We’ve all heard the familiar message of the Parable of the Talents: God gives each of us special abilities, and we’re expected to put them to good use. But there’s something deeply troubling about that interpretation. The master in this story is a wealthy, ruthless man who rewards the servants who make him richer and brutally punishes the one who doesn’t. If that master represents God, what exactly are we being asked to admire?

Well, some biblical scholars have proposed a fascinating alternative: What if the third servant wasn’t a coward or a failure? What if he was refusing to participate in an exploitative system? And what if the real tragedy isn’t that he buried his talent, but that he lived in a world where fear made burying it seem like his safest option? That interpretation challenges not only the traditional sermon but our assumptions about wealth, authority, and human worth.

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

When we think about generosity, we usually think about giving money or donating to charity. But what if some of the most meaningful gifts we can offer don’t cost a dime? This week, we’re exploring how generosity begins with noticing the needs of others, taking action, and sharing what we have to offer.

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the 33rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore how generosity goes beyond financial contributions to include our time, attention, and unique talents.

In this episode, we’re asking a simple but important question: Whose life could you make a little easier this week, and what could you do to help? Together, we’ll uncover some practical wisdom beneath these ancient texts and discover why even our smallest acts of generosity can make a meaningful difference.

Imagine discovering that an ancient Jewish text describes a mysterious woman who existed before creation, participated in God’s work, and even sat beside God’s throne. Who is she? A forgotten goddess? A poetic expression of divine wisdom? Or perhaps, as later Christians would suggest, a description of Jesus centuries before his birth? Her name is Sophia, and the way we answer that question reveals something fascinating about how we interpret the Bible.

Because here’s the bigger issue: Many Christians approach Scripture assuming that every biblical author must ultimately agree with every other author. But what if these ancient writings preserve different perspectives that weren’t always meant to fit together? And what happens when our theology determines what a passage must mean before we’ve investigated what its author actually intended? Sophia gives us a wonderful opportunity to explore the difference between reading the Bible and making the Bible agree with us!

So, buckle and settle in for a slightly longer discussion than usual… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever noticed how easy it is to take the ordinary parts of life for granted… especially the people who are just always there? This week, we’re exploring how gratitude can help us recognize what matters before hindsight forces us to realize what we’ve lost.

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the 32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore how gratitude helps us notice what matters, appreciate it while it’s here, and remember its value when it’s gone.

In this episode, we’re asking an important question: Who in my life matters to me but may not know how much I appreciate them? Together, we’ll discover why grief can reveal something profound about gratitude and why meaning doesn’t require permanence.

There’s something incredibly powerful about telling people who are suffering, “This isn’t the end of your story.” Your circumstances can change. The people hurting you don’t get the final word. The world can become something better than it is today. Whether that promise comes from Revelation, a political movement, or our faith in human progress, hope can give people the courage to survive circumstances that might otherwise overwhelm them.

But there’s a troubling flip side to that promise. What happens when “things will get better” becomes a reason to tolerate things that shouldn’t be tolerated? When “justice will come” becomes an excuse for postponing justice? And before those of us who don’t believe in heaven get too smug and comfy, we might want to examine some of our own promises about the future. Because maybe the danger isn’t believing in a better world to come. Maybe the danger is allowing that belief to relieve us of our responsibility for building that better world!

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

What makes a life worth remembering? This week, we’re taking a humanistic look at All Saints Day. Not to search for perfect people, but to explore the qualities we see in others that might be worth trying to emulate in our own lives.

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the Solemnity of All Saints, we’ll explore how courage and resilience can grow through solidarity, integrity, and our determination not to let adversity decide who we become.

In this episode, we’re asking a personal question: What qualities do I see in the people I admire that are worth practicing in my own life? Together, we’ll uncover some profound wisdom underneath these ancient texts and consider how the best way to honor a life worth remembering may be to carry something good from that life forward in ours.

Marcus Aurelius wrote: “External things are not the problem. It’s your assessment of them.” He wasn’t writing those words for us. He wrote them for himself.

Marcus Aurelius was the Roman emperor and arguably the most powerful person in his world. He commanded legions, governed an empire, and possessed authority most of us can barely imagine. And yet, in his private writings, we repeatedly find him reminding himself to control his judgments, manage his reactions, resist his ego, and remember what kind of person he wanted to be.

Donald Trump’s relationship with power often seems to begin from a very different question. Not Should I exercise this power? Not Would using it this way violate an important boundary? But something closer to: If I have this power, why shouldn’t I use it?

What happens when someone holding enormous political power stops recognizing “voluntary restraint” as a virtue?

More importantly, should a democracy ever depend upon that personal level of restraint in the first place?

