Saturday Saints- #70

For the third time this series finds itself at the letter “P.” This time our saint for today is Saint Philip of Agira:

Saint Philip of Agira (also Aggira, Agirone, Agirya or Argira) was an early Christian confessor. There are two parallel stories of this saint which give to possible dates in which this saint lived. Traditionally, through the writings of St. Athanasius, it is maintained that Philip of Agira is a saint of the 1st century, born in the year AD 40 in Cappadocia (modern Turkey) and died on 12 May, AD 103.

Another recent study says to have been born of a Syrian father in Thrace on an unknown date in the 5th century whose elder brothers drowned whilst fishing. Philip was known as the “Apostle of the Sicilians”, as he was the first Christian missionary to visit that island. Nothing else can be certainly stated about him.

The source of this is his wiki, found here.

Tradition Thursday- #25

The series based on St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Letters continues. His eighth letter resumes the discussion on the Nicene Creed, focusing on the Omnipotence of God:

Jeremiah 39:18, 19 (Septuagint).

The Great, the strong God, Lord of great Counsel, and mighty in His works, the Great God, the Lord Almighty and of great name.

1. By believing In One God we cut off all misbelief in many gods, using this as a shield against Greeks; and every opposing power of heretics; and by adding, In One God the Father, we contend against those of the circumcision, who deny the Only-begotten Son of God. For, as was said yesterday, even before explaining the truths concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, we made it manifest at once, by saying The Father, that He is the Father of a Son: that as we understand that God is, so we may understand that He has a Son. But to those titles we add that He is also Almighty; and this we affirm because of Greeks and Jews together, and all heretics.

2. For of the Greeks some have said that God is the soul of the world : and others that His power reaches only to heaven, and not to earth as well. Some also sharing their error and misusing the text which says, And Your truth unto the clouds , have dared to circumscribe God’s providence by the clouds and the heaven, and to alienate from God the things on earth; having forgotten the Psalm which says, If I go up into heaven, You are there, if I go down into hell, You are present. For if there is nothing higher than heaven, and if hell is deeper than the earth, He who rules the lower regions reaches the earth also.

3. But heretics again, as I have said before, know not One Almighty God. For He is Almighty who rules all things, who has power over all things. But they who say that one God is Lord of the soul, and some other of the body, make neither of them perfect, because either is wanting to the other. For how is he almighty, who has power over the soul, but not over the body? And how is he almighty who has dominion over bodies, but no power over spirits? But these men the Lord confutes, saying on the contrary, Rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28 For unless the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has the power over both, how does He subject both to punishment? For how shall He be able to take the body which is another’s and cast it into hell, except He first bind the strong man, and spoil his goods ?

4. But the Divine Scripture and the doctrines of the truth know but One God, who rules all things by His power, but endures many things of His will. For He rules even over the idolaters, but endures them of His forbearance: He rules also over the heretics who set Him at nought, but bears with them because of His long-suffering: He rules even over the devil, but bears with him of His long-suffering, not from want of power; as if defeated. For he is the beginning of the Lord’s creation, made to be mocked , not by Himself, for that were unworthy of Him, but by the Angels whom He has made. But He suffered him to live, for two purposes, that he might disgrace himself the more in his defeat, and that mankind might be crowned with victory. O all wise providence of God! Which takes the wicked purpose for a groundwork of salvation for the faithful. For as He took the unbrotherly purpose of Joseph’s brethren for a groundwork of His own dispensation, and, by permitting them to sell their brother from hatred, took occasion to make him king whom He would; so he permitted the devil to wrestle, that the victors might be crowned; and that when victory was gained, he might be the more disgraced as being conquered by the weaker, and men be greatly honoured as having conquered him who was once an Archangel.

5. Nothing then is withdrawn from the power of God; for the Scripture says of Him, for all things are Your servants. All things alike are His servants, but from all these One, His only Son, and One, His Holy Spirit, are excepted; and all the things which are His servants serve the Lord through the One Son and in the Holy Spirit. God then rules all, and of His long-suffering endures even murderers and robbers and fornicators, having appointed a set time for recompensing every one, that if they who have had long warning are still impenitent in heart, they may receive the greater condemnation. They are kings of men, who reign upon earth, but not without the power from above: and this Nebuchadnezzar once learned by experience, when he said; For His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and His power from generation to generation Daniel 4:34 .

