Did Darwin Kill God? No

This is going to be a short blog but I want to share a documentary I recently watched called "Did Darwin Kill God?" This documentary was released by the BBC in 2009, but I believe the documentary is still relevant today. For the record, I am not ashamed to say that I do accept the theory of evolution in all of its scientific understandings and findings, including both natural selection and common ancestry. I believe that to accept the theory of evolution is to demonstrate as a person of the faith an openness to ideas in understanding God's creation. As the late John Paul II stated, "Truth cannot contradict Truth," and if Evolution is true (which I strongly believe it is), then evolution does not kill God, but instead glorifies God because it showing the truth of Creation.The reason why I am sharing this video on this blog is because I find it a fascinating documentary that I believe every Christian should watch.

A Call to Emulate the Blessed Virgin Mary

Note: This is a paper I did for a rhetoric class I took at San Diego State University that I feel would be appropriate for this blog to share here. 

Jacob Hubbard

Professor Minifee

RWS 500W 

8 December 2011 

                                      A Call to Emulate the Blessed Virgin Mary

Dear old church friends and pastors,

I want to apologize for leaving you all without a moment’s notice and not letting at least one of you know that I would no longer attend your church. I remember the day you all brought me into your church with open arms. I remember the days I had run ins with the law, did drugs, and probably would have committed suicide without a moment’s notice if it weren’t for you. For that, I am eternally grateful. If it weren’t for you, I would not be where I am today, and for that, I deeply regret not informing you that I was leaving. I left because I felt that there was something missing in my life as a member of your church after a year and a half of attending. It wasn’t that the church was a bad church, or that that I wasn’t happy, or that I wasn’t getting the guidance I needed in my life, and it’s definitely not because I don’t love or care about any of you. But I knew that something was missing. I knew that something about the church was not providing something that my heart was longing for, so I kept going, keeping what Christ said in Matthew 6:21 in mind: “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” 

For the first few months of no longer attending your church, I began a spiritual journey that brought me to different churches around the San Diego area, including the SDSU campus itself. Almost every church I tried out was an evangelical non-denominational church just like yours. At first, I thought by going to these kind of churches that I would find the thing that was missing and that my heart was calling for, but alas each church did not satisfy my desire. I kept going with the intention of coming back to your church, but then I found something that I knew the majority of you would not approve of. 

One day at SDSU, someone gave me a pamphlet to the school’s Newman Center. I was hesitant at first to visit the place, having been taught many things about the Catholic faith which I’ve come to find are misunderstood. Knowing that I was a Protestant, I was scared to attend Mass for the first time. I even recall one time that I tried to attend the Newman Center Mass, but didn’t go because I was afraid one of you would catch me there and tell me that I was walking astray from the path of God. It was only until I finally went that I fell in love with the Mass. I fell in love with the atmosphere, the people, the culture, but most of all, I fell in love with Christ all over again. I really felt Christ there. I felt Christ’s presence in a way I had not experienced before. I knew I found what I felt was missing in my heart. 

I then decided to answer God’s calling to become a Catholic. 

I understand that this news will come as a shock to you, considering the misconceptions many of you have about the Catholic faith. The reason why I never told you until now was because I feared you would disown me for my decision, so I left for a year to reflect. It was painful to leave because of our positive history together. But I knew that I had to go where God was calling me to go to, and I know (or at least hope) that is something you can understand. 

I know there are many obstacles and misunderstandings you have about the Catholic faith. Some of them include our understanding of justification; others include the role of the church and the authority of scripture; however, I know that the biggest obstacle for you is the Catholic understanding of Mary. I will concede to you that many people who call themselves Catholic misunderstand the Catholic Church’s teachings on Mary. I can assure you that properly understanding Mary gives us more common ground than many of you realize.

