Genesis 3 - Damn You Fruit-Eating Sinners!

Shit hits the fan today, and god is pissed.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made"

So why make it?  If this animal is going to cause an eternity of sin, with the need for redemption, stop at lizards . . . . no need for snakes, god.  Maybe he didn't see it coming, being omniscient and all.

 "
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You^[a] shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” ² And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, ³ but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” ⁴ But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. ⁵ For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” ⁶ So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,^[b] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. ⁷ Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths."

There are several interesting things in this passage, aside from a talking snake:

1.  We see Eve telling the talking snake that god told her that if she ate the fruit from the forbidden tree, she would die.  The snake says, 'no, you won't die, you will gain knowledge and be like god, knowing good and evil'.  This actually turns out to be true.  In the Catholic tradition, at least, the snake is seen as the devil incarnate.  So in this passage, we see god lying to Eve and the devil telling the truth.  

2.  We see the first instance of this religious tradition shitting on women.  Eve caused the downfall of Adam, and they both caused the utter need for redemption for the rest of humanity.  Way to go women; generations of being a second-class human await you.

3. I've often heard it said that this passage is indicative that god allowed man to have free will.  Adam and Eve could have listened to god and not eaten the fruit, or they could disobey god as they did.  I have to question that analysis.  Is it truly a free choice by Eve, not knowing the difference between good (obeying) and evil (disobeying), when she wasn't already possessed of the faculties to make such a judgment?  Do you blame a toddler for getting into the flour and making a mess?  I see very little difference here.

4.  This snake is just hanging about in the garden, messing things up.  God, being omniscient and omnipresent, MUST have known that the snake was there, and that the snake had a plan to screw with god's perfect creation.  In order to conclude otherwise, you would have to agree that god is not omniscient.  Why didn't god stop the snake?

"⁸ And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool^[c] of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. ⁹ But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”^{[d] 10} And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” ¹¹ He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” ¹² The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” ¹³ Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”"

Here again we clearly see that god has no idea what the hell just happened in the garden of Eden - the one place in existence.  What the hell was he doing?  On a coffee break again?

Both Adam and god blame Eve for what has transpired.  Oh, women, your generations will pay for this.

"¹⁴ The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
    cursed are you above all livestock
    and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
    and dust you shall eat
    all the days of your life.
¹⁵ I will put enmity between you and the woman,
    and between your offspring^[e] and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
    and you shall bruise his heel.”"

Damn you, snake!  Where did you come from?  Oh wait . . . I made you.  Nevermind.

"¹⁶ To the woman he said,

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
    in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for^[f] your husband,
    and he shall rule over you.”"

Humans are not the only creature that experiences pain during birth.  Did god curse the rest of the animals on earth to also experience this pain?  And . . . . .god now just made women the second-class human that they've suffered since.  What a loving guy.

"¹⁷ And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
    and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
    ‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
    in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
¹⁸ thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
    and you shall eat the plants of the field.
¹⁹ By the sweat of your face
    you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
    for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
    and to dust you shall return.”"

Isn't that interesting?  God is referring to agriculture, and the baking of bread.  Seems to me that agriculture actually came along quite late in human development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture), and was quite popular around the time the bible was written . . . . interesting indeed.

I want to note at this stage that there are extremely (nearly verbatim) stories about man gaining knowledge of good and evil in the Sumerian texts.  I've decided not to delve further into the Sumerian texts on this blog, simply because it is not necessary to make the points I want to make, and requires a boatload of research before I can write a post.  Suffice it to say that there was a garden, a tree, a fruit, and a pissed off overlord when man gained knowledge.

"²⁰ The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.^{[g] 21} And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

²² Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” ²³ therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. ²⁴ He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life."

"Behold, the man has become like one of us . . . ". Alright monotheists,  how do you survive this?  This is the second time in three chapters of your bible where god has referred to 'god' in the plural.

God is also worried in this passage that Adam will eat of the tree of life and become immortal, like him. Sumerian text . . . blah blah blah . . . .

And there you have it folks.  A couple people disobeyed an apparently non-omniscient god and everyone, including you, that came after these two fruit-eating jokers are damned to hell unless saved through Jesus - who I might mention in passing came much, much later.  That makes a lot of sense to me . . . .

Stay tuned for murder and incest.

Genesis 2 - Creation 2.0

The second chapter of Genesis is basically just another version of the creation story.  The traditional teaching in, at least, the catholic faith, blends these two stories together.  Catholics are typically taught all of the creation happenings of the days set out in Genesis 1, with the exception of the creation of man and woman, which are typically taken from Genesis 2.

Let's roll . . . .