6. Riches, and gold, and silver are not, as some think, the devil’s : for the whole world of riches is for the faithful man, but for the faithless not even a penny. Now nothing is more faithless than the devil; and God says plainly by the Prophet, The gold is Mine, and the silver is Mine, and to whomsoever I will I give it. Do thou but use it well, and there is no fault to be found with money: but whenever you have made a bad use of that which is good, then being unwilling to blame your own management, thou impiously throwest back the blame upon the Creator. A man may even be justified by money: I was hungry, and you gave Me meat Matthew 25:35-36: that certainly was from money. I was naked, and you clothed Me: that certainly was by money. And would you learn that money may become a door of the kingdom of heaven? Sell, says He, that you have, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven.

7. Now I have made these remarks because of those heretics who count possessions, and money, and men’s bodies accursed. For I neither wish you to be a slave of money, nor to treat as enemies the things which God has given you for use. Never say then that riches are the devil’s: for though he say, All these will I give you, for they are delivered unto me , one may indeed even reject his assertion; for we need not believe the liar: and yet perhaps he spoke the truth, being compelled by the power of His presence: for he said not, All these will I give you, for they are mine, but, for they are delivered unto me. He grasped not the dominion of them, but confessed that he had been entrusted with them, and was for a time dispensing them. But at a proper time interpreters should inquire whether his statement is false or true.

8. God then is One, the Father, the Almighty, whom the brood of heretics have dared to blaspheme. Yea, they have dared to blaspheme the Lord of Sabaoth , who sits above the Cherubim : they have dared to blaspheme the Lord Adonai : they have dared to blaspheme Him who is in the Prophets the Almighty God. But worship thou One God the Almighty, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Flee from the error of many gods, flee also from every heresy, and say like Job, But I will call upon the Almighty Lord, which does great things and unsearchable, glorious things and marvellous without number , and, For all these things there is honour from the Almighty : to Whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

(Source)

Absence Makes The Heart Grow Emptier

Background: One of the deepest writers in the entire ‘sphere also happens to be one of those who writes the least: Ace of Spades. His posts can sometimes be just a few short sentences in length, spaced apart by the occasional break. When added together they rarely amount to more than a paragraph or two. However, each word is fraught with meaning (almost always on multiple levels), and he can accomplish with a few lines what others need an essay to convey. Yet the insight he hopes to convey isn’t always obvious, and all of his posts need to be “unpacked” (or unzipped, to use computer terminology) to some degree. I’ve unpacked posts of his before, and he expressed appreciation for my effort. At the same time he asked me to make similar efforts in the future, and this post follows in that path.

The post I want to examine today is “… [there’s] oh so many ways for me to show you how your dogma has abandoned you…” Like nearly all of his posts, it begins with a song which helps set tone and context. I suggest listening to it before reading further. I intend to analyze his post line by line, so it may help to read the full post at his site, as I don’t intend to post it all together here. Also, while each line will have analysis, much of it will be at the end of the post as well. Now to get to it:

All pig-tails and patent-leather shoes.

These two features together hint at femininity in a juvenile context- a young school-age girl. She is young and innocent, and looks the part- wearing her hair in pig-tails and dressing up in nice looking clothes for when she goes to school. This sets up the point of view of the post- that of a young girl (at least in the beginning).

Daddy never seems to care.

The key language in this line is the word “seems.” Ace included that word on purpose. Whatever “Daddy’s” actual intentions might be, they are ultimately irrelevant in this context. What matters is how the young girl from the above line perceives his concern, his lack of care about her.

This is important because “Daddy” might care, but not be in a position to do anything about it. If the father of a young girl has been kicked out of the home and separated from his children by force of law because “Mommy” decide to frivorce him, then what he wants or intends doesn’t matter. The amount of time he can spend with his daughter will be limited, in some cases quite severely. And no matter how much Daddy tells his daughter that he loves her, that he cares for her, that he wants to spend time with her… she won’t believe him if he doesn’t spend much time with her. She cannot help but rationalize his limited contact as a lack of care on his part, no matter how much the matter is explained to her. For a child, a father’s presence, or the lack thereof, is not something which is guided and directed by a rational thought process (no matter how smart the child).

As a side note, even if the biological father is present, but he doesn’t act like an actual father (that is, as a masculine man exercising the office of fatherhood), it is like he isn’t even there at all.

And fathers are the first glimpse of God all children see.

The fact that this line alone is in bold makes it clear that this is the most important line in the whole post. So why bold it?