So, let’s dive into that... in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever said or done something in the heat of the moment and almost immediately wished you could take it back? This week, we’re taking a closer look at self-control; not as suppressing our emotions or denying what we want, but as creating enough space between impulse and action for our values to have a say in what happens next.

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the 30th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore how self-control asks us to restrain ourselves when we have power over others, choose our response when emotions and circumstances put pressure on us, and resist treating our own needs as more important simply because they’re ours.

In this episode, we’re asking a deceptively simple question: Am I reacting or am I choosing my response? Together, we’ll uncover some profound wisdom underneath these ancient texts and explore why the small space between impulse and action may be where our values matter most.

Imagine conquering an empire and then discovering that the people you’ve conquered believe their own god wanted you to win. That’s essentially what happened with Cyrus the Great. The Cyrus Cylinder portrays the Babylonian god Marduk as choosing Cyrus to rescue Babylon from an unworthy king. Meanwhile, Isaiah portrays Yahweh as choosing that very same Cyrus, even calling this foreign, non-Jewish ruler his anointed. Two gods. Two religious traditions. One remarkably well-endorsed emperor.

But maybe the most interesting question isn’t which god really chose Cyrus. Maybe we should ask why human beings are so eager to believe that our leaders have been chosen at all. Because once political authority becomes part of a sacred story, accountability gets complicated. And while most of us aren’t waiting for Marduk to endorse our next president, we still tend to create messiahs, chosen leaders, indispensable billionaires, inevitable movements, and people we’re convinced are somehow destined to save us all. The mythology changes. The temptation doesn’t.

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever caught yourself criticizing someone for something you’d probably excuse if a person on your own side did it? This week, we’re exploring integrity and why it has less to do with the values we claim and more to do with whether those values actually survive our choices.

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the 29th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore why integrity asks us to judge actions by our values rather than our tribes, make those values visible through what we do, and recognize what we owe others without surrendering the principles that define us.

In this episode, we’re asking a deceptively simple question: Does what I’m doing right now reflect who I say I am? Together, we’ll uncover some profound wisdom underneath these ancient texts and explore why integrity isn’t about ideological purity or perfect consistency. It’s about doing the ongoing work of bringing what we believe, what we say, and what we do into alignment.

I spent decades around Christianity, and I know a lot of thoughtful, compassionate Christians (including clergy who have studied scripture far more deeply than I have). They know the troubling passages are there. But when we talk about who Jesus really was, we tend to emphasize the Good Samaritan, the Beatitudes, forgiveness, compassion, and love of neighbor. When Jesus starts talking about swords, hating your family, burning cities, or throwing people into outer darkness, suddenly we need context, metaphor, translation, theology, and sometimes a pretty impressive amount of interpretive gymnastics. And that raises an uncomfortable question: If these words belong to the Jesus Christians want us to follow, why do we so often need to soften them before we’re comfortable hearing them?

It would be easy for me, as an atheist and humanist, to stop there; to point at Christians and accuse them of editing Jesus into someone who better reflects their modern values. But that’s NOT where I’m gonna stop… because I think the far more interesting question isn’t whether we reinterpret the past. I think the far more interesting question is why we reinterpret the past. What moral framework are we using? And are we even willing to admit that we’re doing it?

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever kept doing something that clearly wasn’t working simply because you didn’t want to give up? This week, we’re exploring tenacity and why sticking with a challenge doesn’t always mean sticking with the same strategy.

I’m Brandon Jubar and this is Mythologizing the Bible, where we’ll be taking a look at three readings from the Christian Bible through the lens of “sacred myth.”

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore how tenacity grows stronger when we endure together, helps us adapt without losing ourselves, and sometimes requires us to change the plan without abandoning the purpose.

In this episode, we’re asking an interesting question: Is there something in your life that isn’t working out the way you hoped… and are you willing to try another way? Together, we’ll explore why tenacity isn’t stubbornly following one path, but continuing toward something worth pursuing even when the path needs to change.

I’ve noticed something about courage: we tend to admire it most when someone else is paying the price. We celebrate the whistleblower who exposes corruption, the protester who challenges injustice, and the person who stands up to an abusive institution. But when the criticism turns toward a church we belong to, a political movement we support, or a leader we’ve defended for years, our enthusiasm for accountability can suddenly become a lot more complicated. Apparently, courage is a wonderful virtue right up until it threatens our own comfortable little corner of the world.

We were given several important images in the Bible readings we covered in the main episode this week. Isaiah’s rotten vineyard, Paul’s advice about where we direct our attention, and Matthew’s corrupt tenants all raise a question that reaches well beyond religion: What are our values worth when practicing them carries a cost? Because courage isn’t about being fearless, and it certainly isn’t about being the loudest person in the room. It’s about what we do when fear, loyalty, and self-interest give us perfectly convenient reasons to look the other way.

