    Well, according to older translations of the bible, she was the original first woman god made at the same time he made Adam.  Adam and Lilith were both formed from the earth, at the same time, so that neither one came first and neither one was made from the other.  Lilith was, in other words, Adam’s equal.

In the older translations, the first creation story we find in Genesis describes the creation of Lilith.  This has all but been removed (it is widely believed this story was deliberately removed, but I’ll get into that later). 

The only remnant that still gives us a clue something was once there but taken out is this contradiction.  In first Genesis we read this, and it is referring to Adam and the first woman, Lilith:

Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In Genesis 2 we read this, and this is the story we have all heard the most and is used as an example to show men were made in God’s image, but woman was made from man:

Genesis 2:18-22: And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help mate for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help mate for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 How interesting, don’t you think, that so many people remember the second story about Eve being created from Adam’s rib, but not the first one. Granted, it’s a more detailed story, but is it mere coincidence that it’s also the story in which woman is portrayed as secondary to man? Is it coincidence that the creation story churches emphasize is the one in which woman was created simply to “help man” while the creation story where woman is created as an equal alongside man is not?

So which story about the creation of Eve is the “correct” one? The order and nature of events in these two Bible stories are contradictory and they cannot both be true, though they can both be false.

The answer?  These stories are not describing the creation of the same woman.  Lilith was created first.  And because she was created from the dirt just like Adam, she considered herself his equal and Adam was displeased. 

I am copying various takes on Lilith’s story I have found online:

 http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1513/whats-the-story-on-lilith-adams-first-wife

On the one hand there are all these (and likely other) interpretations. On the other hand there are the legends themselves, which are also quite varied, from Jewish folklore. Let’s start with a paraphrase of the most familiar legend, which dates to medieval times, from the controversial work known as the Alphabet of Ben Sirah, including a few of our own interjections:

When God created Adam, he was lonely, so God created Lilith from the same dust from which Adam was molded. But they quarrelled; Adam [the proverbial domineering male] wished to rule over Lilith. But Lilith [a militant feminist] was also proud and willful, claiming equality with Adam because she was created from the same dust. She left Adam and fled the Garden. God sent three angels in pursuit of Lilith. They caught her and ordered her to return to Adam. She refused, and said that she would henceforth weaken and kill little children, infants and babes. The angels overpowered her, and she promised that if the mother hung an amulet over the baby bearing the names of the three angels, she would stay away from that home. So they let her go, and God created Eve to be Adam’s mate [created from Adam’s rib, so that she couldn’t claim equality]. And ever since, Lilith flies around the world, howling her hatred of mankind through the night, and vowing vengeance because of the shabby treatment she had received from Adam. She is also called “The Howling One.”

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blogpost/23

(Many thanks to Seth Andrews for putting this fascinating article (below) together!)

Adam’s First Wife: The Story of Lilith

The Thinking Atheist    Oct 30, 2011 6:39 PM | Date Modified: Oct 31, 2011 10:01 AM

(Editor’s note:  In a recent podcast entitled “Woman, Be Silent,” the story of Lilith came up, prompting a litany of requests from our users for more information.  TTA guest blogger “Meg” has provided an in-depth look at this fascinating legend in this post.  Many thanks to her for the long hours of research on this one.  -Seth)

“God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

To the faithful of both Christianity and Judaism, from the earliest days of the Bible until quite recently in history, that verse referred to Adam’s first wife, but it wasn’t Eve. It was Lilith.

Lilith (1892) by John Collier in Southport Atkinson Art Gallery

Few Christians in the current age are versed with the story of Lilith despite her being a part of Christianity since its inception. However, even today, Christians (albeit unknowingly) reenact rituals meant to ward off Lilith. Among those who are familiar with the story of Lilith, there is a common belief that she was purposefully removed from scripture.

As we will later see, Lilith does appear in both older and contemporary versions of the Bible, the Jewish Torah, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. And we will examine the possibility that the omission of Lilith omission from the King James Version and other, more recent translations of the Bible might well have been intentional, rather than an error in translation. But for now, here’s an overview of the basic story:

According to the first chapter of Genesis, God created Lilith and Adam both at the same time. Adam felt he was superior to Lilith, and because of this, he insisted on always taking the top position during sexual intercourse. However, Lilith refused to consider herself anything besides equal to Adam. They were, after all, created as equals, and Lilith believed she should take the top position, too. Adam refused and told Lilith, “you are fit only to be in the bottom position.”

Lilith, realizing neither she nor Adam would willingly change their mind, spoke the secret name of YHWH. Transformed into a demon, Lilith flew away from the Garden, leaving Adam behind. And since she had gone without eating from The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Lilith would remain immortal.

Adam complained to God that Lilith had left him. God sent out three angels (Senoy, Sansenoy, and Semangelof) to return Lilith to Eden. And God told Adam that if Lilith refused to return, she would have to permit one hundred of her children to die every day.

