Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
What did Jesus mean when he said not to judge others? Here are 10 things to know and share . . .
Jesus famously said, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
Today, some people use this to shut down conversations when the subject turns to sexual morality.
“Didn’t Jesus say not to judge others?” they ask. “Who are you to judge?”
Did Jesus mean his words to be used this way?
If not, what did he mean?
Here are 10 things to know and share . . .
1) Not a cover for immoral behavior in general
It’s clear that Jesus did not intend his words to be used as a cover for immoral behavior.
He did not mean them to be used as a conversation stopper to shut down attempts to admonish people engaged in immoral behavior.
In fact, Jesus himself did rather a lot of admonishing regarding proper moral conduct.
That is, in fact, the subject of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), in which the saying occurs.
2) Not even a cover for sexual misbehavior
Jesus had quite a bit to say about sexual immortality as well—noting, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount that even being mentally unfaithful was a sin:
You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart [Matt. 5:27-28].
3) Not a prohibition on admonishing others
Jesus did also not intend his words to be used to stop others from admonishing others when they are committing sinful behavior.
Jesus himself told his ministers:
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you [Matt. 28:19-20].
That would include teaching his commands regarding sexual morality.
Also, admonishing sinners is a spiritual work of mercy that we are to engage in:
My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins [Jas. 5:19-20].
4) Not an endorsement of moral relativism
Taking Jesus’ teaching out of context, one might try to use it as a pretext for moral relativism—the idea that all moral judgments regarding the conduct of others are to be suspended and each person is to be allowed to define what is morally good for himself.
This is clearly ruled out by what we’ve already seen regarding Jesus’ own teaching on morality and on the need to proclaim them to others.
We do not define moral truth for ourselves. Moral relativism is a false position that is incompatible with the Christian faith.
It is also incompatible with itself. Like all forms of relativism, it is self-contradictory.
If it is wrong to make moral judgments regarding the behavior of others then it would be wrong to judge others for judging!
Peter Capaldi has been cast as the 12th Doctor Who
So it has now been announced that Peter Capaldi will be the new Doctor Who.
I must confess that I don’t know much about Capaldi, but I do have a couple of initial thoughts.
The Right Man for the Part?
The first is that I’m glad they cast a man instead of a woman for the part.
The latter, while not out of keeping with what they’ve established about timelord biology, would have been a net negative for the show.
Changing the sex of your main character is not something to be done lightly.
In this case, doing so would have:
felt like artificial “stunt casting” done out of slavish political correctness,
invited endless discussions of sex that would have overshadowed what the program is about,
invite endless and unflattering comparisons to the performances of previous Doctors, and
made the show feel unfamiliar and different on a bunch of levels.
The time to something like that, if you’re going to do something like that, is not when a show is at the peak of its popularity–which this one is. It has never had a bigger audience, globally.
The time to do radical shakeups in a show’s formula is when it’s about to get cancelled or when it’s just being revived after a hiatus.
Regressing to the Mean
My second thought is that I’m glad that they went with an older actor to play the Doctor.
I’d been (mildly) concerned about the increasing youth of the actors who have been cast for the part. The current, 11th Doctor (Matt Smith), was the youngest ever.
While I don’t mind young actors in the part (I liked Smith, as well as Peter Davison, who was only 30 when he was cast as the 5th Doctor), there was a clear trend toward younger actors, and the show was in danger of becoming too young-actor oriented.
We were nearing a point at which the apparent age of the Doctor needed to regress to the mean.
I mean, could an 18-year old Doctor even try to bring the gravitas needed for the part without looking foolish (as well as teenage angst-y)?
Just for fun, I did a quick table of the ages of the various actors who have played the Doctor at the time they got the part:
This chart covers the twelve actors who have been cast to play the role on television on an ongoing basis (even though McGann’s incarnation didn’t get picked up for a regular series).
It does not include actors cast for movies, webisodes, or on a purely temporary basis (such as John Hurt, who is playing the “mystery incarnation” of the Doctor, whose story will be explored in the 50th anniversary special).