I want to share with you a recent anecdote I had with my mother. When she found out about my conversation, she of course wasn’t exactly excited, being reminded of her teenage years where the majority of Catholics she grew up with didn’t set an example of their faith. She had always been suspicious of Catholics, holding to some of the same misconceptions many of you probably still have. Me being her offspring, she of course still loved and supported me, even if she didn’t at first agree with my decision. Recently, she and I held a prayer session and out of the blue she gave praise to Mary. Because of the hardships that had gone in her life with raising me and my brother and sister, my mother admitted that praising Mary made her fall in love with her for what Mary had done for us, and made her appreciate Jesus more. She realized that whatever hardship she was going through as a mother, Mary went through so much more when she gave birth to Jesus, raised him, and watched him die on the cross for our sins. I reminded my mother that giving Mary the honor that she deserves allows us to relate to her so we can draw closer to Christ. I even brought up two verses in Luke, where Mary herself sings, “My soul glorifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed . . .” (Luke 1:47-48). We can all do well to emulate the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of God, the woman who helped bring out to the world our beloved savior for all humanity. We Catholics love Mary in the same way Jesus loved his mother. Emulating her will bring us together as brothers and sisters and bring us closer to Christ. 

As a practicing Catholic, I want to make it absolutely clear that we are still brothers and sisters. I hope that you think the same about me. For many of you, the news of my conversion will come both as a shock and a source of confusion. I know you all to be devout, faithful disciples of Christ with a passion for evangelism and youth outreach. I want to assure you that my conversion would not affect my love and respect for any of you.I ask that if you were to accept me into your community in light of my conversion, that we set aside our differences and work together for a revival in the church.

You’ve all said in the past that the church is in dire need of a revival. I’m presenting you with that opportunity. I present you the opportunity that we can learn from each other and look past our theological differences so that a revival in the church can be possible. However, if you’re not going to accept me or other Catholics as brothers and sisters, then how can we work together for a revival? Don’t you remember Mark 3:25 where Jesus says,“If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand”? So I ask you this: What is important, your theology or a revival? 

Knowing you, many of you would jump on the opportunity to have a revival. Would my conversion stop you from us working together for a revival? Don’t we worship the same God? Didn’t Paul say not to be a stumbling block for fellow believers when he said: “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak” (1 Corinthians 8:9). There is a concern within the community concerning our church’s future, and that is due to the church becoming more and more divided because of our theological differences. In 1994, there was a document titled “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” signed by both Catholics and Evangelical Protestants that agreed to work towards unity. This is a good start, but there is still work to be done. There is still division in our church. Many people have become skeptical of the church’s ability to provide the spiritual needs for our community. They see the division between Catholics and Protestants as a problem. How can we have a revival if people see the church as divided? If we come together as brothers and sisters, we can demonstrate how regardless of our strong theological differences, we can be united as a voice for Christ so that we can provide the spiritual needs for our community. We can be like Mary and together present Christ to the world. We can show the world that when we cooperate each other, we show people that we take Christ seriously. Pope John Paul II himself before he passed away knew that ecumenical efforts to unite both us Catholics and Protestants would be necessary in order to revive the church. Why not jump at this opportunity? 

I have hope that knowing me, you will take the time to listen to what I have to say.