The angels found Lilith in the midst of the Red Sea and informed her of what God had said. Lilith told them she would not return. The angels then threatened Lilith saying, “We will drown you in the sea!” Lilith cursed the angels and demanded they leave. However, Lilith agreed to spare the lives of children protected by amulets bearing the names or images of the three angels: Senoy, Sansenoy, and Semangelof.

God watched Adam in the Garden and said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” To avoid a repeat of the Lilith debacle, God decided this time to create a mate who was submissive. So God put Adam to sleep and removed one of his ribs, using it to create Eve. Upon meeting Eve, Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

At this point, myriad versions of the story begin to branch off. In some accounts, Lilith mates with the archangel Samael, further transforming her into a succubus. In others, Lilith is the evil serpent in the Garden, who tempts Eve into eating from The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil so that (unlike the immortal Lilith) Adam, Eve and their offspring could die.

Lilith Tempting Adam and Eve

 Through the Medieval Era and beyond, Lilith was held responsible for miscarriages and the deaths of sleeping infants. To protect babies, parents hung amulets bearing the images and names of the three angels around the child’s room or on a cord around the baby’s neck.

Lilith was also blamed for men ejaculating in their sleep, in the belief Lilith had tricked them into copulating to produce demon spawn, the succubi. To ward off Lilith and her succubi offspring, men slept with their hands crossed over their genitals and clasping a crucifix.

So how did Christians become familiar with the story of Lilith when all one finds of her in the Bible is a single direct mention? Well, there are numerous beliefs that people accept as part of Christianity that do not appear directly in scripture and are drawn instead by inference from particular verses.

You will not find a list of the Seven Deadly Sins in the Bible. The Bible doesn’t give the actual number of wise men (magi) who visited Jesus. There is no mention that there were three of them.   Those are just a couple of examples of many beliefs that do not appear directly in scripture but are based instead on verses from the Bible.

The Book of Genesis, which Christians rely on for the story of Creation, is found in a part of the Bible that Christians know as the Old Testament. Genesis is referred to as one of The Five Books of Moses, which also include Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, and are known to Jews as the Jewish Torah.

The traditional practice of drawing on inference from scripture, known as Midrash, has been employed since the earliest days of the Old Testament of the Bible. In the Bible, one finds there are parts missing from characters who are otherwise well known, as well as names mentioned apparently randomly in only a verse or two. In Rabbinical Midrash tradition, it is believed God does not simply toss a name out; he had some reason for including it. The purpose of Midrash, meaning “investigation,” is to connect the dots between those names and events in other parts of scripture and to resolve conflicting passages in Biblical texts. One such discrepancy arises at the very beginning of the Bible:

Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In this verse, God creates man and woman at the same time. However, in Genesis 2, we read that Adam is alone.

Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

So, after already having a mate created at the same time that he was, Adam is alone in Genesis 2. Then the Bible tells us that God made Adam’s wife from his rib. While Christians today apparently choose to ignore the discrepancy, it presented a distinct gap to Rabbinical scholars.

In what was said to be the home town of the Bible’s Abraham, 4,000-year-old stone tablets from the ancient Sumerian city of Ur tell the story of The Epic of Gilgamesh. In developing the Midrash to explain Lilith’s presence in the Bible, the Rabbinical authors returned to the original source for clues; the epic poem of Gilgamesh and the Huluppu-Tree, a creation story of the world that tells of a special garden with a magical tree, and a being who occupied the tree before going to live in the desert, Lilith.

While this is likely news to most Christians, from the time it was written, the originality of the Bible has been a point of contention. The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Old Testament accounts of Genesis by nearly 1,500 years.

Fortunately for its authors, the Bible was written long before the existence of copyright law. Those who wrote the Bible “borrowed” stories from far older religions and cultures. And the authors of the ancient Rabbinical Midrash regarding Lilith were aware of that fact, which is what led them to connect the Creation story to this verse of the Bible:

Isaiah 34:14 “Wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons shall call to each other; there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest.”

While Lilith is mentioned by name in the original version of the Garden of Eden in the Gilgamesh poem, in the Bible, she is mentioned by name in Isaiah, and as in the Gilgamesh poem, she is said to live in the desert.

Lilith got her name from the Babylonian lil?tu, desert-dwelling spirits whose breasts produce poison instead of milk. The lil?tu were considered a threat to the very young, the unborn, and their mothers. The related ardat lil? are promiscuous, sexually aggressive succubi to whom men were susceptible, exploited by the succubi to produce offspring.

In the Rabbinical Midrash, further connections are made between the Lilith mentioned in Isaiah 34:14 and Psalm 9:5-6:

Psalm 9:5 will not fear the terror of night… 9:6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness…

So, according to Rabbinical Midrash, Genesis 1 and 2, Isaiah 34, and Psalm 9 provide the canonical scripture behind the Lilith story.