"2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. ² And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. ³ So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation."

Yep, we saw that coming from our last blog entry.  No surprise here.  God needed a break.

"These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

Nothing controversial here.  It seems to simply be an introductory statement as to what the reader can expect from this chapter.

"⁵ When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, ⁶ and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— ⁷ then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature."

Here we see we are back to square one.  The beginning of Genesis 2 is describing creation not from the end of chapter 1, but from the very beginning (i.e. "when no bush of the field was yet int the land . . .").  God creates Adam from clay.  It should be noted here that the Sumerian creation myth involves the gods creating man from clay (http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm) ("In the clay, god and Man shall be bound").

 "⁸ And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. ⁹ And out of the ground the Lord God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Ah, the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Stay tuned on this one because it becomes important to the plot when we get to it in a later blog post!

"
¹⁰ A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. ¹¹ The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. ¹² And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. ¹³ The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. ¹⁴ And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates."

This is an attempt to geographically place the garden of eden on earth.  The passage is very descriptive of the rivers, minerals etc.  This places the garden of eden somewhere around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.  The problem is that the description given later in Ezekial places the garden of eden in Lebanon.  Which is to be believed?  It should also be noted that the location given is arguably the same we see in the Sumerian creation myths, which are most assuredly written before the first known bible.  Did I mention that location just also happens to be the birth place of the Sumerian society?  In the Sumerian text, the equivalent to the garden of eden is called "Dilmun", which scholars place in modern day Bahrain.

^"15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. ¹⁶ And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, ¹⁷ but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”"

The parallels between this passage (and the fruit theme in general) and the Sumerian text are astonishing.  In the bible passage it is a single fruit that must not be eaten.  In the Sumerian text, there are eight fruits, and also the opportunity for the first man to gain 'knowledge' through other means (let's leave this for the time being and revisit it during our analysis of the coming chapters).

Before we leave this passage, however, we need to look at one other oddity.  The first sentence of the passage states that god placed Adam in the garden to tend and keep it.  Later, we will see that god feels bad that Adam has to do all the work himself, and thus creates Eve.  But why was the focus of placing Adam in the garden to 'work and keep it'?  Why not just let him relax in paradise?  This again goes back to the Sumerian text.  In the Sumerian text, mankind was created as a labour force, designed to do the gods' bidding (i.e. manual labour).  The Sumerian texts describe a number of creations of man that failed - various deformities and faults are described.  Finally, a being of just enough strength and intelligence was made.

"I will produce a lowly Primitive;
"Man" shall be his name.
I will create a Primitive Worker;
He will be charged with the service of the gods,
that they might have their ease."


 Recall this passage from the Genesis 2, 5: "and there was no man to work the ground".

These oddities make sense when they are placed back with the original story -  the gods (recall from Genesis 1 that there other gods) made man to do manual labour.

"¹⁸ Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” ¹⁹ Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. ²⁰ The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. ²¹ So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. ²² And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. ²³ Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
    because she was taken out of Man.”^"

Not a companion, but a helper?  Interesting.

Why a rib?  This is one question to which christian scholars have never had a good answer.  Why?  Well, they would have to admit that their divinely inspired book was simply a rehashing of polytheistic mythology.  In order to answer 'why a rib?' we have to look again at the Sumerian texts.

The Sumerian texts describe a story where the god Enki brings water to Dilmun (the garden of eden parallel) (recall this passage from Genesis 2,5: "When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land") .  After this, the trees and plants are able to grow.  

The goddess Nihursag enters the garden and creates eight different plants.  Enki decides to try the fruits from these plants, all eight of them.  So he eats them.  Nihursag is furious with him and decides to curse him.  Enki then becomes ill in eight different body parts.  Enki is dying, but a fox convinces Nihursag to come back and help Enki.  Nihursag takes pity on Enki, and in order to help him, she creates eight goddesses corresponding to each body party that is ill.  The goddesses heal Enki and he is well again.  One of those eight goddesses is called Nin-ti ("the woman who makes life").  "Ti' is the Sumerian word for 'rib'.

(Further reading: http://www.bandoli.no/sumerianlegacy.htm) 

"²⁴ Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. ²⁵ And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed."

What can we conclude from today's entry?  I think it's fair to say that there is reasonable evidence to suggest that both chapters 1 and 2 (and as we will soon see, more) of the book of Genesis are simply an edited version of the Sumerian creation myth.

 

Genesis 1 - Who Needs Science?

