The Bible is a work of fiction

I'd like to say that I'm against all religion that worships non-existent beings, but I take on Christianity because it's the biggest religion.

Have you read the bible? I've read it from start to finish. It's the worst thing I've ever read. Please try it some time.

For those of you who believe in the literal truth of the bible:

This is the story of Jesus's resurrection:
At the rising of the sun(Mark16:2), I mean when it was dark (John 20:1), Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1), I mean with the other Mary (Matt 28:1), I mean as well as with Salome (Mark 16:1), I mean with Joanna and other women also (Luke 24:10) went to the tomb. When they arrived the tomb was open (Luke 24:2), I mean closed (Matt 28:1-2). At the open/closed tomb, they see an angel (Matt 28:2), I mean a young man (Mark 16:5), I mean two men (Luke 24:4), I mean two angels (John 20:11-12). These man/men/angel/angels were standing (Luke 24:4), I mean sitting (Matt 28:2) inside (Mark 16:5), I mean outside (Matt 28:2) the tomb. Then Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene. She immediately recognised Him (Matt 28:9), I mean she did not know who he was (John 20:14).

If the bible is literally and completely true... which part? There are major contradictions. Such as:

Mary was a virgin and became pregnant with Jesus through a holy spirit.
Or
Jesus is descended from David. But only Joseph (his father) is descended from David. Mary is not.

And I'm not even going to mention the examples of bigotry, sexism, racism, murder, pornography (did you know that The Wise Solomon had a fetish for large breasts?) and other forms of "non-christian" morals.

There are thousands more examples available here:
http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

But on to the next argument:
"The bible is not a literal book. It is metaphorical. Parts are absolute, other parts are relativistic," someone once said to me.

Let's see what that means:
rel·a·tiv·ism (rel'?-ti-viz'?m) n. www.dictionary.com
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

This would mean that you can interpret the bible any way you like. That some parts of the bible are absolute and some parts are not absolute. The church never gives out a declaration explaining what parts are absolute and what parts are not. They tell people that "this part is metaphorical." But they don't bother about the rest. The obvious example is Genesis. They say it's metaphorical. "God didn't really create Adam and Eve. It's simply a symbolic story for human free will. He gave us free will, and that is why bad things happen in the world."

For those of you who don't know: The NGchurch (biggest one in South Africa) believes in evolution. They just want to keep it quiet until the older, more influential but more literal churchgoers dies. Obviously they don't say or even think this consciously, but that is the situation they are in. An influential and respected (by me as well) Reverend told me that the NGchurch believes in evolution. I concluded the rest. On this, I admit, I could very easily be wrong.

Think about the symbolism this way:

20 years ago (in South-Africa), the parts of the bible that said that black people are inferior to white people, was absolute. Now it's "relativistic." 400 years ago, slavery (in the bible) was okay. Now it's "relativistic." How do you choose which parts are absolute and which parts are not? By just going with the current zeitgeist? But remember... slavery and racism can be relativistic, because they are "moral values." But what about the "history?" The bible tells many stories which are completely false. This has nothing to do with relativism.

So, you say it's a metaphor? That it's symbolic?

It wasn't a metaphor when it was written down. It was MEANT to be taken literally.

The bible says: God flooded the entire world and killed all living creatures, except for Noah and the creatures on his ark. When this story was written, it was meant to be taken literally. But, everyone with an education should know that this is impossible.

What you should also know, is that the Zoroaster religion, as well as other Assyrian and Middle-Eastern religions of that time, all told stories of floods. It was based on a real flood. The bible simply copied their stories, and made it bigger, grander, and more biblical.

Which parts of the bible are metaphorical? Everything that doesn't make sense any more, now that we have been educated.

Please, I urge you again: Read the bible. Just once. The plot-twists are amazing.

And then there are some of you who have come so far as to admit that the bible isn't really true. That it's a doctrine that was written more than a thousand years ago, and should be dismissed by modern society.

All I can ask you right now is this:

If you don't believe in the bible, why do you believe in God?

Except for the bible, there is absolutely NO reason to believe in God. There are only other people who believe in God and the bible. Because other people believe in God and the Bible. Because other people believe in God and the bible...

If you believe in the bible and God, you have to rationalise everything. If you don't, everything makes sense. You don't have to make excuses for fossil records pointing towards evolution. You never have to lie to yourself again.

And have you ever thought it strange that Christianity/Islam/Judaism has never spontaneously started in more than one place? If Christianity is the One True religion, why do churches have to send missionaries to other countries? I'll continue on that note, with my next blog.