Additional sources regarding Lilith include the Zohar, which is the foundational work of Jewish Mysticism known as Kabbalah, the Alphabet of Ben Sira, the Talmud, and the Dead Sea Scrolls:

 Zohar 3:19 “Come and see: There is a female, a spirit of all spirits, and her name is Lilith…”

 Zohar (19b) “She wanders about at night, vexing the sons of men and causing them to defile themselves…”

Ben Sira 23a-b “Adam and Lilith began to fight. She said, ‘I will not lie below,’ and he said, ‘I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while am to be in the superior one.’ Lilith responded, ‘We are equal to each other as we were both created from the earth.’”

The Talmud (Niddah 24b) Rab Judah citing Samuel ruled: If an abortion had the likeness of Lilith its mother is unclean by reason of the birth, for it is a child but it has wings.

 The Talmud (Shabbath 151b) R. Hanina said: One may not sleep in a house alone [in a lonely house], and whoever sleeps in a house alone is seized by Lilith.

Dead Sea Scrolls, Songs of Sage (4Q510-511) And I, the Instructor, proclaim His glorious splendour so as to frighten and to terrify all the spirits of the destroying angels, spirits of the bastards, demons, Lilith, howlers, and desert dwellers… and those which fall upon men without warning to lead them astray from a spirit of understanding and to make their heart and their […] desolate during the present dominion of wickedness and predetermined time of humiliations for the sons of light, by the guilt of the ages of those smitten by iniquity – not for eternal destruction, but for an era of humiliation for transgression.

We know where Lilith came from and why she is part of Abrahamic beliefs. So why did Lilith, arguably one of the most interesting characters of the Bible, vanish within relatively recent history from Bible translations and the practice of Christianity?

While in Old and Middle English the spelling of her Hebrew name varies among the texts, Lilith appears in one of the first English translations of the Bible, the Wycliffe Bible of 1395. And she is included in further English translations up to and including the Great Bible and the Taverner Bible, versions of the Bible which appeared in the midst of the Protestant split from the Catholic Church in the Reformation. 

Now this is where it gets interesting — the Geneva Bible from 1587.

King Henry VIII of England broke away from the Catholic Church while the Reformation was in full swing on the European continent. The Protestants, led in Germany by Martin Luther, had rejected the Catholic Church and were establishing their own version of the Christian faith.

However, following the deaths of Henry VIII and her younger brother, Edward VI, Henry’s daughter, Mary, inherited the throne becoming Queen Mary I. Mary was a devout Catholic and, through her restoration of Catholicism in England, became known among Protestants as “Bloody Mary” for the execution of Protestant leaders. To escape persecution, a number of Protestant scholars from both England and France fled to Geneva, in Switzerland. The group is known as the Marian (as in Mary) Exiles.

One of the scholars who landed in Switzerland was John Calvin, founder of the Protestant reform movement of Calvinism. He overtook the theological leadership of the Marian Exiles. Together, Protestant scholars decided to reform the Bible as they had the tenets of their faith. Part of their work is evidenced in the addition of numbers to the verses, the Geneva Bible representing the first time numbered verses were seen in an English language Bible. The Marian Exiles also followed the lead of Martin Luther in the removal of canonical books, which had been present in the Biblical texts since their original compilations, and relegated them instead to the Apocrypha.

Historically, in all former versions of the Bible, Isaiah 34:14 says “…there too Lilith shall repose, and find a place to rest.”

Then we get to the Geneva Bible produced by Calvin and his colleagues in exile, and Isaiah 34:14 reads, “and the shricheowle shall rest there, and shall finde for her selfe a quiet dwelling.”

 As I speak German, it struck me when reading the Geneva Bible version of Isaiah that Lilith’s name had been replaced by a Germanic term. In German, related words are combined to form a single word instead. The term “shricheowle” breaks down into the words “schrei” meaning scream, screech, etc. and the word “eule” meaning owl. In other words, Lilith had, without precedent, been replaced by a screech owl.

Responsible for translating the Old Testament of the Geneva Bible was a British scholar, Anthony Gilby. Gilby was a radical whose beliefs would later become known by the term Puritanism.

Gilby, although he studied in Germany and spoke German, does not typically use Germanic terms in his texts, yet he did so in Isaiah as a means of replacing Lilith’s name. And as it turns out, Gilby was a vocal critic of female monarchs such as Mary being in command of the country.

Anthony Gilby’s Admonition, 634: And doth not Esaie (Isaiah) reckon this also as the extremity of all plagues for the wickedness of the people, to have Women raised up to rule over you? But what saith the same Prophet, in the beginning of his prophesy, for a remedy against these and all other evils?

In demanding equality with Adam, Lilith was demonized in the most literal sense. However, even then and despite the threats issued by the patriarchal figures in the story, Lilith refused to be submissive. In light of her character, it hardly seems a coincidence that Gilby chose Isaiah, the only book where Lilith is mentioned in by name in the Bible, to use in his Admonition against powerful female monarchs, which he termed an evil and counted as a plague.