God Bless, 

Jacob  

Why the Catholic Church? An Introduction to Catholicism

          The story of Jesus Christ has been engrained into our popular culture for centuries. You walk up to an average person on the street and ask them to recite the story of Jesus, most people will be able to explain the basic story: a Jewish woman named Mary gives birth to a boy named Jesus in a manger, and that boy grows up to be a preacher running a ministry around Israel, gathering twelve disciples who travel with him for three years before he is crucified under Pontius Pilate, was buried, and rose again on the third day. To his followers he is a the son of God; others he was merely a prophet; and others say he either didn’t exist, or if he did, was merely a man whose followers exaggerated large legends about him, creating stories of miracles and exaggerating his claims to deity. Regardless of how one views the Jesus story, there is no denying its impact on popular culture, influencing western civilization in almost all aspects whether it be art, philosophy, music, law, politics, and many other aspects of western culture. The biggest indictor of this influence is the existence of the Roman Catholic Church, arguably the largest Christian organization in the world. The existence of the Catholic church, especially in the last twenty or thirty years, has brought both praise and controversy. On one hand, the Catholic church is considered one of the largest contributors to charities all over the world, one of the largest founders to universities and hospitals, and has one of the largest voices to bringing advancements to western civilization; on the other hand, the Catholic church has also been involved in some of the worst scandals in human history, ranging from the Galileo controversy to the recent sex abuse scandals that has left a visible scar on the church that almost no sane person can deny. Despite the good the Catholic church has done for the world, popular culture has strongly criticized and condemned the church for its failing due to the scandals it has been involved in. It is of no surprise when the Catholic church is depicted in a strongly negative light, whether it be as the whore of Babylon by fundamentalist Protestant groups, as supporting and trying to protect pedophilia in the media, or depicted in TV and film as one of the biggest evils in the world. Regardless, the Catholic church remains, still going strong and continues to grow, counting 1.2 billion members as of 2012 and gaining new converts every year. Why is this? Why does the Catholic church continue to attract new members and grow despite the controversies and scandals the church has been involved in? To understand this, it is important to get a clear idea of a foundational belief Catholics have about the Catholic church, and that is the belief that Jesus Christ himself around two-thousand years ago came to earn and started one true church, a universal church that extends all over the world and spread the gospel to all nations (Mk 16:15; Mt 28:18-20). 

What do Catholics mean by that? What do Catholics mean when they say Jesus Christ started a one true church? What Catholics mean by this is that when Jesus came to earth as the second person in the trinity, we say that as God incarnate, Jesus Christ came to earth, sprouted a seed for his church on earth that will extend onto the end of the age. When Jesus gave his apostles the keys the kingdom of Heaven, he basically gave his apostles the authority to run the church in his name, the help grow the seed of his church to make the goal of spreading the gospel to all nations possible. It is this seed that Catholics claim was the start of the Catholic church, the very same Catholic church that is both praised by many and in the media and other outlets condemned as one of the world’s great evils. According to Catholics, Christ is the spiritual head of the Catholic church, with the Pope being the appointed representative of Christ who serves as the servant to the servants of God (CCC 659-667; 874-879). It is the Catholic claim that if Jesus Christ is the spiritual head of the Catholic church, then it logically follows that the Catholic Church is the one true church started by Jesus Christ around two-thousand years ago. It is of course beyond the scope of this essay to address all objections the Roman Catholic church’s claims to being the one true church, as well as its claim to being the one true visible catholic church started by Jesus Christ and stemming from the apostles, regardless as to whether these objections come from Protestant groups or from the Eastern Orthodox churches. Instead, the purpose of this essay is give a short overview of the basic claims of the Catholic church and give you the reader a basic introduction to Catholicism. For the sake of brevity (and so as to not overwhelm you as the reader most likely looking for a basic introduction), I will be focusing on three main claims of the Catholic church and giving a basic overview of these claims, and these are claims to Petrine Primacy, Apostolicity, and Catholicity.

The first main claim the Catholic church makes for being the one true church of Christ is its claim to Petrine Primacy. According to the Catholic church, because Jesus Christ gave his keys to kingdom of heaven first to Peter, this therefore means that that Jesus built his church on Peter. What this means is that by doing this, Peter has been made as the visible head of the entire church as a visible representative of Christ to run Christ’s universal church. A foundational passage in support of this has always been the famous passage in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 16. In Chapter 16 of the Gospel of Matthew, it depicts Jesus and his disciples coming into the region of Caesarea Philippi and asks his disciples who they say he is. It is Simon [who is later renamed Peter] who tells him that he the messiah, the son of the God. When Simon [Peter] makes this confession, this pleases Jesus who goes on to state the following: 

“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven.” [emphasis] Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.(NKJV).