Numerous studies have shown that it is the father, not the mother, who has the greatest influence on a child’s faith. A devout father can lead his children to follow his faith, no matter the beliefs of the mother. Yet not amount of holiness by the mother can compensate for a father’s disbelief. The reason why is as Ace describes- in their father children see their first real glimpse of God. How so? A father- a true father who can act as such, acts much as God: he admonishes and disciplines when necessary, he provides strength and comfort in times of distress, he pushes for improvement as required, and he loves throughout.

A child’s relationship with his or (in this case) her father helps that child understand boundaries, to understand authority, to get a sense of what is right, and what is wrong. Nothing can replace this understanding.

Left little choice, you choose to sin.

An interesting line. choice in what? By itself this line is incomplete.

Just to get some attention.

Now the previous line makes sense. The young girl from before is feeling the effects of her father’s absence. Without realizing it, without understanding it, part of her- deep in her subconscious- needs a strong male presence in her life. Specifically, she needs the presence of a father. Only she cannot comprehend that. She can only understand that she wants male attention. And so she seeks it. She seeks it from other men, to get that attention and validation that she knows she wants, without understanding why. Without that firm foundation which can only be build over years by a strong and loving father, she will invariably seek that attention in a sinful fashion. Fornication cannot help but seem like love to her.

But boys are not the Almighty.

This line hints at two things, neither of which is mutually exclusive. And when you get down to it, they derive from the same point. Why “Almighty,” when the previous lines suggest that it is a father that the young woman (for she is no longer a girl at this point) seeks? Because she is also seeking God. For just as her need for a father’s presence was not met, so too her need for a sense of God’s presence in her life is not met. For as was indicated earlier, our ability to know God is in large part shaped by our father. To not know the former is to inhibit our connection to the latter.

The men she is sleeping around with cannot (and even if they could, likely would not) give her the love that she seeks. Eros is what her hormones tell her to seek, but it is Agape that her soul longs for- the true, lasting and selfless love of a father, both one of this world, and Eternal. Sadly, this is beyond her ken.

Thus, the emptiness still grows—

Eros without Agape is poison to the soul. We cannot fill ourselves solely with Eros, no matter how hard we try. Instead we simply feed into our hunger, demanding more and more. [Edit: Think of it like salt and water. Salt is good and necessary for our health, and adds much flavor to life. But too much salt, and not enough water, and we throw our electrolyte balance off. This can kill our body if not swiftly correct. Just as Eros can add flavor to our life, without Agape to keep us balanced we risk death, only of the eternal sort for it is our soul which is threatened.]

All the while the emptier and emptier we feel. For the young woman caught in this trap, there is seemingly no escape. She moves from man to man, and yet her need for that male presence only grows greater. She thirsts, and goes to the well, but cannot be satisfied. All because she is going to the wrong well, which she knows not.

regardless of how much they put in you.

The obvious inference here is what this double entendre suggests: the sexual act, which literally involves putting something in the young woman. However, it is more than just that. Some of the men might mean well or even be serious in their attentions/intentions. They might actually love the young woman. But that doesn’t matter- they cannot provide what she needs.

The years fall away and that little girl continues to struggle.

This is a trap from which the young woman cannot seem to escape [but I repeat myself]. Ironically, while she is no longer a little girl in body, in many ways her mind and emotional state never advanced beyond the tender years. How could they?

(Still wearing pigtails and patent-leather shoes.)

Once again, two meanings are present. As the previous line hinted at, the young woman is still mentally and emotionally a little girl. Her maturation process was incomplete, as a core ingredient was missing.

The other meaning hints at the sexualized lifestyle of the young woman, as well as her increasing age. In an effort to try and recapture her youth, and that sense of innocence from before, she tries to adopt a more youthful appearance. She wears clothing and hairstyles that make her seem younger, or otherwise bear some connection to her youth. On the one hand this ties into her sexuality, and a desire to keep it at its peak (even though that is only a brief window). On the other hand, this attempt to recapture her youth is a desperate attempt by the woman to try and repeat her childhood. To have a youth again where that strong man she desperately needs will be present this time.

To wrestle love from the unloving.

Yet another reminder that those men she associates with, those men she sleeps with and gives herself to, cannot give her what she wants needs. Nor can they be truly blamed in this [absence on her part], as it is not their place.

But it is not only men who she attempts to wrestle with. It is causes and movements. Anything and everything that gives even the faintest flicker of potential meaning and purpose. She longs for a place where she can belong. But causes and movements are cold. Unloving. They too cannot give her what she wants needs: a family as it was meant to be.