The evidence indicates Gilby knew exactly what he was doing when he replaced Lilith in the Bible. In the Gilgamesh poem, Lilith is said to live in a tree, and in her image carved onto stone tablets that predate the Bible, she appears pictured as a winged creature with talons, and she is flanked by two large owls.

The Geneva Bible was the Bible of people such as Shakespeare and Oliver Cromwell. Incidentally, screech owls are a species found only on the continents of the Americas, but are also mentioned by Shakespeare.

The screech-owl, screeching loud,
Puts the wretch that lies in woe
In remembrance of a shroud.
-William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Presumably, Europeans who came to the New World brought the name for the screech owl with them in Shakespeare’s work and their Bibles, as decades after the Geneva Bible when the King James Version of the Bible was published, Lilith had gone from shricheowle to screech owl:

KJV Isaiah 34:14 …the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.

The replacement of Lilith with the screech owl in the KJV secured Gilby’s removal of Lilith not only from the Bible, but eventually also from the traditional beliefs of Western Christianity. Though in the nighttime cries of Lilith’s American namesake, the screech owl, Lilith remains part of the same fearful superstitions that have plagued Christians since the inception of their faith. For the first European settlers in the strange, New World, hearing such cries echoing through the night must have been unnerving indeed.

—– END OF ARTICLE—

So.  How interesting that our imaginary Christian and Jewish deity originally intended women to be equal to men, and it was man’s dysfunction, his inability to co-exist with an equal, that brought about a modified, submissive version of woman.  How funny that the church selectively removes the strongest female character in the bible, and the evidence of what god’s original intent was–to create two equal human beings.

I have long suspected that the reason the church, or at least the big patriarchal religions, have sought to suppress women and control them, dominate them, keep them silent, keep them uneducated and from reading, was all about smothering in women their innate sense of strength and power, covering that up with brainwashing that the Almighty made them to be subservient, accepting their position as help mate, created to be at man’s beck and call.

In more ancient cultures deities were often female, and women were often accepted as leaders or revered healers.   After the human contrived teachings of these religions made by men who, just like Adam, wanted woman not as his equal but rather to lord over, now very few women have even heard of the story of Lilith, the very first woman who was proud and unashamed, strong, and indomitable. 

But perhaps she whispers in our ears.  Perhaps she is why more and more are shaking off this notion of Adam’s that women should be inferior–were made inferior.  Maybe more and more women are deciding to be daughters of Lilith, rather than daughters of Eve.  Lilith, being god’s first mistake, and also god’s first conception of how WOMAN should be.

Evolution. One thing does NOT turn into another!

This is in response to a few rather absurd notes i received in response to a prior blog.

Dogs will always be dogs no matter how much cross breeding or selective breeding humans put them through.

Very true.

Just like Epihippus who lived 47 million years ago was as much a horse as thoroughbreds racing around tracks today. 


Do we see Epihippus walking around?   No we do not.  Because the habitat changed and Epihippus changed.  Over time he got bigger, he got stronger teeth, more specialized at eating grass instead of leaves…his middle toe got stronger as he learned to walk on it more and eventually his other toes weren’t used as much…they grew weaker and one day horses just didn’t have any extra toes anymore–just the hard crusty nail (or chestnut) we can still find half-way up modern horses cannon bones today.

What some Creationists with blinders don’t get, and don’t want to get.  Humans did not come from apes.  We are simply of the same family as apes. Because there are still apes around today just as there are humans around today. Does one sibling become another? They are our siblings…our cousins. The most similar to us genetically. We are the same with them (primates) like lions and tigers are the same (felines). WE were never THEM. They never morphed into us.

I understood this concept even when I was a Christian…a child! Being a Christian should not excuse being ignorant. How difficult is this concept really???

Are there Epihippus still around today?  No, because between Epihippus and the modern day horse there was a series of horses adapting from a creature about the size of a fox to a creature approx 14 hands tall, or the size of a large modern day pony.  These later forms of horse replaced the earlier forms because the earlier forms died out–were not able to continue to live in their changing environment.  So today we see the horse, but we do not see the earlier forms of HORSE that were replaced.

This same thing happened with human beings.  Apes did not become humans.  Apes are still here and have been here for a very long time.  There were other species of primates (which humans are) that are not walking around now because they too adapted to their changing environment and changed and replaced the earlier versions no longer able to survive.  Our ancestors have long since disappeared from the earth, just as the apes ancestors have long since disappeared from the earth.  We are all primates however, so a very long time ago, apes and humans did have the same ancestor.  We are cousins to apes.  We are apes ourselves of a different kind, classified as great apes, actually.  but we are not gorillas like we see gorillas today.  We are not chimpanzees either.   We are human beings.  We have always been human beings and we will always be human beings.

I really wish Creationists would get it.