Now here’s a chart showing what I mean about the Doctor-getting-younger trend:
As you can see, until Capaldi’s casting as the 12th Doctor, there was an unmistakable trend toward casting younger actors.
Of course, there were ups and downs, but the overall trend toward younger doctors is unmistakable.
We needed to regress to the mean, and they did that in a big way by casting a 55-year old (that also being the age that the 1st Doctor was when the series began).
In a way, the series is returning to its roots, with the Doctor as a man of mature years rather than a twenty-something romping around space and time.
Getting Darker?
My third thought concerns the way that Capaldi will play the role and what kinds of stories he will be offered.
I’d have a better sense of this if I knew more about his work, but I suspect that we’ll see a couple of things that will be different than Matt Smith’s Doctor and other recent Doctors.
For one, I suspect that he will play the part more seriously–and be given fewer zany antics (though there will be some of those).
Matt Smith apparently patterned aspects of his performance off Patrick Troughton’s 2nd Doctor (who is, perhaps, my all-time favorite Doctor), and I’ve seen some online suggesting that Capaldi may come across more like Jon Pertwee’s less-playful, more action-oriented 3rd Doctor.
So this transition may feel a bit like the transition from Troughton to Pertwee, which would be fine by me.
I also suspect that the performance and the show will be getting darker because we’re apparently at the Doctor’s (allegedly) final incarnation.
Timelords can only regenerate 12 times under normal circumstances, meaning 13 incarnations total.
Assuming John Hurt’s Doctor is a previous incarnation (either pre-Hartnell or during the gap between McGann and Eccleston, when the Time War occurred) then Capaldi is the timelord’s 13th incarnation (even though he’s only the 12th “Doctor”).
That means that when it comes time to replace Capaldi there will likely be a big, pathos-filled story in which he is miraculously freed from the 12-regeneration limit.
They’ve already indicated that this can be done, as the timelords offered the Master a whole new cycle of regenerations (another 12) back in the 25th anniversary special. And, even without their help, the Master managed to get several more regenerations, leading to his appearances in the current revival of the program.
They’ll do the same for the Doctor–somehow–but they will probably (and should) milk the approaching, apparent end of his life for the drama it naturally contains.
That means that the 12th Doctor’s time should have the Shadow of Death hanging over it.
It also may have the shadow of the Valeyard hanging over it, if they don’t pay that off in the 50th anniversary special.
And, as much as I’ve enjoyed some of the zaniness Matt Smith brought to the role, some aspects of the 11th Doctor’s run were over the top (particularly Steven Moffat’s fairy tale-inspired series finales).
I’ve already been enjoying the more serious feel of the show that arrived with Clara Oswald becoming the main companion, which harks back to the way the show felt in its–uh–first incarnation (1963-1989), and the arrival of Peter Capaldi as the Doctor may bring back more of that classic Who feeling.
What should you think of the new book Zealot? Here are 14 things to know and share.
There’s a new best-seller out there which claims to give us “the real story” on Jesus.
It’s called Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, and it is one in a long line of books challenging the portrait of Jesus given in the gospels.
The author is giving interviews in the major media, promoting his book, and people are asking questions about it and how to respond.
Here are 14 things to know and share . . .
1) What is Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth?
It is a book authored by Reza Aslan and published by Random House in July of 2013.
With the power of the Random House marketing machine behind it, the book quickly shot to the top of Amazon’s bestseller list.
The book is billed as a biography of Jesus of Nazareth.
In keeping with Aslan’s creative writing background (see below), much of it is written in a casual, narrative style that does not stop to cite sources, mount arguments, or consider alternative viewpoints.
It reads rather a lot like historical fiction, with Aslan inviting us to imagine the colors of the curtain of the Jerusalem temple, how scene at the temple would have sounded, and even how it would have smelled (rather putrid, according to Aslan).
2) Who is Reza Aslan?
Aslan is an associate professor of creative writing at the University of California Riverside. He lives in Hollywood.