It is of course important to note that the meaning of these passage has been debated by all three major sects of Christianity. In both Eastern Orthodoxy and almost all forms of Protestantism (including Anglicanism), Peter is seen given high honor but not given the kind of papal authority or primacy as recognized by the Catholic church. Many have advanced arguments against Petrine Primacy (many of which are, again, beyond the scope of this essay to address) in favor of an autocephalous system of church structure. Others have argued for a Primacy but object to the kind of Papal Primacy has advanced by the Roman Catholic church. Nevertheless, Petrine Primacy continues to be one of the main claims to the Catholic church’s claim to being the one true church started by Jesus Christ because of how it relates to its promise of being Christ’s universal church. Under the Catholic view, Petrine Primacy plays an important role in the church’s universality, thus making it the important piece of the puzzle that establishes the Catholic church as the one true church (as believed by Catholics) because without a Primacy, you cannot have the universality of the church that makes it necessary for it to be the church started by Jesus Christ. 

The second major claim I will focus on is the Catholic church’s claim to Apostolicity. Apostolicity refers to how the Catholic church claims to its teachings being able to refer back to the original apostles, or Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession is the idea that a church’s authority, teachings, and practiced can trace its roots all the way back to the original twelve apostles. The best analogy to explain this idea is to use the analogy of a torch. When Jesus Christ lit a torch, he gave that torch to his apostles, who, as bishops of Christ’s church, in turn gave that torch to the next generation of bishops, who then would go on to give that torch to the next generation of bishops, and so on. This in theory and practice creates an unbroken line of passing the torch from one generation to another that still lasts to this present day. For example, a validly ordained bishop in the Catholic is most likely going to be part of a tradition of bishops and priests who have been ordained by bishops who are part of an unbroken chain of bishops that can be traced all the way back to the original apostles. A noticeable example of apostolic succession can be found in Acts 1:25-26 which depicts Matthias replacing Judas as one of the twelve apostles after Judas betrays Jesus. This instance of apostolic succession demonstrates that the idea of replacing bishops who leave their posts is something that, I would argued, can be traced back to the early church, and is a practice that will continue to be practiced for generations to come. If this practice is prevalent in the Catholic church, then it gives you the reader a basic idea of why Catholics believe that the church they believe is the universal church started by Jesus Christ affirms its apostolicity through this unbroken chain of apostolic succession. By looking at this chain of apostolic succession, it becomes obvious why Catholics believe the Catholic church is the one true church started by Jesus Christ because of how Catholics believe they can trace their roots all the way back to Christ himself. 

The last major claim the Catholic church details I will focus on is its claim to catholicity (or universality). The term Catholic means “universal” in latin, and the idea of Catholicism encompasses a universality of the church started by Jesus Christ himself. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a 4th century theologian of the early church, gives us an idea of what the universality of the church means when he writes:

[The Church] is called catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description (Catechetical Lectures 18:23)

The very foundation of Catholic ecclesiology is related to the concept of universality. Without universality, there is no catholicism, and there is no catholic church. When we refer back to Matthew chapter 16, what we mean is that the Catholic church is claiming that when Jesus gave the keys to Peter and the rest of his apostles, Christ started the seed that would grow to be the universal church, which would grow to be what the Catholic church is today. If we understand the claims the church makes in regards to universality, it becomes apparent as to why Catholics believe the Catholic Church is the one true church started by Jesus Christ himself. 

With these basic claims of the Catholic church, it helps to gain a starting point for how one can start learning about the Catholic church's claim. It is important to learn that these all topics that deserve essays of their own to lecture and explain to the newcomer to Catholicism. Keep in mind that it is not my intention that this essay will convince you to become Catholic, but rather to give you a basic idea of the major claims of the Catholics church to help you decide for yourself whether or not to explore further the claims of the Catholic church and its claims to being the church started by Jesus Christ himself. By getting an idea of these three major claims, it will hopefully help you as the reader to gain clearer introduction to Catholicism and hopefully the starting point for exploring into the faith. 