Another modern day example of evolution:   records–vinyl–45’s, etc….then 8 track tape players…then reel to reel players…then cassette players…then CD players…then DVD players…then digital.   Do we still see 8 track tape players around today?  Do we see very many cassette players around today?  Did these things suddenly turn into something else?  Or were they REPLACED by a newer better more adaptable technology?  This too is evolution in the modern world.  There are lots of examples of evolution at work all around us.  But where are there any examples of Creationism in the modern world?  There are none.

Copied from Wikipedia:

Epihippus

In the mid-Eocene, about 47 million years ago, Epihippus, a genus which continued the evolutionary trend of increasingly efficient grinding teeth, evolved from Orohippus. Epihippus had five grinding, low-crowned cheek teeth with well-formed crests. A late species of Epihippus, sometimes referred to as Duchesnehippus intermedius, had teeth similar to Oligocene equids, although slightly less developed. Whether Duchesnehippus was a subgenus of Epihippus or a distinct genus is disputed.[citation needed]

Mesohippus

In the late Eocene and the early stages of the Oligocene epoch (32–24 mya), the climate of North America became drier, and the earliest grasses began to evolve. The forests were yielding to flatlands,[citation needed] home to grasses and various kinds of brush. In a few areas, these plains were covered in sand,[citation needed] creating the type of environment resembling the present-day prairies.

In response to the changing environment, the then-living species of Equidae also began to change. In the late Eocene, they began developing tougher teeth and becoming slightly larger and leggier, allowing for faster running speeds in open areas, and thus for evading predators in nonwooded areas[citation needed]. About 40 mya, Mesohippus (“middle horse”) suddenly developed in response to strong new selective pressures to adapt, beginning with the species Mesohippus celer and soon followed by Mesohippus westoni.

In the early Oligocene, Mesohippus was one of the more widespread mammals in North America. It walked on three toes on each of its front and hind feet (the first and fifth toes remained, but were small and not used in walking). The third toe was stronger than the outer ones, and thus more weighted; the fourth front toe was diminished to a vestigial nub. Judging by its longer and slimmer limbs, Mesohippus was an agile animal.

Mesohippus was slightly larger than Epihippus, about 610 mm (24″) at the shoulder. Its back was less arched, and its face, snout, and neck were somewhat longer. It had significantly larger cerebral hemispheres, and had a small, shallow depression on its skull called a fossa, which in modern horses is quite detailed. The fossa serves as a useful marker for identifying an equine fossil’s species. Mesohippus had six grinding “cheek teeth”, with a single premolar in front—a trait all descendant Equidae would retain. Mesohippus also had the sharp tooth crests of Epihippus, improving its ability to grind down tough vegetation.

[edit] Miohippus

Around 36 million years ago, soon after the development of Mesohippus, Miohippus (“lesser horse”) emerged, the earliest species being Miohippus assiniboiensis. Like Mesohippus, Miohippus‘s evolution was relatively abrupt, though a few transitional fossils linking the two genera have been found. Mesohippus was once believed to have anagenetically evolved into Miohippus by a gradual series of progressions, but new evidence has shown its evolution was cladogenetic: a Miohippus population split off from the main Mesohippus genus, coexisted with Mesohippus for around four million years, and then over time came to replace Mesohippus.[16]

Miohippus was significantly larger than its predecessors, and its ankle joints had subtly changed. Its facial fossa was larger and deeper, and it also began to show a variable extra crest in its upper cheek teeth, a trait that became a characteristic feature of equine teeth.

Miohippus ushered in a major new period of diversification in Equidae.[14] While Mesohippus died out in the mid-Oligocene, Miohippus continued to thrive, and in the early Miocene (24–5.3 mya), it began to rapidly diversify and speciate. It branched out into two major groups, one of which adjusted to the life in forests once again, while the other remained suited to life on the prairies.[citation needed]

[edit] Miocene and Pliocene: true equines

[edit] Kalobatippus

The forest-suited form was Kalobatippus (or Miohippus intermedius, depending on whether it was a new genus or species), whose second and fourth front toes were long, well-suited travel on the soft forest floors. Kalobatippus probably gave rise to Anchitherium, which travelled to Asia via the Bering Strait land bridge, and from there to Europe.[17] In both North America and Eurasia, larger-bodied genera evolved from Anchitherium: Sinohippus in Eurasia and Hypohippus and Megahippus in North America.[18] Hypohippus became extinct by the late Miocene.[19]

[edit] Parahippus

The Miohippus population that remained on the steppes is believed to be ancestral to Parahippus, a North American animal about the size of a small pony, with a prolonged skull and a facial structure resembling the horses of today. Its third toe was stronger and larger, and carried the main weight of the body. Its four premolars resembled the molar teeth and the first were small and almost nonexistent. The incisive teeth of Parahippus, like those of its predecessors, had a crown as humans do; however, the top incisors had a trace of a shallow crease marking the beginning of the core/cup.

[edit] Merychippus

Merychippus, an effective grazer and runner

In the middle of the Miocene epoch, the grazer Merychippus flourished. It had wider molars than its predecessors, which are believed to have been used for crunching the hard grasses of the steppes. The hind legs, which were relatively short, had side toes equipped with small hooves, but they probably only touched the ground when running.[14] Merychippus radiated into at least 19 additional grassland species.