He was born in Tehran, Iran but raised in the San Francisco Bay Area.
His family background is Muslim, though not devout.
He himself experienced a conversion to Christianity in his teens but later lost his faith.
He has a doctorate in the sociology of religions from the University of California Santa Barbara.
3) Is Aslan trying to hide his Muslim background?
He has been accused of doing so in television interviews, but this seems unfounded.
He certainly does not hide it in the book. In fact, there is an “Author’s Note” at the beginning of Zealot that explains his religious background very forthrightly.
Aslan’s Muslim background is not very relevant to the views he proposes in Zealot, and given the dynamics of TV interviews, it wouldn’t make sense for Aslan to discuss this unless he were specifically asked about it.
4) Is Aslan giving us a Muslim re-reading of Jesus?
Thomas Peters (American Papist/CatholicVote/National Organization for Marriage) has been severely injured and is in need of your prayers.
According to his father, canonist Edward Peters (via Facebook):
Thomas Peters was seriously hurt in a swimming accident Tuesday evening. He fractured his 5th cervical vert. and is at Univ. Maryland Medical Center (Baltimore). Natalie Zmuda Peters is there, and the moms Angela & Becky Z flew out a couple hours ago. He moved an arm on command and is undergoing more tests. He has responded pretty well to the immediate steps taken for him so far. I will stay in touch here. Your prayers and well wishes are deeply appreciated.
Update:
Thom can move his arms, docs are discussing the best treatment for his neck injury. Immediate concern is for the considerable water in his lungs. We are astounded at the expressions of prayers and support. Thom & Nat know about it. Please keep them up.
I have known Thomas and his family for many years, and I implore your prayers for him, his wife, his family, and for all who are in similar situations.
Words are inadequate to the burden of my heart.
“The Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans too deep for words” (Rom. 8:28).
At first, the claim that atheism is a religion might sound ridiculous.
It certainly can be a surprising claim.
And it’s one that many people, including western atheists, might initially dismiss out of hand.
But there’s more to the story here.
There is a case to be made that, in a very real sense, atheism is a religion.
A Word About Words
Words mean what people use them to mean. So whether atheism counts as a religion will depend on how you use the term “atheism” and how you use the term “religion.”
There is no single right way or wrong way to use terms. Their boundaries can be drawn differently by different people, and their meanings can change over time.
As a result, I’m not going to be claiming in this piece that there is a single right or wrong way to define our two terms.
In fact, I don’t really care about the terms. What I’m interested in is the reality that the two terms represent.
My claim, therefore, is that the reality of what is commonly called “atheism” has much in common with the reality of what is commonly called “religion.”
The two have so much in common that there is a sense in which atheism can be seen as a religion.
“Are You A Christian?”
A prima facie or “at first glance” case for the claim that atheism can be seen as a religion can be found in the answer an atheist might give to the question “Are you a Christian?”
When presented with this question, an atheist may reply, “No, I’m an atheist.”
On the other hand, if he was instead presented with the question, “Are you a Jew?” he might again reply, “No, I’m an atheist.”
If he had been asked, “Are you a Buddhist?” or “Are you a Muslim?” or “Are you a Hindu?” he might well give the same answer: “No, I am an atheist.”
This suggests that being an atheist is analogous to being a Christian, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a Hindu.
And that, in turn suggests that atheism is analogous to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism.
In other words, atheism, too, can be seen as a religion.
Now let’s ask a question that will let us go deeper into the subject . . .
The book of Revelation depicts Jesus with a sword issuing from his mouth. What does this mean? And what should we make of the other paradoxical symbols in Revelation?
Revelation contains many symbols. Some of them are easy to understand, some are hard, and some are just paradoxical.
Ironically, the paradoxical ones can be particularly easy to figure out.
Here’s what you should know . . .
1. What Is a Paradoxical Symbol?
A paradoxical symbol, as I am using the term, is one in which Revelation symbolizes something in a surprising at–at first glance–contradictory way. It involves a reversal of expectations.
