Facts About Our Existence

These Denisovans somehow reached islands in the Pacific where the people there have their DNA to this date.

A check of DNA in Northern Europeans had found that many have one to three percent of Neanderthal genes (again, see the above article on First Peoples by National Geographic).

However, the age of someone who passed on genes has taken a sharp turn. The First Peoples segment mentioned above tells of geneticists testing people of the West Coast of Africa, and finding that genes recovered from an ancient person are still carried by present day people. The old tracing of the age of modern people has been moved back to about three hundred thousand years.

* * * *

Fundamentalists keep on insisting that the earth is only ten thousand or so years, and the Universe also. They have, in the past, ridiculed the descent of humans, and saying "Where is the proof, show us the missing link."

I'm not sure if they are still asking that for "...in 2004, a transitional form between fish and amphibians..." was discovered by Neil Shubin (associate dean of biological sciences, U. of Chicago, Your Inner Fish, Pantheon Books, 2008).

This find is definitive proof that a fish crawled out of the sea. Fish normally have no neck; this fish, dubbed Tiktaalik roseae, had a neck. Check it out on the Internet, or read his very readable book.

The Bible

Talking about the bible, from verses 11 through 13, it tells us that on the third day the earth brought forth grass and herb yielding seed, and the tree yielding its fruit. These require sunlight and water. Supposedly water was available, but not sunlight.

From verses 14 through 19, we are told that god created the sun, moon, and stars, and this was a day later; the fourth day.

That in and of itself proves that the writers of the Old Testament knew nothing about the processes that govern the Universe, and those writers had to be men and not any god for a god would have known the process he is supposed to have established for the operation of the Universe and all things living in it.

* * * *

Bethlehem

Until recently, I didn't know that there is another town called Bethlehem, and this Bethlehem is located in Galilee whereas the one from the bible is located far to the South below Jerusalem. I rather doubt that many preachers know of this, but if they do, they don't speak of it. None of the preachers I had heard spoke of it, nor did any that I had heard of either.

A book, Rabbi Jesus (by Bruce Chilton, page 8) speaks of this Bethlehem. An NPR article of December 25, 2012, also describes this Bethlehem of Galilee. Archeologist, Aviram Oshri, with the Israel Antiquities Authority which excavated there says that he believes that this is the Bethlehem of Jesus' birth.

Readers of my other essays will recall that the Gospel According to Matthew was not written by Matthew himself, it just said that it was "According" to him.

Oshri says that the Bethlehem of Galilee "...was inhabited by Jews...because of remnants found there and used only by Jews and only in the period of Jesus."

Oshri also says that it had become Christian, and that "...there is significant evidence that in early Christianity this Bethlehem was celebrated as the birthplace of Christ." Also, he says that "The emperor Justinian boasted of building a fortification wall around the village to protect it. The ruins of that wall...still circle parts of the Galilee village today."

As further proof, he also adds "It makes much more sense that Mary rode on a donkey, while she was at the end of the pregnancy, from Nazareth to Bethlehem of Galilee which is only7 kilometers rather than the other Bethlehem which is 150 kilometers." (Italics mine)

The article says that "He adds there is evidence the other Bethlehem in the West Bank, or what Israelis call Judea, was not even inhabited in the first century." It also tells of "Paula Fredriksen, an American Scholar of the historical Jesus, who says that early Christianity only started to pay attention to the Judean Bethlehem in the fourth century, when the Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire."

The prophet Micah was said to pronounce that Bethlehem of Judea was where the "ruler in Israel" would be from, the popular preaching now says, be our savior.

This is interesting because of the connection to Jesus, the one that modern Christianity says is where Jesus will be born. But is it? Let's see what the Catholic Bible that had a fit of honesty has to say:

"The book of Micah shows signs of being extensively edited and revised to keep the prophet's message relevant during changing times. This is particularly true in chapters 4 and 5", chapter 5, verse 2 being the principal verse being quoted in our time as referring to Jesus' coming. Micah is said to have prophesied about the time of the kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, or before the Babylonian exile.

Edited indeed! Worse, the false use of this in our day to indicate Jesus being born in Bethlehem of Judea, and more, being the Christ, or rather, the anointed warrior/priest, has to be untrue. It also further vindicates that there was no census that the gospel of Matthew claims to have been the reason for Joseph to go to Bethlehem of Judea (see my previous essay).

Why, though, might Joseph have been going to Bethlehem of Galilee? Chilton gives a good reason. It may have been to keep the villagers from whispering about Jesus being a Mamzer, that is, a bastard child, and save Mary from the gossiping tongues.

Will we ever know the truth of any of this? I doubt it for there is very little truth in the bible—if this statement is shocking to any reading my work for the first time, then please read my other essays which shows the many errors in the bible.

Now let's look at another popularly expressed mistakes by preachers.

