Genesis, Chapter 1; Verses 1, 3 and 4.
1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1.3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1.4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Firstly – God created the heaven and earth before he created light? Bloomin’ show-off. Somebody should have told him nobody likes a smart-arse. I mean, it wasn’t enough to create the heaven and the earth – he had to do it in the dark. [Hm, actually that gives me an idea for a bumper sticker.] I haven’t figured out how God split the light from the darkness, but I’m going to email the Pope if I can find his address. Apparently he’s infallible, so his answer must be reliable.
Secondly – God created the light and saw “that it was good”? Sounds like pride to me. Which just happens to be one of the seven deadly sins. What’s all that about? If the seven sins are that bad, how come God gets to break them? Still, nobody’s perfect.
And there’s more. Actually, hang on. This is a bit boring really. Isn’t it? Taking the piss out of a 2,000-year-old book that only a few readers actually take as being meant literally, a book that is basically some rather nice bits of poetry and short stories mixed in with a few rules that perhaps made sense to people 2,000 years ago in the Middle-East and some really basic moral rules like “don’t murder people” (and some rules that may have been born of common-sense but probably aren’t all that useful now, though I don’t know enough about 2,000-year-old eating habits so probably shouldn’t comment on the erstwhile usefulness of the Bible’s dietary rules). A book that has just prompted me to write a stupidly long sentence. And a book that has been covered with far more humour by the likes of Ricky Gervais and Bill Hicks than by me. The question is – is there still a point in remarking on the inconsistencies in the Bible. Another question might be – is it still funny to take the piss out of the Bible? Is it as funny as taking the piss out of the Organon. At least that’s only a 200-year-old book of fiction, so it’s more modern than the Bible if nothing else. And the funny dietary advice (restrictions, mostly) in the bible? No dafter that the supposedly scientific dietary advice of Visiting Professors, Medical Doctors and PhD Doctors. Heh, the holy trinity of nutritionism = Holford, McKeith and Briffa. Is it worth blogging about religion on sites like mine unless it is a case of a religion or spokesperson for a religion saying something ridiculous and/or harmful amd that has at least some import (e.g., Frankenstein-type comments from Chimera Fearers pre- the embryo research bill)?