Further Reading:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 18:23

Catechism of the Catholic Church: 659-667; 874-879 

A Pro-Life Review of Ray Comfort's "180"

Recently, on September 26, 2011, the (in)famous protestant evangelical preacher Ray Comfort has released a documentary titled "180", where he attempts to argue that abortion is comparable to the Jewish Holocaust carried out by the Nazis during World War II. Comfort's goal with the film is to convince his audience to change their mind on the issue of abortion with the tactic of having them do a 180 (hence the title) on abortion by bringing in the issue of genocide of millions of people (jews, catholics, homosexuals, etc.) during the Nazi's genocidal campaign, and with Hitler's goal to take over the world.

In this review, I will not cover every single aspect of the film, as the film itself uses a lot of rhetorical strategies to attempt to persuade the audience to go against abortion. To make it extremely clear from the get go: On the issue of abortion, I am pro-life, and I make absolutely no apologies about that. I agree with Ray Comfort's position that abortion as an intrinsic act in of itself is an immoral act because, similar to the death penalty (which I am also against), it takes away the life of a person (which in this case is inside the womb). The reason I make this disclaimer right from the get go is because I do not want to give people the impression that I am criticizing Ray Comfort's film because I have this agenda to make abortion a moral act, or that I support the act of abortion itself, or that would I consider myself on the "pro-choice" side of the debate. While I am pro-life, I do recognize the situational ethics that are involved when it comes to specific cases such as rape, incest, and life of the mother. While I feel that pro-life arguments (while complicated arguments) can be made in regards to those specific situations, the purpose of this review is NOT to argue for pro-life or against abortion or to argue that an unborn fetus is a person, but to strictly critique Ray Comfort's film "180".To begin this review, let me first explain the positives of this film (which I would argue are few but will point them out anyway). The first thing that I felt the film did a good job at was it's production values. Ignoring for now the propagandistic nature of his presentation, one can see that Comfort and his crew put a lot of effort into their presentation. Nothing was said that was unclear, nor was there any miscommunication as to what they were arguing. The green screen that is used to make Comfort's point is put into good use, and the audience automatically can see what Comfort is attempting to do. Another positive thing I can say about the film is that Comfort does make valid points regarding the casual attitude have towards abortion. Abortion, I would argue, is not an issue that should be taken likely (with some people comparing it to a headache or an inconvience similar to a tumor), but an issue of whether or not having an abortion constitutes the killing of an innocent life. Abortion is an issue that needs to be taken seriously, and I feel Comfort does make a valid point in showcasing this casual attitude people have about abortion. However, with all that said and done, the film suffers greatly from strongly noticeable flaws.

The major flaw that I found with Comfort's film is that it's central argument is a huge non-sequitor. The first fourteen minutes of the film is Comfort interviewing various people and asking them about the holocaust and Hitler. What follows is mind boggling stupidity, as the majority of the people Comfort interviews claims to either never heard of Hitler, or "vaguely remember him." Either this is evidence that Comfort had actors play people who are this historically illiterate, purposely picked people this historically illiterate in order to try and make his argument work, or that he really did interview people THIS historically illiterate. I question the idea that people in everyday life would be historicall illiterate, especially considering that the story of Hitler, the Nazi's, and the Holocaust has entered our everyday language and culture (for example, when someone calls you Hitler, they are basically calling you evil). However, for the sake of the argument, we are going to grant Comfort that people can be this historically illiterate and that these interviews were not staged. How does people being ignorant about the horrors of holocaust follow that they must believe that abortion on the same level? To attempt to suppliment these interviews, Comfort attempts to bring in an interview with an anti-semetic neo-nazi named Steve and using him as a rhetorical framework to bring up Comfort's claim that Hitler hated the 10 commandments, hated Christianity, and used that a motivating factor in carrying out the holocaust. Being that I am not an expert on World War II history, I will not attempt to either say whether or not that Comfort's claims regarding Hitler in this aspect are accurate. Nevertheless, I will grant Comfort's claim strictly for the sake of the argument. Comfort then, after supplimenting the audience with these interviews and these claims about Hitler, along with graphic images of dead bodies from the holocaust, brings up two rhetorical questions, which are the following (paraphrased): 1) If you could go back in time and kill Hitler while he was still in his mother's womb, would you kill him so he couldn't have the opportunity to carry out mass genocide? and 2) If someone put a gun to your head and told you to bury jews alive, would you do it? Or would you attempt to save the jews? Once Comfort brings these points up, Comfort than suddenly sneaks in the topic of abortion and attempts to ask the audience (in this case, the people being interviewed) how their attitudes about the holocaust is suddenly not the same for abortion. The problem with this tactic is that while Comfort's point about the attitude of abortion is valid, it's a non-sequitor to argue "the holocaust is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong." Comfort presents this to the interviewees, but does not present a convincing argument as to why they should believe abortion is on the same level as the holocaust. 