[edit] Hipparion

Protohippus simus

Three lineages within Equidae are believed to be descended from the numerous varieties of Merychippus: Hipparion, Protohippus and Pliohippus. The most different from Merychippus was Hipparion, mainly in the structure of tooth enamel: in comparison with other Equidae, the inside, or tongue side, had a completely isolated parapet. A complete and well-preserved skeleton of the North American Hipparion shows an animal the size of a small pony. They were very slim, rather like antelopes, and were adapted to life on dry prairies. On its slim legs, Hipparion had three toes equipped with small hooves, but the side toes did not touch the ground.

In North America, Hipparion and its relatives (Cormohipparion, Nannippus, Neohipparion, and Pseudhipparion), proliferated into many kinds of equids, at least one of which managed to migrate to Asia and Europe during the Miocene epoch.[20] (European Hipparion differs from American Hipparion in its smaller body size – the best-known discovery of these fossils was near Athens.)

[edit] Pliohippus

Pliohippus pernix

Pliohippus arose from Callippus in the middle Miocene, around 12 mya. It was very similar in appearance to Equus, though it had two long extra toes on both sides of the hoof, externally barely visible as callused stubs. The long and slim limbs of Pliohippus reveal a quick-footed steppe animal.

Until recently, Pliohippus was believed to be the ancestor of present-day horses because of its many anatomical similarities. However, though Pliohippus was clearly a close relative of Equus, its skull had deep facial fossae, whereas Equus had no fossae at all. Additionally, its teeth were strongly curved, unlike the very straight teeth of modern horses. Consequently, it is unlikely to be the ancestor of the modern horse; instead, it is a likely candidate for the ancestor of Astrohippus.[21]

[edit] Dinohippus

Dinohippus was the most common species of Equidae in North America during the late Pliocene. It was originally thought to be monodactyl, but a 1981 fossil find in Nebraska shows some were tridactyl.

[edit] Plesippus

Mounted skeleton of Hagerman horse (Equus simplicidens)

Plesippus is often considered an intermediate stage between Dinohippus and the extant genus, Equus.

The famous fossils found near Hagerman, Idaho were originally thought to be a part of the genus Plesippus. Hagerman Fossil Beds (Idaho) is a Pliocene site, dating to about 3.5 mya. The fossilized remains were originally called Plesippus shoshonensis, but further study by paleontologists determined the fossils represented the oldest remains of the genus Equus.[22] Their estimated average weight was 425 kg, roughly the size of an Arabian horse.

At the end of the Pliocene, the climate in North America began to cool significantly and most of the animals were forced to move south. One population of Plesippus moved across the Bering land bridge into Eurasia around 2.5 mya.[23]

[edit] Modern horses

[edit] Equus

Skull of a giant extinct horse of the genus Equus, E. eisenmannae

The genus Equus, which includes all extant equines, is believed to have evolved from Dinohippus, via the intermediate form Plesippus. One of the oldest species is Equus simplicidens, described as zebra-like with a donkey-shaped head. The oldest material to date is ~3.5 million years old from Idaho, USA. The genus appears to have spread quickly into the Old World, with the similarly aged Equus livenzovensis documented from western Europe and Russia.[24]

Molecular phylogenies indicate the most recent common ancestor of all modern equids (members of the genus Equus) lived ~5.6 (3.9-7.8) mya. The oldest divergencies are the Asian hemiones (subgenus E. (Asinus)), including the kulan, onager, and kiang), followed by the African zebras (subgenera E. (Dolichohippus), and E. (Hippotigris)). All other modern forms including the domesticated horse (and many fossil Pliocene and Pleistocene forms) belong to the subgenus E. (Equus) which diverged ~4.8 (3.2-6.5) million years ago.[25]

Pleistocene horse fossils have been assigned to a multitude of species, with over 50 species of equines described from the Pleistocene of North America alone, although the taxonomic validity of most of these has been called into question.[26] Recent genetic work on fossils has found evidence for only three genetically divergent equid lineages in Pleistocene North and South America.[25] These results suggest all North American fossils of caballine-type horses (which also include the domesticated horse and Przewalski’s horse of Europe and Asia), as well as South American fossils traditionally placed in the subgenus E. (Amerhippus)[27] belong to the same species: E. ferus. Remains attributed to a variety of species and lumped as New World stilt-legged horses (including E. francisci, E. tau, E. quinni and potentially North American Pleistocene fossils previously attributed to E. cf. hemiones, and E. (Asinus) cf. kiang) likely all belong to a second species endemic to North America, which despite a superficial resemblance to species in the subgenus E. (Asinus) (and hence occasionally referred to as North American ass) is closely related to E. ferus.[25] Surprisingly, the third species, endemic to South America, and traditionally referred to as Hippidion, originally believed to be descended from Pliohippus, was shown to be a third species in the genus Equus, closely related to the New World stilt-legged horse.[25] The temporal and regional variation in body size and morphological features within each lineage indicates extraordinary intraspecific plasticity. Such environment-driven adaptative changes would explain why the taxonomic diversity of Pleistocene equids has been overestimated on morphoanatomical grounds.[27]