To punish herself until absolution arrives.

Self-loathing invariably becomes a part of this. The young woman is miserable, and no matter how much she may deny it to others, she knows it deep down inside. Her misery is something she knows is a result of having done something wrong, although she may not know what. Her sense of guilt, as ill-formed as it is, drives her to yet further misery. All in the hope that it will end someday. That she will finally have paid a heavy enough price for whatever it was that she did wrong. A wrong for which she was punished by not having a real father in her life.

Yet it never does.

Of course, she was not responsible for her father not being in her life. Her upbringing is not something she shares blame in. But this is something she never hears, or rather, never hears as she should. She might be told that it isn’t her fault. But that is meaningless or ultimately futile without being told whose fault it is, without understanding why things were wrong in the first place.

The humanist sacristy is empty.

A sacristy is a place where clergy prepare for services. So what does Ace mean by this line? He is trying to indicate that humanism has nothing, has no one, to actually carry out services in the first place. Its very nature is to leave people to fend for themselves, to suffer through life’s trials without solace or guide… or absolution.

The progressive wine is soured.

I take this to mean that much of the appeal of progressivism is gone now. It has sat at the same place for so long it has gone stale. No one wants to drink it, although they may feel compelled to do so. After all, it is a liturgical center-piece of the present-age “social gospel,” and so cannot simply be dispensed with.

And no one listens in the digital confessional…

We, all of us, seek absolution. We may not realize the need to repent and confess our sins, but we have it all the same. Sometimes (perhaps even most of the time), we rationalize away this impulse. We call it something else. But its essence remains the same- after all, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Alas, the internet is no proper confessional. Ace says that no on listens, because to hear, and to listen, are two different things. To listen to something is to pay attention to it, to recognize its meaning and to try and understand what is being said, even as we hear it. But over the internet true listening is not possible. Only hearing. Too much is lost in the process of putting words onto digital ink, of spilling it across monitors the world over. There is something inhumanly mechanical about the internet which disconnects us, even as it helps bring us together like never before. Because of this, the internet can never replace the confession booth.

save the echo.

Interestingly enough, part of us still knows what we are saying, even if we cannot accept that truth. So ultimately a digital confession merely rebounds at us and amplifies the need we feel.

You were forgiven – and loved – long before you strayed.

This line applies both to the young woman’s earthly father, as well as her father in heaven. The theology involved should be pretty basic to most any Christian, and so I won’t go into too much depth. But it is worth pointing out that God knows we are going to stray, that we are going to sin, long before we ever do. His sacrifice at Calvary was not merely for what we have done, but for what we have yet to do. It is a sacrificial love that persists throughout the ages.

Underlying this is the call by both Daddy and our Father to return. To come home. To seek him/Him out and to try and create a proper relationship this time.

Oh, child, who told you that you were naked?

The end is always a good place to return to the beginning, to Genesis. Here Ace alludes to the Fall, to the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. Yes, I know, obvious. So why include it? To remind us that no one told Adam and Eve they were naked. They knew it themselves as a result of eating the Forbidden Fruit. Likewise, the young woman (or should I say women?) featured here was never told that she was on the wrong path. No one needed to tell her. The understanding that she is naked, that she is in a shameful place, is intrinsic to her nature. When we revolt against the natural law, we cannot help but recognize that a crime (of sorts) has taken place.

So what is the full context of what Ace is trying to say? Again, there are many layers here.

On one level Ace states that the absence of a strong father in a young woman’s life will almost invariably lead her towards a life of dissolution and sin. The absence of a strong masculine presence will ache within her akin to hunger pains, and she will gorge herself upon men (seeking masculinity) in order to try and sate that hunger. Sadly, such binge eating will never alleviate her need.

Ace is also explaining that the crisis of faith we are seeing now in Christianity is the product of the destruction of the institution or office of fatherhood. Without strong fathers in their lives many children cannot help but abandon the faith. Of course to them there is no abandonment; without a father they never really knew God in the first place.

He is also pointing out that the humanist and progressive institutions of our day cannot replace what they destroyed. They are, at best, base mockeries of something greater. Though they may mimic the form of Faith, they can never replicate the function. Just as realizing their nakedness was innate to Adam and Eve after taking the fruit, the desire to confess and be absolved of our sins is also innate within us. The present progressive paradigm, however, cannot meet that need, as it rejects its existence in the first place. You cannot heal a spiritual injury when you refuse to recognize there is an injury in the first place, or even anything spiritual.