The oft heard quote from Isaiah, chapter 14, verse 12, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" was always used as referring to the devil as a fallen angel from his once high place. It is false!

That passage refers to Nebuchadnezzar. Read the chapter and see what it refers too. In fact, read from chapter 13. It must have been very convenient to say that this referred to an angel who became the devil.

Yes, the bible has places where the church initially found certain passages convenient to take out of context. Of course, as I've said before, they never expected anyone to be able to read, and naturally, there were no bibles to read anyway.

Other oddities

Steve Crecelius, now called Stevie, is an original transgender post op—or is she? Actually, she was born intersex.

If you look her up on the Internet, you'll find several articles about how she came about, including major TV stations that ran the story. Stevie used to be Steve, married, and had a wife and children. One day, on a visit to a doctor, it was discovered that Steve was a woman though born with a penis, obviously.

Okay, look it up, then ask yourself if any god could have made a mistake like that? In fact, there was no mistake—it just wasn't what is usually expected.

There must be other unusual happenings, but are they hidden due to culture? Maybe Caitlin (the former Bruce Jenner, the star Olympic Decathlon champion) is changing how we view these differences in our makeup.

Much has to do with religion, and the lies they have given us. The Catholic Church went hog wild and pig crazy with the power that Constantine gave to them, but it was just as they wished it to be. The early on popes tried to give to their position of bishop of Rome primacy well before it was literally handed to them by Constantine. That was all they needed—that and a push from him to have just one faith and do away with all of those crazy ideas about the person of Jesus. There were just too many for him, and that suited the Catholic Church.

In no time they had ordered the death of those who were considered heretics, or, anyone who had ideas that they didn't approve of. Now the fundamentalists of the various churches are locked in a battle with anyone who doesn't believe in their so-called inerrant bible. E ver since then, that has been the way of it—at least until the present enlightened time—but are we enlightened enough?

The split from the Catholic Church by Martin Luther posed a serious problem to the Catholic Church. Normally, they would have gone in and wiped them out, but the German prince protected Luther, and the people had sided with him, tired of the church selling "indulgences", or "get out of hell cards and forgiveness of sins", for a princely sum, of course. This was Luther's principal complaint against the Catholic Church.

I say "principal" because there were many other things he should have, could have, complained about, the main one being the absolute belief in the bible as the inerrant word of god. If any check the King James version of the bible, they will find that every book there is pretty much the same as in the Catholic version. Every book in the KJV is in the Catholic version though some words are changed. They still bought, unquestioned, the whole of the Catholic faith. They still hold mass, and one can get a confession from a Lutheran priest.

In fact, the English Anglican Church uses the King James bible, of course, since that king was English (Luther did have the bible translated into the language of his people, but again, every book in it is in the Catholic bible).

The bible, though, is fraught with errors, contradictions, and outright mistakes (check out the chronology of Persian kings in the book of Daniel). I, personally, have found, and published here on Literotica, many of those errors in my previous essays. Please check them out as I give the proofs, usually right out of the bible itself.

* * * *

This essay has been wide-ranging, and hopefully some of what I have said is of interest to you, the reader.

Initially I meant for my essays and stories to be geared to help lesbians who have been made to feel guilt, shame, and yes, humiliation by preachers who do their best to intimidate them from their pulpits. Some of those preachers have even advocated death for homosexuality. They do so blinded by their belief, but dare not check out my proofs with regard to their bible being false and full of errors.

The lack of questioning what the Catholic Church taught is something we are paying the price for. Those teachings in general and in their specifics became the teachings that the Protestant churches would continue, and with a fervent passion. Though the Catholic Church enacted burnings at the stake, at times, en mass as with the Cathars, and by the sword as with the crusades, the murderous crimes continued with each side burning heretics. Who was a heretic then? It depended in which territory you were in.

Protestants burned Catholics, and they burned other Protestants: Calvin was a huge fan of doing away with those who didn't believe as he did, and Zwingli, who like Calvin and Luther, took every word of the bible as being god's word. The Catholic Church was similar though they slowly changed with the prevailing wind (as they are doing in our day), but the winds didn't blow as they do now.

The Catholic Church had a step up on the others. The others had the basic teachings etched in their minds, while the Catholic Church did the etching of everyone. All of those churches sat at the knee of their mother who, for over one thousand years, taught them that the bible was god's word. The children finally rebelled over a few items, but never questioned the bible. They should have. But they've all survived, and they are all wrong. The bible isn't any god's word. Had they looked, they'd have seen it.

The Catholic Church still doesn't want anyone to read the bible, but to only have faith in the beliefs of the Mother church, while the Protestants, and now also the independents, play at having the bible read and known via their Sunday School teachings—just don't question their Sunday School interpretations of what they would have you read.