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever noticed how much easier it is to stand up for your values when everyone around you agrees with them? This week, we’re exploring courage, not as the absence of fear, but as the willingness to face uncomfortable truths and do what’s right, even when it might cost us something.

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the 27th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore how courage helps us confront our own shortcomings, make thoughtful choices when we’re afraid, and stand against injustice.

In this episode, we’re asking a challenging question: What happens to our convictions when we leave the comfort of people who already agree with us? Together, we’ll explore why courage matters most when living our values becomes uncomfortable.

Our main episode this week celebrated adaptability. I told you that changing your mind can be a sign of growth, that changing course when something isn’t working can be wise, and that stubbornly clinging to an old position simply because you’ve already committed to it isn’t necessarily integrity. And I stand by all of that.

But watching the Republican Party’s relationship with Donald Trump raises a much more uncomfortable version of the same question. What happens when the evidence doesn’t really change, but the political incentives do? What happens when standing by your principles and opposing someone can cost you influence, leadership, or even your political career, while accommodating that person, regardless of your principles, allows you to remain inside the circle of power? At what point does adaptability stop being intellectual flexibility and become something else entirely?

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever noticed how often we praise people for refusing to change their minds? We call it strength, conviction, or standing their ground. But sometimes the strongest thing we can do is recognize that something isn’t working and then change .

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the 26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore how adaptability allows us to change direction when our behavior isn’t working, loosen our grip on always having things our own way, and change our minds when reflection gives us good reason to do so.

In this episode, we’re asking a challenging question: When does standing our ground stop being strength and start becoming stubbornness? Together, we’ll uncover some useful wisdom underneath these ancient texts and explore why adaptability isn’t about surrendering our values… it’s about becoming willing to grow!

There’s a wonderfully convenient escape hatch available whenever a religious belief stops making sense: God’s ways aren’t our ways. Ask why an all-powerful God permits something horrible, question an ancient moral rule, or point out a theological contradiction, and Isaiah 55 can suddenly appear like a divine Get Out of Logic Free card. We’re human. God knows better. Stop asking questions.

But there’s a delicious irony hiding behind that argument. The Bible itself wasn’t created by people who simply preserved an unchanging collection of ideas exactly as they received them. Its writers and editors lived through wars, exile, political upheaval, and cultural change—and they repeatedly interpreted, adapted, expanded, and reworked their traditions in response. So how did texts created through a remarkably dynamic human process eventually become arguments against changing our own thinking?

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!

Have you ever stopped to wonder why we do something a certain way and realized the only real answer is, “Because that’s how we’ve always done it”? This week, we’re exploring innovation and what happens when we become willing to question the assumptions, solutions, and systems we’ve learned to accept.

Share

As we reflect on the readings for the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time, we’ll explore how innovation begins by questioning the limits of our current thinking, focuses our creativity on problems that actually matter, and sometimes requires us to redesign the rules themselves.

In this episode, we’re asking a challenging question: What happens when we stop assuming that the way things are is the way they have to be? Together, we’ll uncover some surprising wisdom underneath these ancient texts and consider how curiosity and intellectual humility can open the door to something far better.

Paul’s statement in our reading from Romans this week, that “none of us lives for oneself”, is something that sounds almost tailor-made for the modern world. Climate change, pandemics, global supply chains, economic inequality, migration, war… we now have overwhelming evidence that what happens to people thousands of miles away can eventually affect people sitting at our own kitchen tables. For perhaps the first time in human history, we can actually see just how interconnected we are.

There’s just one problem: our brains weren’t built for this world. Human social cognition developed in relatively small communities where cooperation meant dealing with people we actually knew, while outsiders were a lot easier to distrust or ignore. Today, we’re asking those same brains to care about eight billion people, and then we’re surprised when we retreat into political tribes, national borders, and online echo chambers. What if becoming a genuinely global citizen isn’t something that comes naturally at all but a skill we have to deliberately learn and practice?

So, let’s dive into that… in this BONUS episode of Afterthoughts!

There’s a version of Jesus that almost everyone seems to know, including people who’ve never opened a Bible. He’s the gentle moral teacher who tells us to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, forgive endlessly, and replace the wrath and violence of the Old Testament with compassion and grace. I’ll admit… that’s a very appealing picture of Jesus and there’s certainly material in the Gospels to support it.

But there’s other material you don’t tend to see on inspirational posters or coffee mugs. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus also threatens people with Gehenna, fire, outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth, and—in the passage from Matthew that we read in this week’s main episode—being handed over to torturers.

What happens to the “Gospel of Love” when we stop cherry-picking the comforting passages and read the threats alongside them? And more importantly, if we’re trying to develop genuine moral mastery, can fear of divine punishment ever really get us there?

So, let’s dive into that… in this episode of Afterthoughts!