I am sure there is more to it, but my time is limited and so I must cap my analysis here. Mayhaps Ace will fill in what I could not.

[Update: I fixed a number of typos and grammatical errors, plus added a few words and an example to the post. Hopefully it will be easier to read now. Sorry for any confusion or post ugliness- I hadn’t intended for this post to go public when it did.]

Diagnosing Objectivity And Subjectivity

So it seems there has been some sort of skirmish in the ‘sphere lately involving “Roosh” and a number of folks over at the Red Pill Sub-Reddit. Personally, I don’t care much about this battle- I read neither, and so have no interest in getting involved- much less taking sides. Cail Corishev has an interesting analysis on the situation which some of my readers might find interesting, as it covers both the “schism” as well as provides some useful background info.

Apparently Rollo was involved in this matter to some degree, as he has written a post in response to what has been going on. What interests me about that post is not the commentary about Roosh, but rather about Rollo’s preference for an apolitical or neutral “Red Pill.” In this most recent post he quotes from one of his own posts a few weeks back, The Political is Personal:

It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.

Furthermore, any co-branding will still be violently disowned by whatever ideology it’s paired with because the Feminine Imperative has already co-opted and trumps the fundaments of that ideology. The fundamental truth is that the manosphere, pro-masculine thought, Red Pill awareness or its issues are an entity of its own.

Now, if I am reading Rollo right what he is saying in that post and in his post recent post is that the “Red Pill” should remain a movement focused on an objective diagnosis of reality. That is, the “Red Pill” shouldn’t be about telling people (men primarily) how to live. That would be Prescription, as Rollo calls it. Rather, the Red Pill should be about telling people how the world, specifically human socio-sexual behavior, works (Description). Then they can decide for themselves how they want to live.

I agree with Rollo that any sort of Prescriptive approach to the Red Pill would be inherently subjective- it would necessarily intersect with ideology or religion. This naturally will divide people, as we are now seeing (and in fact have seen for a while now). However, I must respectfully disagree with Rollo that even if the Red Pill was only Descriptive that it could ever be truly objective. While there is certainly a strong appeal to this notion, as it allows us all something in common, I don’t think it is consistent with human behavior.

Human beings are inherently subjective creatures. Pure objectivity is not really possible for us, even when we are merely trying to describe things. That’s right, even if we merely leave off at simply describing what we see, our internal filters will have an effect on what we notice. And if we take it further to try and understand what phenomena are at work, that involves even more of our subjective understanding and belief. To paraphrase the TV show House: if a neurologist, a cardiologist and an oncologist all examine the same patient, they are all apt to give a different diagnosis. This is because their training and background makes them look for different things, to examine the same symptoms differently, and to connect facts together in a different manner. What might be remarkable to one would be overlooked by another.

Our subjective beliefs influence our perception, and this means two men watching the same behavior can come to two different conclusions about what is going on. Part of the reason why scientific studies and papers are supposed to be peer reviewed is to help screen out biases. This same principle applies to the Red Pill.

The solution, however, is not to reject any attempt to provide a description of what is going on around us. A subjective observation can still be a correct observation, after all. Rather, what human subjectivity should make clear is the necessity of a place where people can share their observations with another, as well as their conclusions about those observations. A vibrant community helps provide a greater pool of observations, as well as helps weed out bad data (inaccurate observations), which naturally will help lead towards more accurate conclusions as well.

And those conclusions are not necessarily prescriptive. As I think on it, I believe that we can distinguish between description and diagnosis. By separating them we can better understand the process of what is going on. And speaking of “what,” I think that word gets to the heart of three different steps involved in this whole process:

• Description- What I just observed
• Diagnosis- What I think that observation means
• Prescription- What I think should be done about it

Again, I don’t think that you can make any one of these steps objective. Human nature precludes this. But I do think that wide-scale collaboration can overcome the negative aspects of subjectivity, at least in the area of Diagnosis. Diagnosis is really about creating effective models or theories of human behavior. Then using those theories or models to predict future behavior. If a model fails repeatedly to predict behavior accurately, then it either needs to be refined or discarded. The collaborative nature of the ‘sphere allows for this kind of testing on wider scale than any individual could hope to achieve themselves. In many ways this is what PUAs have been doing from the very beginning.

