Actually it came about because people didn't care it they lived or died. The land was riddled with crime. Politicians and nobles would just be stabbed in the street and there wasn't a punishment severe enough to prevent them. So the Romans backed one of the many "prophets" at the time, to attempt to control people's hearts and minds. What? Where are you getting this? Who are these "Romans" and give me an example of some of these "many prophets". Honestly, this isn't good history. Regardless though, you haven't addressed my point. I said Christianity came about because its first followers believed in and preached a resurrected Christ, and how because of this, it doesn't apply to what Randi says in the video. The issue here isn't "how Christianity became influential" but "how Christianity came to be"

If you start saying the Bible is metaphorical then you could start saying heaven isn't real or an eternal afterlife... Dude, the Bible is a collection of books. It didn't come together in one piece, it was compiled. It was written by a bunch of authors and contains a good variety of genres (like historical letters for the Gospels or poetry for Psalms). Obviously, not everything was meant to be read literally. Reading the whole Bible literally is like reading all the books in a library literally. That's why there's exegesis. We also have the magisterium and sacred tradition to ensure proper understanding. There are a number of things that the Church says we have to affirm, such as the historicity of Adam and Eve but for the most part, she does not make official proclamations on these texts and leaves them open to interpretation. So if you want to take Genesis literally or not literally, you can do so. Many of the Church fathers interpreted Genesis literally and many also did not (back then, it was a popular interpretation that one day in genesis mean't 1000 years), and the Church has and continues to be fine with that. I'm not "changing my tune", this is how the Church has always approached the matter. Take a look at these quotes from some of the Church Fathers for example:

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16).

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly someone meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis >Actually it came about because people didn't care it they lived or died. The land was riddled with crime. Politicians and nobles would just be stabbed in the street and there wasn't a punishment severe enough to prevent them. So the Romans backed one of the many "prophets" at the time, to attempt to control people's hearts and minds. What? Where are you getting this? Who are these "Romans" and give me an example of some of these many "prophets".

If you start saying the Bible is metaphorical then you could start saying heaven isn't real or an eternal afterlife... Dude, the Bible is a collection of books. It didn't come together in one piece, it was compiled. It was written by a bunch of authors and contains a good variety of genres (like historical letters for the Gospels or poetry for Psalms). Obviously, not everything was meant to be read literally. Reading the whole Bible literally is like reading all the books in a library literally. That's why there's exegesis. We also have the magisterium and sacred tradition to ensure proper understanding. There are a number of things that the Church says we have to affirm, such as the historicity of Adam and Eve but for the most part, she does not make official proclamations on these texts and leaves them open to interpretation. So if you want to take Genesis literally or not literally, you can do so. Many of the Church fathers interpreted Genesis literally and many also did not (back then, it was a popular interpretation that one day in genesis mean't 1000 years), and the Church has and continues to be fine with that. Take a look at these quotes from some of the Church Fathers for example:

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines A.D. 225).

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly someone meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis A.D. 408).