The Catholic Church would have you to attend mass, confess your sins the day before mass (or in the morning of the mass), do your penance and take communion. That's their teaching. Believe, and that's it. Oh, and worship their Virgin and obey your bishop and priest.

It has gotten them by to the point that what they got away with in the 1600s, they perfected in our day—until an enlightened few called them on it. Still, it took time, for the Catholic Church were masters of hiding pedophile priests as they did back in the 1600s. See Karen Liebreich's expose in her book, Fallen Order (Grove Press, 2004).

The Protestant and Independent churches have their Sunday School lessons, but they are carefully orchestrated to teach what they believe, but not necessarily what the bible really says, and definitely not all that it says. They have moved away from the basic way of believing that the Catholic Church teaches, but like the Catholic Church, they have never really looked at all of the mistakes that are in the bible to this day.

The question of whether or not there will only be a few enlightened people about the church's lies, or whether many more will bother to look at the truth of the lies will dictate whether the churches retain their power over the mass culture of our society. Make no mistake, the Fundamentalists and the Catholic Church will continue to fight tooth and nail to keep their false beliefs ruling our society. They do wish to keep their control over us and to keep reason out of our being.

Even their new pope who famously said "Who am I to say" with regard to homosexuality, later backed away from it. He vacillates, tries to have it both ways. He's testing the winds, but those winds from within his church are very powerful.

Fundamentalists, as well as the Catholic Church, will not give up their opposition to same-sex marriage, nor keeping us blinded to the other horrible teachings of the Old Testament such as death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (which ever Sabbath they believe in). I cannot believe that educated men can be so blind that they, in this day and age, cannot see the errors of their bible, but apparently that is how it is—or they are so power hungry that they willfully deceive their flock.

The battle for supremacy of what life is, and why it is, centers on the bible in the Western world, and whatever scientists find out for a fact. Fundamentalists have their theories of how it all came into being. Of late, they began with what they called the Creation Science, a theory that the bible is accurate in all respects, and in every way, and is error free. They have built a pseudo-science around it, some even purporting that dinosaurs lived alongside humans, this to refute the proof that dinosaurs lived at one time in the long ago past. They've even gone to the extreme of building a park more than suggesting that children played alongside of such as T-Rexs, and other dinosaurs. They haven't as yet put dinosaurs into Noah's ark though. Give them time.

They'd not done that in the past, but the evidence of the existence of dinosaurs became too great, so they try to conflate—mix up—what's in the bible and what's known fact.

Then they trot out a so-called science wherein they question ad nauseam, all of the new scientific facts trying to say that science today is not science at all, or at best, simply attempts at science. In this latter, they are mildly correct, for science is often theory born of logical hypotheses, that are then testable, and when tested and proven to be so, then they are called facts.

The problem is that they make no allowances for testing the bible, for the bible is what they hang their collective hats on . They do not provide any logical testing of the bible...

Not even a comparison of their scripture with other so-called scriptures!

The test, if one is needed, should be: Is the bible accurate, correct in every way as any god or Goddess, or Creator would surely know it to be accurate.

But you, readers, can do your own testing of the accuracy of the bible, and if the bible seems too daunting to you (as they, the Creationists and Intelligent Designers all fall back on), then use my essays to help you break it down bit-by-bit, and judge for yourself (something else they don't want you to be doing).

No, they don't look at the bible the way that they purport to look at science. Their bible is unchanging, and should be easy to test, once one gets past the sheer volume of its stories that are so full of holes.

The culture of religious lies has become a global Zeitgeist that only knowing the truth of the lies can cure. It has pervaded us in such a way as to give the greedy more places to hide. Now greed will always be with us, but we can lessen it by removing the religious cloak that they often hide behind, the religious cloak that they also use to bring about hatred of those that they say are an abomination in the sight of their made up god.

Whether there truly is a God or Goddess ruling our Universe, none can say , but if there is such a god or Goddess, it's not the one in the bible.

The debate needs to be changed. We do not say to accept science without knowledge of the veracity of it—it does change as new facts are found—but we do say that if science is to be questioned, so is the bible, and more, it, the bible, should be compared for its own veracity.

Do the Fundamentalists dare to refute the proofs in my essays? I don't think so, not unless they completely rewrite their bible (which in the past, they've tried to do piece-meal).

* * * *

I hope that this far ranging, and admittedly sparse bit of information, will help those who wish to know the truth of the lies of the Fundamentalists of all stripes. For a greater knowing of the truth of the lies, please read my previous essays. Following the facts that are coming to light, and keeping to that path of knowledge is the way of enlightenment.

By the way, none of this, my essays or stories, would have been necessary, but for the ongoing war being waged by the Fundamentalists in their war against homosexuality and same-sex marriage..

But for the rest of us, follow the facts, and don't let anyone allow you to deviate from them, and learn the truth of the lies.

Peace to all, even the Fundies.

w