To get a better understanding as to why I see this as a fallacious argument, let me present Comfort's argument (as I understand it) in syllogistic form:

Premise 1: State sanctioned genocide (the holocaust) is morally wrong.

Premise 2: Abortion is state sanctioned genocide.

Conclusion: Abortion is morally wrong. 

Now, before any of my fellow pro-lifers jump on my neck about this about how I'm wrong about this argument being fallacious, let me first unpack my argument. Syllogicially, this syllogism is valid, but it is not sound because premise 2 is problematic (as in barely, if at all, supported). Comfort does not successfully support premise 2 because he not adequately explained to his audience why abortion is one the same plane as state sanctioned genocide. Comfort irresponsibly jumps from one topic, then jumps to another, and expects his audience to automatically see how state sanctioned genocide and abortion (or more accurately, the pro-choice option) is on the same playing field. It does not help that Comfort has disingenuously gotten his interviewees to be placed in a state of mind about a particular topic (in this case, the holocaust and the idea of state sanctioned genocide) in order to get them to think about the topic of abortion, which clouds one's thinking regarding a particular topic because it does not allow time for one to really think through the morality of a specific topic. Another problem is that Comfort does not adequately explain why one should be against abortion if one is against state sanctioned genocide. The main central issue of the whole abortion controversy, when you break it down to the bare essential questions, is the question of whether or not an unborn baby at ANY stage of the pregnancy is a person (I argue that it is, but that's an argument for a different time). Ray Comfort does not address this question. According to the pro-choice argument, an unborn baby is not a person, and to even make a sound comparison between abortion and state sanctioned genocide, you must first convince the pro-choicer that an unborn baby is a person! This is why I believe that Ray Comfort's central argument is a non-sequitor. Even if we granted Ray Comfort's comparison, why should one OUGHT to be against abortion if that person doesn't believe an unborn baby is a person?

That being all said, Ray Comfort's film isn't entirely useless. It does make valid points regarding people's attitudes about the issue of abortion. However, because Comfort's main argument falls flat, I cannot recommend his film, even to people who are pro-life. Other (and better) sources that support the pro-life position are out there. Ray Comfort's film is not one of them.

A Christian Theological Quiz That I Took

I recently took a quiz on what how my theology is currently. While the quiz itself is not certainly perfect in the questions it asked me, it nonetheless gave me some an understanding of my current theological views. Here are the results I received:




You Scored as Roman Catholic

You are Roman Catholic. Church tradition and ecclesial authority are hugely important, and the most important part of worship for you is mass. As the Mother of God, Mary is important in your theology, and as the communion of saints includes the living and the dead, you can also ask the saints to intercede for you.

Roman Catholic

96%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

75%

Neo orthodox

68%

Classical Liberal

68%

Emergent/Postmodern

57%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

39%

Modern Liberal

32%

Reformed Evangelical

25%

Fundamentalist

18%

Taking this quiz has reminded me how much my theology has changed over the last 2 years or so, especially when I came back to taking Christianity seriously in 2009. Today, at 96% Roman Catholic, that's certainly not bad. Here is the link to the quiz: http://quizfarm.com/run.php/QuizRunner

Pray The Rosary

How to Understand Mary as the Mother of God