GENESIS 1

 

The first portion of Genesis describes the creation of the earth and other celestial bodies, as well as man, plants and animals.  The description of the created earth stands in direct opposition to the evidence we have gathered through science about how things actually happened.  This means that a complete analysis of Genesis from a scientific perspective would require your dear author to have a vast background in scientific literature.  Unfortunately, I have no such background.  I know what I know through my education and basic knowledge of biology, chemistry and physics.

I will not even attempt to present a fully scientific rebuttal to Genesis, as it would require hours and hours of source citation and personal learning - any anlysis I could give would likely pale in comparison to that which could be delivered by the experts; I will leave that to them.  That being said, some of the concepts I will discuss below are basic, and I submit would not require me to reference sources - i.e. that the sky is not made of water; that the earth could not have formed without the sun etc.  I believe these statements to be nearly equivalent to self-evident.  If that is folly on my part, then so be it.

Day 1

"1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ² The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

We have to assume here that "heavens" in this first sentence is the extra-terrestrial bodies of the universe as there is really no definition or further detail provided.  Apparently, god forgot to create the earth's sun and moon along with all of the potentially infinite celestial bodies.  Stars form planets - their gravitational field is required.  Science would already take issue with Genesis's first sentence, as we know that the earth formed AFTER the sun, not before.  Another issue that science would take with this first sentence is that a star is required to create the types of matter we find on the earth - it would actually require a star to have gone supernova (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/stars.html).  Again, a star in proximity to the earth was not present at this point in the story.  The earth could not be formed at the same time the other celestial bodies are formed - it must be formed after.

"³ And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. ⁴ And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. ⁵ God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

This passage describes the creation of day and night cycle without a sun.  The sun not yet being created until day 4.

Day 2

"⁶ And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” ⁷ And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. ⁸ And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day."

This seems like a very strange description of the water on the land as opposed to the sky (made of water?).  It's rather hard to decipher the actual meaning here.  Possibly this is referring to the creation of an atmosphere. If it is referring to the atmosphere, through science we know that the atmosphere would not be fully developed without plant life being present, changing CO2 to O2.  I guess it was a good thing god didn't create Adam on this day, as he would have died.  However, again, the presence of an atmosphere containing anything but hydrogen and helium without a star having gone supernova is not possible.  This necessarily implies that water could not be present.

We see reference to the word "Heaven" again in this passage as we did in sentence 1.  However, clearly the two references cannot be referring to the same thing (note also, that one is capitalized and one isn't, which would tend to make the reference the name of a place proper).  I think we can deduce from the two different references that one refers to space and celestial bodies, and the other refers to the sky/atmosphere (the latter use being reference to the sky).  Again, we see another day passing without a sun in existence.

Day 3

^"9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. ¹⁰ God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good."

Fine. Sure.

^"11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. ¹² The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ¹³ And there was evening and there was morning, the third day."

There are so many things wrong with this passage I barely know where to begin.  First, multi-cellular life (i.e. plants) did not form before single-celled organism.  Secondly, there would be no heat on earth whatsoever without the sun.  Third, the plants could not grow without a source for photosynthetic energy (i.e. the sun). Fourth . . . . oh forget it. 

Day 4

"¹⁴ And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, ¹⁵ and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. ¹⁶ And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. ¹⁷ And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, ¹⁸ to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. ¹⁹ And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day."

YAY the sun! Finally.  Now we are making progress.  Apparently god wasn't aware that the moon is not a light source and that its glow is merely a reflection of the sun's light (source: consult grade 2 science textbook).

Day 5

"²⁰ And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” ²¹ So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. ²² And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” ²³ And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day."

So we went from no animal life, to complex animal life in a snap.  Who knew that we didn't need to start with the basics.  At least at this point, there is heat on the earth.  Should we assume that the earth has gathered all of the necessary elements for water, and a proper atmosphere at this point?  Sure, let's give the story that much.  This is one juncture where this nice story and science could agree, if in such a small way - life as we know it requires water, and it is likely that is where life began (as opposed to land).  Oh but wait, now we have birds too.  But I thought dinosaurs came first?  When did god create the pterodactyl and T-Rex?

Day 6

 "²⁴ And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. ²⁵ And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

This description completely lacks with respect to what we know of species development and timeline of our planet.  In order for this passage to hold truth, we must agree that dinosaurs and the saber-tooth cat and wolves and humans all were created and roamed the earth at the same time.  We know this to be absolutely false due to fossil history and carbon dating.