These symbols often involve two statements, the first of which sets up certain expectations on the part of the reader and the second which reverses these expectations.
You can see them as a pair of two, seemingly contrary symbols that must be understood together to have a true picture of what is meant.
The best way to explain this is by looking at examples . . .
2. The Lion That Is a Lamb
In Revelation 5, one of the twenty-four elders in heaven comes to John, who is weeping because no one can open the scroll that reveals God’s will. The elder says:
“Weep not; lo, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals” [Rev. 5:5].
This draws on symbolism from the book of Genesis where Israel’s son Judah is described as a “young lion” (Genesis 49:9).
The added specification of “the Root of David” makes it clear that the elder is referring to Jesus, the Messiah, who was both from the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David.
We are told that the lion “has conquered,” enabling him to open the scroll.
Based on what John has been told, he (and the reader) could expect him to turn and see Jesus depicted in the form of a lion, a violent, deadly beast who “has conquered”—possibly with bloody claws and fangs.
But when he turns, John sees something very different:
And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth [Rev. 5:6].
Instead of a conquering lion, John sees a lamb that is “standing, as though it had been slain.”
It is not a powerful, ravening predator with dripping claws and fangs but a weak, vulnerable prey animal that has been mortally wounded.
And yet it stands. This represents Jesus’ resurrection (the Lamb stands) in spite of the fact that he was crucified (“had been slain”).
Here we have a paradox–a juxtaposition of two seemingly contradictory symbols:
The Lion: The dangerous predator that conquers (overcomes its prey)
The Lamb: The vulnerable prey that is slain (overcome by its conquerors)
To fully understand this symbolism, we have to embrace both images.
It is true that Jesus is a Lion from the tribe of Judah. He has conquered.
But the way he has done these things is surprising and involves a reversal of expectations: He has conquered by assuming a position of vulnerability, by serving as the Lamb, and being slain–and raised again to stand despite this.
This is not the only symbol in Revelation of this type.
Anti-Catholics often charge that Catholics “re-crucify” Jesus through the sacrifice of the Mass.
If we were, that would be a problem, because the Bible repeatedly indicates that Jesus suffered and died “once for all.”
What’s really going on here?
How should we understand the relationship of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross?
Question from a Reader
Some time ago, I got the following question from a reader:
You know the way non-Catholics always say we are re-doing the crucifixion at every Mass.
I want to say, “No, we’re re-doing the Last Supper (as He said to do).”
At the Last Supper, Christ is pre-presenting the Calvary sacrifice, so if they could participate in it ahead of time, why can’t we participate in it after that time?
So my question is: Is it accurate to say that the Mass is a re-enactment of the Last Supper, rather than of the crucifixion?
There’s a sense in which it’s a re-enactment of both, but I think the reader is on to something here. The way a current Mass re-enacts the two is not the same.
Last Supper, Crucifixion, Mass Today
To flesh out the idea, we need to consider the relationship between three events:
· The Last Supper (a.k.a. The First Mass)
· The Crucifixion
· Any particular Mass being held today
Obviously, all three of these are related to each other, but the nature of the relationship differs.
The Masses (the first one and contemporary ones) make present the sacrifice of the Cross in a special sense.
Pope Francis has just released his first encyclical, Lumen Fidei. Here are 14 things you need to know about it.
Pope Francis has just released his first encyclical, Lumen Fidei, or “the light of faith.”
The first encyclical of a pope is always closely watched, because it frequently signals the way in which he intends to govern the Church.
This new encyclical is even more intriguing because much of it was actually written by former Pope Benedict.
Here are 14 things you need to know . . .
1. What is an encyclical?
An encyclical is a kind of letter. Papal encyclicals usually deal with matters of Church teaching (doctrine). Popes write them when they feel they have something important to say about particular teachings.
Although they are not infallible, encyclicals are authoritative.
The word “encyclical” comes from the Greek word for “circle,” indicating that it is to be circulated among different people.