My LAMPS/PSALM model is an example of one of my efforts to diagnose female behavior. That model tries to explain what it is that drives female arousal/sexual attraction. By understanding the bounds set in place by that model, a man can focus his self-improvement in areas which will provide direct and positive effects on his overall sexual attractiveness to women. What is great about the ‘sphere is that men can learn about that model and test it out for themselves to determine its accuracy. So far I think it has been a fairly successful model. Not perfect, by any means, but it has held up well.

I can understand Rollo’s concern with the Description and Diagnosis process being caught up in an ideological or religious battle. However, I think that the damage can be mitigated to a large degree by keeping that community large and open. But even if there was Balkanization, or some faction or another dominated the movement, that wouldn’t be the end of the world. After all, whoever is left will still need to provide effective and accurate models/theories. If they don’t, then those who are looking for an explanation of the world around them will go somewhere else. After all, the rise of the Red Pill is attributable in large part to the fact that general society’s own models and theories are lacking. I think that those who would find a model or theory invalid because of its “taint” are probably not likely to accept the model in the first place- after all, their minds are not yet freed (to continue the Matrix analogy). [As a side-note, a model should be judged on its efficacy, not its source. To disregard it because of who created it would be a mistake- for anyone.]

If Rollo wishes to focus on Description and Diagnosis, then by all means he should do so. Nor should anyone fault him for focusing only on them. They are still vital areas which should not be ignored. While there is a lot of Description out there, new Diagnosis is always welcome. It would be the height of presumption to think that “the science is settled” and that no new models or theories should be developed to help explain or understand human behavior.

As for myself, my blog initially focused mostly on Diagnosis. Over time I became more and more focused on Prescription. I suspect that the latter will continue to be my dominant focus in the near future. But don’t be surprised to see me direct my attention back to Diagnosis from time to time.

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #76

Today is Pentecost Sunday, a fact which has influenced my choice of the first passage of Scripture to examine in today’s post. Here we have the story of Babel from the Book of Genesis:

Now the whole earth had one language and few words. ² And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. ³ And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. ⁴ Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” ⁵ And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. ⁶ And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. ⁷ Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” ⁸ So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. ⁹ Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.

(Genesis 11:1-9)

What interests me about this passage is not the confusion God creates, or even why, but the effect of its absence. In particular I am interested in this: “this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.” Looking at this, I wonder if God’s motivation here is to humble humanity. By limiting what we can achieve, and what we think we can do, He becomes that much more obviously necessary for us. However, when we can achieve nearly anything ourselves as human beings… what need have we of God?

Our abundance of power is, in my opinion, a major reason for the troubles of the present age. We have overcome the limitations of language and distance through the power of technology. At the same time we have achieved unequaled power over the natural world. And even as this has happened, we have pushed God further and further out of our lives. This is no accident. We lack humility in the modern age; instead we believe that nothing is impossible for us to achieve on our own.

It seems to me that the solution to this particular trouble isn’t to abandon technology, but to embrace humility. Simply discarding technology is no sure path to living a more humble life. It may help, but it is not and can never be a guarantee.

And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for

“God opposes the proud,
    but gives grace to the humble.”

(1 Peter 5:5)

Since we are on the subject of humility, this passage from St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians seems appropriate:

³ Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. ⁴ Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. ⁵ Have this mind among yourselves, which was in Christ Jesus, ⁶ who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷ but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. ⁸ And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. ⁹ Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, ¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹ and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

(Philippians 2:3-11)

This passage serves not only to highlight both the extent and necessity of humility, but also shows as false modernist notions of equality. As Christians we know that we are all equal in the eyes of the Lord- we all are equal inheritors of the Kingdom. But equality as the world understands it is an entirely different thing altogether. And it is incompatible with our Faith. If Christ Jesus, who is God, did not seek equality then why do we? If He saw it as nothing something to be grasped, why do we do otherwise? Surely we don’t think we are wiser than He. The real reason is obvious enough: we are not chasing after Him, but after the world.

How easy we forget the words of our Lord and Savior:

And he sat down and called the twelve; and he said to them, “If any one would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.”

(Mark 9:35)

Because He served more than anyone else, because He lowered Himself more than anyone else, because He placed everyone else ahead of Him, He was exalted above all others. In a world which values Equality and “empowerment,” and denigrates service and authority, let us endeavor to keep our priorities straight and keep God, not the world, foremost in our thoughts and heart.

