“The problems with this blog post are many. They are also quite easy to spot.”

I will be brave enough to admit I can not spot the problems, outside of the general “not believing that scripture is the word of God”

Can anyone help?

Don’t like pranks of any kind. I find them to be cruel and never funny. Why do them? I don’t get it. They do no amuse me. I find radio stations that call people for pranks are offensive and it should be outlawed. Fooling people is not funny.

Jose, FWIW, the people at the end of the video laughing at themselves for having been pranked evidently disagree with you.

It’s true that pranks run the risk of upsetting someone who doesn’t find them funny, and for that reason, I suppose public pranking of strangers isn’t really a good thing. But it’s merely a matter of personal taste that they “aren’t funny.” Many, maybe most, people find pranks funny even when they are the object of them.

I will be brave with Mike. I too read the “Jesus would believe in evolution” post this weekend and couldn’t easily see the problems with it.

Would you be so kind as to let us know when on of the video’s is not child appropriate. I wanted to watch the Victory in Disgrace video. Not knowing what it was about. My son was right next to me. I’m relived that my son does not understand the word rape yet. Thanks

Mike and SMP,

I’ll point out a couple of the problems in that article (“Jesus would believe in evolution and so should you.”) and let others fill in the list more.

1. Opening line: “Jesus once famously said, ‘I am the Truth.’” Wrong. That isn’t what Jesus “famously said.” What I believe he was looking for is Jesus’ words in John 14:6 “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me…’”

Does the author expect to be taken seriously at all when, in the very first line, he misquotes the author and perfector of the faith that he is trying to convince to his understanding.

2. The second line (and what the “truth” seeking that follows in the article): “Christianity at its best embodies this provocative idea and has long been committed to preserving, expanding and sharing truth.” Now, it seems that the author of the article is equating Christ’s admonition to his disciples to believe in Him with the seeking of scientific proofs. (John 14:1-14 - aka “context from which he tears the quote that he misquotes).

Now, not only a misquote - but a misquote that is used completely devoid of the context that the misquoted quote is found in (but I suppose you could say that what Jesus didn’t say could mean anything you want it to mean… because I guess it actually does lack context - since it weasn’t actually said). Again, is the author expecting to be taken seriously with a treatment of Scripture that a highschool teacher wouldn’t allow on a term paper reviewing “Romeo and Juliet?”

3. First line, third paragraph: “When science began in the 17th century….” I’m sure that would be news to Ab Al al-asan ibn al-asan ibn al-Haytham, father of the inductive method who proved through natural philosophy (later called the natural sciences) that light unhindered travels in a straight line —— in 1021 AD.

4. More, “But when it comes to the truth of evolution…” First, category error. Evolution is not defined as either change within a species (which almost no one denies) or speciation (which does pose problems). If he did mean the process of speciation, then, he is begging the question.

5. The whole article is poorly written and hard to follow.

6. The premise is really bad. There is no way to know what Jesus “would have believed” except by what is revealed about what he knew (and I say “knew” not “understood” - though I probably could say “knows.” As it is, I am talking about Christ incarnate while he was walking the earth prior to his crucifixion - making the past tense viable because the earthy ministry of Christ was in the past in space and time).

So, what did Jesus know about the Genesis account? Let’s turn to the recorded history of Christ to find out.

Matthew 19:4-6, “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’”

When being asked whether it is lawful to divorce Christ appeals to the special creation of man and woman and the natural order in which they were created. He appealed to the special creation of man as a real space/time event.

Still, to limit Christ’s knowledge to “he would have been a creationist” is wrong, too. Instead, according to Scripture “In the beginning* was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” That is to say, Jesus wasn’t a creationist - He is Creator, the object of the Christian creationist’s worship.

* Neat thing about John 1:1 that a lot of people seem to miss. “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus)” describes Jesus as the creative God of Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God…”

————————————————————————————————————

There is more wrong with that article , but I haven’t the time to write an entire response.

Ray don’t worry about the syntax, you were able to get the point across.

Thank you Jennifer and Ray.