He's right, though. And it's one of the things that bother me about the Catholics' "well, we're not taking it LITERALLY" act, even without getting into the sheer retardedness of some catholic or another thinking he's the atheists' (next) best friend for not being a literallist.
The story of how God made some NPCs, which then acted against his wish, which caused all sorts of deadly stuff (and I mean, literally viruses and bacteria becoming harmful... although the former couldn't be anything else to start with, and telomeres starting working... although it could never ever be otherwise, and animals starting being carnivorous... although they were obviously meant to be so in the first place, etc), and he got pissed off instead of fixing his scripting, and he hates you for being the 3000'th generation descendant of those, unless you accept his impregnating a virgin with himself, so he can sacrifice himself to himself, so he can forgive you for THAT thing you personally had no part in... is already retarded. I may call the Catholic version even more frikken retarded, but make no mistake, the literalist version makes no frikken sense whatsoever either.
But once you accept that none of that actually existed, and Adam or Eve couldn't POSSIBLY be the actual source of death and suffering, because it was going on for 2-3 billion years before anything even remotely sharing the same shape even existed... then the whole original sin idiocy becomes even more idiotic. Then God hates you for... what? For some piss-poor metaphor that he once used, using some fictive characters that never existed, and which don't even fit the timeline to be responsible for anything in that story?
I mean, it's already idiotic to hold some people responsible and ask them to atone for what an ancestor 6000 years ago did. We don't start hauling people to jail because one of their ancestors 2000 years ago was some Roman or Gaul or Germanic slaver, do we? Or to ask them to atone for that by letting an innocent be punished.
But holding them responsible for what some FICTIVE characters did, in a metaphoric story that not only is accepted as fictive, but it's not even in the right timeline to be responsible for the blame assigned to that? How frakking stupid is THAT?
I mean, it's not even like holding you responsible for what an actual ancestor of yours actually did, it's like holding you responsible for what Kirk does in the last Star Trek movie. THAT incredibly, stupefyingly, stonkingly, mind-bogglingly stupid that is.
And yet that's exactly what the "oh noes, we're your (next) best buddies because we don't take that LITERALLY" proposition boils down to. Accepting that something never actually happened, it was just a piss-poor metaphor to make some over-simplified point to some primitive people that would never understand the real story, BUT YOU'RE BEING HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR IT ANYWAY.
And I'm not even getting into the two thousands of years of misogyny, and the church STILL not accepting women on account of what Paul thought about Eve being the deceived one... WHILE ACCEPTING THAT EVE DIDN'T EVEN EXIST. How unbelievably moronic it is to base a discrimination against real people on a character that you acknowledge as fictive, and only there to make an allegorical point about something else? I mean, it's literally like basing a discrimination against step mothers on Snow White. Or imagine someone were to rationalize discriminating against fathers, based on Star Wars. THAT stupid.
Yes, the literalist version is retarded, but sticking to all those doctrines while being a non-literalist, i.e., acknowledging that none of that actually happened, is retarded squared.
And I'll even take Ken Ham saying it, because it just has to be said. And it ends up a case of "well, it has to be cretinous thing A, because otherwise it's cretinous thing B", well, even better. Then essentially the whole Christianity has ad-absurdum-ed itself.
