It said, "Jesus didn't dine with tax collectors and sinners because he wanted to appear inclusive, tolerant, and accepting.

"He ate with them to call them to a changed and fruitful life, to die to self and live for him.

"His call is transformation of life not affirmation of identity."

It would take some time to explain how bad this meme is, starting with its answering a claim no one ever makes.

Does anyone think that Jesus did what he did because he "wanted to appear inclusive," or to impress others?

Of course not.

But those sharing this quote are not really talking about Jesus. They are accusing people today of pretence and virtue-signalling, and of abusing Jesus' example as a way to excuse sinners and their sins.

Some in the Catholic world feel a need, even a compulsion, to make sure that judgment is always pronounced whenever mercy is offered.

By this thinking, sinners—or at least certain categories of sinners—must never be allowed to forget their offences.

How will they sin no more if they don't feel condemned?

Some in the Catholic world feel a need, even a compulsion, to make sure that judgment is always pronounced whenever mercy is offered.

The judgmentalism is bad, but I think the worst thing about the meme is that it effectively denies Jesus' humanity.

Real people like other people.

If Jesus became man, then he became a man who had friends. With the disciples most closely, as St. John Henry Newman explained, but with many others as well.

I came across the meme one evening in our townie dive bar, after spending a couple of hours sitting with my young friend who believes in crystals and three kinds of aliens (one that looks like birds), and my older friend, a retired cop.

I had also talked with the 30-something programming whiz who shares very intricate conspiracy theories, the man who admits to drinking a lot but prides himself on getting up the next morning and doing a good job at work, a huge young man who once asked if I could get him a girlfriend and then if he could sit on my lap (which baffled me until he called me "Santa") and several other people who use the F-word in a creative variety of ways.

All friends. Not close friends, but friends.

Some of these people live (I am sure, but I don't ask) in irregular sexual relationships, as Catholics understand it, and perhaps enjoy illegal substances as well as substantial amounts of alcohol.

Though many of the older patrons grew up Catholic, no one, as far as I can tell, ever goes into a church.

I like them all.

They're likeable people.

In fact, I like them better than most Catholics I know.

They are the same kind of people, I'm guessing, that Jesus ate with.

I think that Jesus ate at his equivalent of our dive bar because he liked the people.

Not just loved them, but liked them, enjoyed them for themselves, took pleasure in their company and felt happy just hanging out with them.

I think that Jesus ate at his equivalent of our dive bar because he liked the people.

Not just loved them, but liked them.

He wanted them to change, of course, the way he wants every one of us to change.

But I don't think the people I hang out with need to change any more than I do, or more than most of the good Catholics I know.

In some ways, among them kindness to others, they need to change less.

If I read them right, and I've been looking at this kind of thing for a long time, those who share the "Jesus didn't dine…" meme picture Jesus as purely divine.

They believe he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, but mainly as a guarantor that he shared our humanity in order to save us.

The Jesus they imagine is always on, always about being God, and being God means pronouncing judgment first and then forgiveness.

Always, if you will, making the sales pitch.

They don't imagine him doing normal human things for normal human reasons.

The Jesus they imagine is always on, always about being God, and being God means pronouncing judgment first and then forgiveness. Continue reading

Yet even though most of us recognise that being wise is entirely different from other markers of success — such as being rich or famous or even a genius — wisdom is a difficult quality to define.

Do we truly understand what it takes to be wise?

Ursula M. Staudinger has spent decades thinking about wisdom.

As a student in Germany, she became interested in looking at people's life experiences in an empirical way.

Her studies led her to the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, where in the 1980s she joined several other prominent psychologists on the Berlin Wisdom Project, helping to pioneer the field of wisdom studies.

Today, she is director of the Robert N. Butler Columbia Aging Center at Columbia University.

Wisdom, as she recently told The New York Times, consists of "self-insight; the ability to demonstrate personal growth; self-awareness in terms of your historical era and your family history; understanding that priorities and values, including your own, are not absolute; and an awareness of life's ambiguities."

Sound like a lot? If there's one thing Staudinger has learned while studying wisdom, it's that not a lot of people have it.

But her work has yielded many insights into how we can set ourselves on the path to wisdom, if we really want to. Continue reading.

Source: Huffington Post

Image: Mansfield College

We now understand that the onset of symptoms of autism spectrum disorders is variable during the first two years of life. Signs are evident in some children from birth, while others may appear to be developing typically but then fail to progress.

Other children may lose some of their already-developed skills. Words the child may have previously (and correctly) used to name or request objects, for instance, may no longer be uttered. This apparent slowing or regression in development usually becomes apparent between 15 to 24 months of age, but may begin even later.

What is autism?

Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are a complex set of conditions that affect more than 1% of children. They are characterised by difficulties in the core areas of social communication and language, accompanied by restricted and repetitive behaviours and interests.

Although largely genetically determined, we still do not understand all of the causes of ASDs.

There are currently no available cures. So the best evidence to date points to early identification and behavioural intervention as the best way to minimise the effects of these conditions on the developing child.

If behavioural intervention can be accessed as soon as there are early warning signs - before the onset of the "full-blown" syndrome - it's possible to target the developmental precursors of ASDs. This improves the chances of the child moving toward a more typical developmental trajectory.

A baby who doesn't respond when his name is called, or shows no signs of imitating others' behaviours such as clapping and waving, and instead seems to be on their own agenda, is a candidate for early intervention. This child needs to be brought back into the social loop so that he can begin to learn from others. Continue reading

Sources

• The Conversation
• Image: soulation