Saturday Saints- #69

O is the letter for today’s Saint. This gives us our saint, Saint Opportuna of Montreuil:

Saint Opportuna of Montreuil (died 770) was a French Benedictine nun and abbess. A Vita et miracula Sanctae Opportunae was written within a century of her death (ca 885-88) by St. Adalhelm (later rendered Adelin), bishop of Séez, who believed he owed his life and his see to Opportuna.

More can be learned about her at her wiki, found here.

St. Opportuna

Yet Another Domino…

…hits the floor.

As the article makes clear, you cannot win as a Christian who professes orthodox beliefs. Compliance with their sundry demands is not enough. It will not, it cannot, be enough that you don’t act on your beliefs. You won’t be aren’t allowed to voice them either. And very soon (already?) you will be forced to voice beliefs that are not your own. Followed not long after by being forced to act consistent with their beliefs.

You know who they are.

And you know who their father is.

[This is a follow-up to my post here.]

Tradition Thursday- #24

The series continues with St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Letters. Starting with the letter for today he examines the Nicene Creed. Today we cover the Seventh Letter in its entirety, which addresses the subject of God the Father:

The Father.

Ephesians 3:14, 15

For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father,…of whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth is named, etc.

1. Of God as the sole Principle we have said enough to you yesterday : by enough I mean, not what is worthy of the subject, (for to reach that is utterly impossible to mortal nature), but as much as was granted to our infirmity. I traversed also the bye-paths of the manifold error of the godless heretics: but now let us shake off their foul and soul-poisoning doctrine, and remembering what relates to them, not to our own hurt, but to our greater detestation of them, let us come back to ourselves, and receive the saving doctrines of the true Faith, connecting the dignity of Fatherhood with that of the Unity, and believing In One God the Father: for we must not only believe in one God; but this also let us devoutly receive, that He is the Father of the Only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ.

2. For thus shall we raise our thoughts higher than the Jews , who admit indeed by their doctrines that there is One God, (for what if they often denied even this by their idolatries?); but that He is also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, they admit not; being of a contrary mind to their own Prophets, who in the Divine Scriptures affirm, The Lord said unto me, You are My Son, this day have I begotten you. And to this day they rage and gather themselves together against the Lord, and against His Anointed , thinking that it is possible to be made friends of the Father apart from devotion towards the Son, being ignorant that no man comes unto the Father but by John 14:6 the Son, who says, I am the Door, and I am the Way. He therefore that refuses the Way which leads to the Father, and he that denies the Door, how shall he be deemed worthy of entrance unto God? They contradict also what is written in the eighty-eighth Psalm, He shall call Me, You are my Father, my God, and the helper of my salvation. And I will make him my first-born, high among the kings of the earth. For if they should insist that these things are said of David or Solomon or any of their successors, let them show how the throne of him, who is in their judgment described in the prophecy, is as the days of heaven, and as the sun before God, and as the moon established for ever. And how is it also that they are not abashed at that which is written, From the womb before the morning-star have I begotten you : also this, He shall endure with the sun, and before the moon, from generation to generation. To refer these passages to a man is a proof of utter and extreme insensibility.

3. Let the Jews, however, since they so will, suffer their usual disorder of unbelief, both in these and the like statements. But let us adopt the godly doctrine of our Faith, worshipping one God the Father of the Christ, (for to deprive Him, who grants to all the gift of generation, of the like dignity would be impious): and let us Believe in One God the Father, in order that, before we touch upon our teaching concerning Christ, the faith concerning the Only-begotten may be implanted in the soul of the hearers, without being at all interrupted by the intervening doctrines concerning the Father.

4. For the name of the Father, with the very utterance of the title, suggests the thought of the Son: as in like manner one who names the Son thinks straightway of the Father also. For if a Father, He is certainly the Father of a Son; and if a Son, certainly the Son of a Father. Lest therefore from our speaking thus, In One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of All Things Visible and Invisible, and from our then adding this also, And in One Lord Jesus Christ, any one should irreverently suppose that the Only-begotten is second in rank to heaven and earth—for this reason before naming them we named God the Father, that in thinking of the Father we might at the same time think also of the Son: for between the Son and the Father no being whatever comes.

