necessity of their nature.

2. The sciences of biology, physiology and embryology teach that the
representation of the traditional, supernaturalistic interpretation of
Christianity to the effect that man and woman are unique beings, who
have supernaturally derived their physical form, vital and psychical
potentialities directly from a conscious, personal creator with whom are
their natural affiliations, is not true, and therefore can be no part of
any gospel; for, according to the teaching of these three sciences, the
truth is: man and woman as to their whole beings (body and mind, life
and soul) were naturally evolved from pre-existing animal life, not
supernaturally created respectively out of the dust and a rib, so that
they owe their existence to and natural affinities with a terrestrial
and bestial parentage, not a celestial and divine one.

3. The sciences of anthropology, sociology and comparative
interpretations of religion teach that the representation of the
traditional, supernaturalistic interpretation of Christianity to the
effect that man and woman were supernaturally created in the image and
likeness of a conscious, personal god, sinless and deathless beings with
ideal environments, but that they fell from this happy estate, through a
serpentine incarnation of a supernatural devil, and are being restored
to it, through a human incarnation of a supernatural saviour, is not
true, and therefore can be no part of any gospel; for, according to the
teaching of these three sciences, the truth is: during many ages man and
woman, in both appearance and predilection, were much more animal than
divine and that gradually, without any supernatural assistance, they
have worked themselves out of a state of bestial barbarism into one of
human civilization.

It follows therefore that the representations of both the Old and New
Testaments, concerning the origin and history of man are largely
fictitious impositions, not historical compositions, so much so, that no
confidence can safely be reposed in any of them.

There is no rational doubt about the fictitious character of the divine
Jesus. Some think that the human Jesus may have been an historical
personage; but, none among outstanding scholars believes that we have a
connected account of his life and work, and most of them insist that we
do not certainly know any saying or doing of his.

No religious doctrine or institution of which we have an account in the
New Test