"²⁶ Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

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

This is a gem. "Let US make man, in OUR image, after OUR likeness.".  And here I thought the basis for Christianity was a single god.  I presented this one to my mother and she told me this is clearly referring to the holy trinity.  The problem with this is that the old testament is Jewish in origin, a tradition which doesn't acknowledge 'Jesus Christ' as part of god, and therefore, no trinity, so why would they make reference to it?  I consulted the knowledge of the internet, and it appears that many people share my mother's view. The best explanation I can find for this is that it is a relic from the word Elohim, which is a Hebrew term referring to many gods, not just one. This is an artifact from a time of polytheism - the religions of Mesopotamia from which this story was borrowed (http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm).

It's strange, then, that in the very next paragraph, we see god going back to referring only to himself.  Was god part of a larger council of gods?  Was he the one in charge of doing the dirty work while the others observed and made group decisions?  Does this just not make any sense at all and that's all there is to it?

Edit: One of my readers points out that while the christian tradition believes Adam came first and Eve second, this passage clearly indicates both were made at the same time - " So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.".  It would also go against the common belief that god takes on the male form, for here it states that both the male and female form are 'in the image of god'.

"²⁸ And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”"

Whoah!  Hold the phone here.  The Christian tradition tells us that god created one dude, Adam.  And yet we see god blessing "them" and saying to "them" that they can rape and pillage the earth at their pleasure.  This doesn't add up.

"²⁹ And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. ³⁰ And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. ³¹ And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

We're very glad god was satisfied.  He certainly earned his coffee break on the seventh day.

Conclusion

There are certain requirements to believing Genesis 1 is an actual account of the creation of the universe, matter and living beings:

1.  You are required to not believe in biology;

2.  You are required to not believe in chemistry;

3.  You are required to not believe in physics.

p.s. I realize that most Christians have abandoned the idea of Genesis 1 being an ACTUAL account of creation.  To me, that is the beginning point to start questioning the rest of what the bible has to offer.  However, there are still some that would tell you with a straight face that everything contained in this Genesis account is absolute fact.  See for example http://creationmuseum.org/

 

In the next episode . . . 

Day 7

  

We all know that god rested on this day.  A supreme being without need for food, water, shelter, time, existence, entertainment or auto insurance decided that he was tired and needed some time off for a while.

Method

Here's how things will shake down:

1.  I will use the same version of the bible for all entries.

2.  The bible version chosen is the English Standard Version.

3.  I will quote as much of each passage as necessary to analyze the meaning (which means I might not quote everything).

4.  I will cite sources where available, and will attempt to use the 'best source'.

5.  If I use a statistic, I will cite a source so that the reliability can be openly debated.

6. I'm not a scientist, but I will attempt to be up to speed to at least a layperson level for anything I discuss.

7.  I'm hoping to do one per day, but that is not likely realistic.  I will attempt to provide two to three per week, with more than that being a bonus.

My History as a "Catholic"

Just a few months after my birth, I became a Roman Catholic.  It's quite amazing that I made such a big life decision while still being in diapers and without the use of conscious thought or language, but apparently god doesn't care, so long as someone is willing to vouch for you.

I was brought up in a religious household.  Church on Sunday, Catholic school, and an uncle who is a Roman Catholic Priest.  We had our very own priest presiding over our holiday festivities!

If I recall correctly, I first started questioning things at about the age of eight. My questions were typical of a mind growing into maturity and rational thought; How can you be sure god is there if you can't see him?  How did Noah fit all of those animals onto a boat?  How can the earth be only thousands of years old  when I'm learning in my Science lessons that dinosaur fossils are millions of years old?  No one had convincing answers to these questions, and even at that age, I could tell most people were just making it up as they went along.  My doubt only grew.

Now to the age of twelve.  There I was a young alter boy (I got the case of the giggles on stage once and suffered my Mother's silent treatment thereafter, but that's another story). This is a special time for Catholic kids, as at this time you get to confirm that you are truly a Catholic - confirming your baptismal sacrament in which you had no say.  It was at this time I wanted out.  There were a handful of kids in my grade that were not Catholic and would not be participating - I wanted to join them.  I told this to my Mother.  She was not pleased.  I was informed by my Mother that if I did not participate I would be shunned by my friends and family, and that I would have to change to public school.  Considering my options, I decided to go through with it.  After all, what harm is there in lying to a god you don't believe exists.

The last time I went to church was when I was sixteen.  At this point, the contention between my Mother and I with respect to religion was starting to simmer (as opposed to previous years' all out war) as I approached the age of majority.  From then on, I considered myself rid of religion and its teachings, prejudices, and irrationality.  Attendance at University and learning about the world and other religions only served to cement further in my mind that this was all made up.

Whether you are a religious person or already an atheist, welcome.  What I intend to do on this blog is study one bible passage per entry, and truly and rationally examine it.  The saying goes 'the best way to become an atheist is to read the bible', and that's exactly what I intend to do.