According to these results, it appears the genus Equus evolved from a Dinohippus-like ancestor ~4-7 mya. It rapidly spread into the Old World and there diversified into the various species of asses and zebras. A North American lineage of the subgenus E. (Equus) evolved into the New World stilt-legged horse (NWSLH). Subsequently, populations of this species entered South America as part of the Great American Interchange shortly after the formation of the Isthmus of Panama, and evolved into the form currently referred to as “Hippidion” ~2.5 million years ago. Hippidion is thus unrelated to the morphologically similar Pliohippus, which presumably went extinct during the Miocene. Both the NWSLH and Hippidium show adaptations to dry, barren ground, whereas the shortened legs of Hippidion may have been a response to sloped terrain.[27] In contrast, the geographic origin of the closely related modern E. ferus is not resolved. However, genetic results on extant and fossil material of Pleistocene age indicate two clades, potentially subspecies, one of which had a holarctic distribution spanning from Europe through Asia and across North America and would become the founding stock of the modern domesticated horse.[28][29] The other population appears to have been restricted to North America. One or more North American populations of E. ferus entered South America ~1.0-1.5 million years ago, leading to the forms currently known as “E. (Amerhippus)“, which represent an extinct geographic variant or race of E. ferus, however.

[edit] Pleistocene extinctions

Digs in western Canada have unearthed clear evidence horses existed in North America until about 12,000 years ago.[30] However, all Equidae in North America ultimately became extinct. The causes of this extinction (simultaneous with the extinctions of a variety of other American megafauna) have been a matter of debate. Given the suddenness of the event and because these mammals had been flourishing for millions of years previously, something quite unusual must have happened. The first main hypothesis attributes extinction to climate change. For example, in Alaska, beginning approximately 12,500 years ago, the grasses characteristic of a steppe ecosystem gave way to shrub tundra, which was covered with unpalatable plants.[31][32] The other hypothesis suggests extinction was linked to overexploitation of naive prey by newly arrived humans. The extinctions were roughly simultaneous with the end of the most recent glacial advance and the appearance of the big game-hunting Clovis culture.[33][34] Several studies have indicated humans probably arrived in Alaska at the same time or shortly before the local extinction of horses.[34][35][36] Additionally, it has been proposed that the steppe-tundra vegetation transition in Beringia may have been a consequence, rather than a cause, of the extinction of megafaunal grazers.[37]

In Eurasia, horse fossils began occurring frequently again in archaeological sites in Kazakhstan and the southern Ukraine about 6,000 years ago.[28] From then on, domesticated horses, as well as the knowledge of capturing, taming, and rearing horses, probably spread relatively quickly, with wild mares from several wild populations being incorporated en route.[29]

[edit] Return to the Americas

Horses only returned to the Americas with Christopher Columbus in 1493. These were Iberian horses first brought to Hispaniola and later to Panama, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Argentina, and, in 1538, Florida.[38] The first horses to return to the main continent were 16 specifically identified horses brought by Hernan Cortes. Subsequent explorers, such as Coronado and De Soto brought ever-larger numbers, some from Spain and other from breeding establishments set up by the Spanish in the Caribbean. Later, as Spanish missions were founded on the mainland, horses would eventually be lost or stolen, and proliferated into large herds of feral horses that became known as mustangs.[citation needed]

The indigenous peoples of the Americas did not have a specific word for horses, and came to refer to them in various languages as a type of dog or deer (in one case, “elk-dog”).[citation needed]

[edit] Details

[edit] Toes

The ancestors of the horse came to walk only on the end of the third toe and both side toes. Skeletal remnants show obvious wear on the back of both sides of metacarpal and metatarsal bones, commonly called the “splint bones”. They are the remnants of the second and the fourth toe. Modern horses retain the splint bones; they are often believed to be useless attachments, but they in fact play an important role in supporting the carpal joints (front knees) and even the tarsal joints (hocks).

[edit] Teeth

Throughout the phylogenetic development, the teeth of the horse underwent significant changes. The type of the original omnivorous teeth with short, “bumpy” molars, with which the prime members of the evolutionary line distinguished themselves, gradually changed into the teeth common to herbivorous mammals. They became long (as much as 100 mm), roughly cubical molars equipped with flat grinding surfaces. In conjunction with the teeth, during the horse’s evolution, the elongation of the facial part of the skull is apparent, and can also be observed in the backward-set eyeholes. In addition, the relatively short neck of the equine ancestors became longer, with equal elongation of the legs. Finally, the size of the body grew as well.