The encyclical Lumen Fidei is addressed to “the bishops, priests, and deacons, consecrated persons, and the lay faithful.” This indicates a broad audience.
The encyclical was originally begun by Pope Benedict in order to commemorate the Year of Faith and to complete a trilogy of encyclicals he had been writing on the three theological virtues—faith, hope, and charity.
The preceding two were Deus Caritas Est, on the theological virtue of charity, and Spe Salvi, on the virtue of hope.
Pope Benedict’s health did not allow him to remain in office, however, and so the draft of the encyclical was inherited by Pope Francis, who chose to complete it.
3. Has this ever happened before?
Yes. In fact, Pope Benedict’s first encyclical was based, in part, on an encyclical that John Paul II had begun preparing but had not finished.
4. Does Lumen Fidei acknowledge Pope Benedict’s role in its composition?
Yes. In it, Pope Francis writes:
These considerations on faith — in continuity with all that the Church’s magisterium has pronounced on this theological virtue — are meant to supplement what Benedict XVI had written in his encyclical letters on charity and hope. He himself had almost completed a first draft of an encyclical on faith. For this I am deeply grateful to him, and as his brother in Christ I have taken up his fine work and added a few contributions of my own. [LF 7].
The subject of who has the burden of proof frequently comes up in discussions between Christians and atheists.
Both parties sometimes try to put the burden of proof on the other.
At times, Christians claim that atheists have the burden of proof.
At times, atheists claim that Christians have the burden of proof.
Somewhat surprisingly, both parties are sometimes right . . . and sometimes wrong.
The Burden of Proof
The basic idea of the “burden of proof” is that a particular party has an obligation to provide proof of a claim that is being disputed.
This principle is applied in a variety of settings—in courtrooms, in science, in philosophical discussion, and in debates.
When used rightly, it can help keep discussions on track.
When used wrongly, it can cause discussions to descend into squabbles that cause the discussion to go off track.
So let’s look at the ways the burden of proof is assigned and see how it applies to the existence of God.
The Legal Burden of Proof
In legal settings, the burden of proof is linked to the presumption of innocence.
In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution shows otherwise. The prosecutor thus has the legal burden of proof.
The reasons for this are practical. History shows that if the defendant is not presumed innocent then, when the machinery of the state is pitted against an individual, tyranny results.
Many modern legal systems thus incorporate the presumption of innocence.
In fact, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states:
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
This does not apply on Cardassia, however, where they apparently like tyranny.
The Scientific Burden of Proof
In the sciences, the burden of proof falls to the one proposing a hypothesis.
It doesn’t matter what the hypothesis is:
If you want to propose that Particle X exists, the burden of proof falls to you.
If you want to propose that Particle X does not exist, the burden again falls to you.
Either way, in science the person proposing a hypothesis needs to provide evidence for it by using the scientific method (i.e., making a prediction based on the hypothesis and then seeing whether the prediction is fulfilled when a test is run).
Only by doing this can the hypothesis be scientifically established (to the extent that anything can ever be scientifically established).
Scientific Proof of God’s Existence/Non-Existence?
If someone wanted to claim that the existence of God is scientifically provable then he would need to formulate a testable prediction based on the hypothesis that God exists and then run the test and see if the prediction is fulfilled.
In the same way, if someone wanted to claim that the non-existence of God is scientifically provable then he would need to formulate the same kind of testable prediction, run the test, and see if the prediction is fulfilled.
Either way, the test would need to be well-designed, replicable, etc., etc., for the matter to be considered scientifically proved.
There are difficulties involved in running tests involving a Being who is not detectable by the senses and who may or may not choose to act in ways that are detectable by the senses.
These difficulties have convinced many that it is not easy to use the scientific method to either prove or disprove the existence of God. Some hold that it is simply impossible.
Our point, though, is that the burden of proof falls equally on the one wanting to assert and the one wanting to deny the existence of God.
In science, you shoulder the burden of proof to sustain your hypothesis, whatever it happens to be.
