Like and Share if Jesus is in your Lungs

Someone shared the post below on Facebook. It is a real Facebook post, but the account itself may be set up by an atheist to poke fun at Christians. Be that as it may, the fact that it has become impossible to tell the difference between genuine ignorance among Christians, and atheist parodies of Christians who are ignorant, says something about the impression of Christians that is given by purveyors of nonsense like the young-earth creationists. And that is why, as a Christian, I am such a vocal opponent of their lies and tactics.

In a recent discussion here, I pointed out that ancient authors like Paul, when they referred to the heart as the location of thinking, meant it literally. And yet those who embrace young-earth creationism because they claim that the Bible is a reliable source of scientific information fail to take Paul at his word. Except, perhaps, for this one Facebook user, who disagrees with both Paul and modern science and has asked Jesus into her lungs.

One more thing. It used to be that, as normal people went about their business, less sane members of society might stand on the street corner talking to themselves and occasionally trying to get our attention by shouting at us. We mostly recognized that, whoever they were and whatever they represented, they could not be assumed to be typical of a category of person or belief. They were assumed to be mentally ill. Today, however, when someone sets up a page on one of Facebook's infinite number of street corners, the digital facade may hide some of the telltale signs of mental health issues. Perhaps, if we are to foster a culture of respect, we need to remind ourselves that insanity, and not just ignorance and hatred, have a platform and an audience that is global in character.

Perhaps we need to learn anew, when on Facebook, that sometimes the appropriate course of action is to avoid eye contact and just keep walking.


"That's interesting about the phrase "religion of the book." Surely the phrase "people of the ..."

Liquid Scripture at #AARSBL17
"My comment was not directed at anything that either McGrath or Ehrman have said, so ..."

Gaps in Jesus’ Fossil Record?
"Well, there are a number of ways to explain that. First, the original Trek was ..."

Star Trek: Discovery – Into the ..."
"When interpreting Star Trek we have to start with the presupposition that Star Trek is ..."

Star Trek: Discovery – Into the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Rebecca Trotter

    Re: Paul meant it literally when he said that the heart was the seat of thought. I’ve pointed this out before to those who insist that the idea of the man as head is the same as the man being in charge. At the time the scriptures were written, no one was quite certain what the brain did. A common idea was that it was a cooling mechanism for the body – like a dog’s tongue. Others saw it primarily as the center of the senses due to its close proximity to the ears, eyes, mouth and nose. One ancient scientist had even worked out a scheme whereby semen was made in the brain and carried through the nervous system to the genitals. It wasn’t until the 2nd century that the idea of the brain as what we thought with took hold. So clearly, Paul wasn’t thinking of the head as the seat of rational thought, direction, decision making, etc when he (or whomever) wrote the epistles. Of course, such obvious evidence means nothing to people who are devoted to their bad theology. I think bad theology must have magic anti-logic hypno-powers or something.

    • Nick Gotts


      People must sometimes have survived traumatic brain injuries even then. Did no-one notice that these could affect “rational thought, direction, decision making etc.”?

      • James F. McGrath

        I doubt that many would have survived head trauma in antiquity. But with respect to those who did, I can imagine the ancients reasoning that, since you can survive a head injury impaired on rare occasions, but a heart injury will in all likelihood be fatal, the heart is where the essential identity resides. I cannot remember all the details of the discussion of this topic by Aristotle and others.

      • arcseconds

        Aristotle thought that the heart was the source of mental activity, at least. This idea didn’t originate with him, and he was extremely influential by the time of early Christianity, so I think it’s pretty reasonable to assume this viewpoint was widespread.

        You can find his reasoning in Book III of the Parts of Animals.

        An example:
        ” Moreover, the motions of pain and pleasure, and generally of all sensation, plainly have their source in the heart, and find in it their ultimate termination. This, indeed, reason would lead us to expect. For the source must, when. ever possible, be one; and, of all places, the best suited for a source is the centre. ”

        He also seems impressed by the fact that the heart is in constant motion. As he thinks life is a form of motion, I guess it makes sense that the heart is the thing governing this.

        He also thinks the heart is the source of heat, and the brain’s function in cooling this is extremely important.

        • Steven Carr

          ‘ Paul wasn’t thinking of the head as the seat of rational thought, direction, decision making, etc when he (or whomever) wrote the epistles.’

          Is it remotely possible that Paul thought of the head as the bit of the body that did the talking?

          • arcseconds

            OK, I’m confused…

            Did you intend to reply to me? I wasn’t talking about Paul, but rather Aristotle…

            But even if you meant to reply to Rebecca, or to James, I’m still baffled. Why would you even say such a thing?

            Is this some kind of performance art, or maybe some oracular statement that I’m not supposed to answer, but rather contemplate?

            Because, you know, the answer seems obvious, and irrelevant…

            But at the risk of sounding dreadfully naïve I’ll say ‘yes I imagine he would’.

            What then?

      • Rebecca Trotter
  • arcseconds

    it’s a parody :]

    there are posters about Kent and Eric Hovind being married, and Kent Hovind being in a relationship with Duane Gish. ‘Loved God, but loved each other more! Now one’s dead and one’s in prison. Take heed, atheists!’

    • Brandon Withrow

      That is the only conclusion that seems to make sense to me too. I just have trouble imagining anyone being as nuts as that page seems to be. If it is a parody, it’s genius. If it isn’t, the page admin needs to see a doctor.

  • newenglandsun

    I like their picture:
    “Proud to be AN Real American”
    [emphasis mine]

  • newenglandsun

    Thought I’d mention that there was a Hebrew word translated “heart” in modern day English Bibles but as to whether this actually means “heart” is the real question. The word is leb.

  • newenglandsun

    Currently, he believes that your heart is your kidneys so I guess he had his “sceinse” corrected.