Original Sin

Many Christians no longer believe, or do not take as literally, the story in the book of Genesis of Adam & Eve and the first sin, the original sin that caused human kind to lose favor in God’s eyes.  And yet without this story the whole foundation of Christianity and the necessity of having Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior would crumble and fall.

I once had a woman I loved and respected say something that totally threw me, back when I was a Christian. I was trying to tell her about the point of accepting Jesus into her heart, that only by doing this would her sins be forgiven.  Evelyn said back to me “I’ve never sinned.”

It wasn’t until I became an atheist that I was able to grasp what she meant.  “Sin,” is a religious concept.  A notion that was invented to make religion and saviors necessary, and us dependent on them in order to get right again with a super-being in the sky so we can go to heaven. 

Before the invention of sin it was called something else–right and wrong.  You did things that infringed upon the rights of others, most of the time those things were wrong and your actions were frowned upon.   Negative consequences usually happened if you were caught.   You were punished, shunned, imprisoned, isolated, beaten, or killed.  Then laws were invented as a guide to help us know what was right and what was wrong, though to most of us these things were obvious.  Most people know it when they’re doing something wrong.   Do something wrong and there are consequences, even if just the guilty feeling we get inside when we know we’ve hurt or wronged someone.. So we might go to that person and ask their forgiveness, to help ourselves feel better.  Or do something extra nice to someone as a way to make things right.

With the invention of sin, however, came the notion that we are punished further even beyond our deaths (mixing fear of the unknown with a natural process like death and turning it into something to live in terror of) for whatever wrongful actions we commit during our life–and, that we are born already guilty of something.  The sins not only of our parents but their parents and their parents and their parents, all the way back to Adam and Eve.

But here’s the rub.  Isn’t God supposed to forgive sins?  When we ask him to forgive us, doesn’t that wipe the slate clean?   So then, if my parents were sinners and repented and asked for forgiveness, why am I then born into sin (according to Christianity), carrying the burden of my parent’s sins?  Or for that matter, if Adam and Eve, after receiving their terrible punishment, repented before their deaths and asked for forgiveness, by the burning of say, an ox and sacrifice of 1000 bushels of their best crops, why weren’t they forgiven if God forgives sins?   Why did we all have to inherit their sin?  Or even if they didn’t repent, if their children or grandchildren or great grandchildren repented and asked for forgiveness, why then did we still nevertheless, inherit these sins that were supposedly forgiven, all the way back to Adam and Eve?

Or ok, let’s just say no one was forgiven of their sins until after Jesus came along.  Well then, if that’s the case, then the slate was wiped clean–that old sin committed by Adam and Eve, the moment the first ancestor of mine asked for forgiveness after accepting the Lord.  That means I did not inherit that original sin.  And if my parents before me asked for forgiveness before I was born, I did not inherit any sins from them either.  I was born sinless.  A pure and innocent creature and what nature made me to be.  Either that or really God does not forgive, and each new generation has to ask again for those same old sins to be forgiven, in addition to any new ones they commit.

Why would any just or fair or loving God punish me for the sins committed by, say, my grandfather?  Does that sound fair?  Or why would any loving God punish me for the sins of the first man and woman, which, hey, I didn’t have any control of what they did so why should I be born carrying any blame for what they did?

I cannot respect a God who would put blame on people’s heads for sins their parents or grandparents or great great great great grandparents committed. 

Is it fair, for example, when black Americans hate white Americans just because our not- so-distant white ancestors believed that slavery was ordained by God (because the bible says so) and were using that as justification for putting shackles on their people, their ancestors taken against their will from Africa?  I didn’t and don’t own anyone.  I don’t approve of or agree with slavery.  I find the whole idea of one race thinking itself superior to another reprehensible.  Yet, still some black people might not like me or feel comfortable around me because of a way of thinking accepted by society back from my great-grandfather’s generation.  How is this fair to me? And how is it any more fair if the one blaming me for something I didn’t do and would never wish to do–is a perfect and “loving” God?  I don’t think it’s any more fair.  That’s not my definition of what fairness is.

This is why I don’t agree with the notion of original sin, or the notion of sin at all.  I think we are responsible only for the actions we ourselves make during our lives, and depending on what actions we decide to do, be they right or wrong, determines what consequences we must face.  During this life, which I believe is all there is.

I also think that if there is a God, and we are his creation, why is it that he holds no responsibility for making flawed creations?  Obviously Lucifer was flawed because he fell, and became Satan.  We were made flawed because Satan was able to tempt us, implying we were made with some weakness in our character.  A weakness that God had to have known about while he created us, and before he put us in the garden knowing perfectly well his “enemy” was hiding there.

If you build a boat deliberately with a hole in it, put it on a lake, leave it alone for awhile and then come back to find it had sunk, would you be disappointed and sad and angry with the boat?   Would you yell and scream and curse the boat for sinking?   Punish it?  Break it into pieces and burn them?  So why does it make sense for God to punish his creation for the very flaws he, our creator, gave us?