5. God then is in an improper sense the Father of many, but by nature and in truth of One only, the Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; not having attained in course of time to being a Father, but being ever the Father of the Only-begotten. Not that being without a Son before, He has since by change of purpose become a Father: but before every substance and every intelligence, before times and all ages, God has the dignity of Father, magnifying Himself in this more than in His other dignities; and having become a Father, not by passion , or union, not in ignorance, not by effluence , not by diminution, not by alteration, for every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow of turning. James 1:17 Perfect Father, He begot a perfect Son, and delivered all things to Him who is begotten: (for all things, He says, are delivered unto Me of My Father Matthew 11:27🙂 and is honoured by the Only-begotten: for, I honour My Father John 8:49, says the Son; and again, Even as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love. John 15:10 Therefore we also say like the Apostle, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and God of all consolation 2 Corinthians 1:3: and, We bow our knees unto the Father from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named Ephesians 3:14-15: glorifying Him with the Only-begotten: for he that denies the Father, denies the Son also : and again, He that confesses the Son, has the Father also ; knowing that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father Philippians 2:11 .

6. We worship, therefore, as the Father of Christ, the Maker of heaven and earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Exodus 3:6; to whose honour the former temple also, over against us here, was built. For we shall not tolerate the heretics who sever the Old Testament from the New , but shall believe Christ, who says concerning the temple, Did you not know that I must be in My Father’s house Luke 2:49? And again, Take these things hence, and make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise John 2:16, whereby He most clearly confessed that the former temple in Jerusalem was His own Father’s house. But if any one from unbelief wishes to receive yet more proofs as to the Father of Christ being the same as the Maker of the world, let him hear Him say again, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and not one of them shall fall on the ground without My Father which is in heaven ; this also, Behold the fowls of the heaven that they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feeds them Matthew 6:26; and this, My Father works hitherto, and I work John 5:17 .

7. But lest any one from simplicity or perverse ingenuity should suppose that Christ is but equal in honour to righteous men, from His saying, I ascend to My Father, and your Father, it is well to make this distinction beforehand, that the name of the Father is one, but the power of His operation manifold. And Christ Himself knowing this has spoken unerringly, I go to My Father, and your Father: not saying ‘to our Father,’ but distinguishing, and saying first what was proper to Himself, to My Father, which was by nature; then adding, and your Father, which was by adoption. For however high the privilege we have received of saying in our prayers, Our Father, which art in heaven, yet the gift is of loving-kindness. For we call Him Father, not as having been by nature begotten of Our Father which is in heaven; but having been transferred from servitude to sonship by the grace of the Father, through the Son and Holy Spirit, we are permitted so to speak by ineffable loving-kindness.

8. But if any one wishes to learn how we call God Father, let him hear Moses, the excellent schoolmaster, saying, Did not this your Father Himself buy you, and make you, and create you Deuteronomy 32:6? Also Esaias the Prophet, And now, O Lord. You are our Father: and we all are clay, the works of Your hands. Isaiah 64:8 For most clearly has the prophetic gift declared that not according to nature, but according to God’s grace, and by adoption, we call Him Father.

9. And that you may learn more exactly that in the Divine Scriptures it is not by any means the natural father only that is called father, hear what Paul says:— For though you should have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I begot you through the Gospel. 1 Corinthians 4:15 For Paul was father of the Corinthians, not by having begotten them after the flesh, but by having taught and begotten them again after the Spirit. Hear Job also saying, I was a father of the needy Job 29:16: for he called himself a father, not as having begotten them all, but as caring for them. And God’s Only-begotten Son Himself, when nailed in His flesh to the tree at the time of crucifixion, on seeing Mary, His own Mother according to the flesh, and John, the most beloved of His disciples, said to him, Behold! Your mother, and to her, Behold! Your Son John 19:26-27: teaching her the parental affection due to him , and indirectly explaining that which is said in Luke, and His father and His mother marvelled at Him Luke 2:33: words which the tribe of heretics snatch up, saying that He was begotten of a man and a woman. For like as Mary was called the mother of John, because of her parental affection, not from having given him birth, so Joseph also was called the father of Christ, not from having begotten Him (for he knew her not, as the Gospel says, until she had brought forth her first-born Son Matthew 1:25), but because of the care bestowed on His nurture.

10. Thus much then at present, in the way of a digression, to put you in remembrance. Let me, however, add yet another testimony in proof that God is called the Father of men in an improper sense. For when in Esaias God is addressed thus, For You are our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us Isaiah 63:16, and Sarah travailed not with us , need we inquire further on this point? And if the Psalmist says, Let them be troubled from His countenance, the Father of the fatherless, and Judge of the widows , is it not manifest to all, that when God is called the Father of orphans who have lately lost their own fathers, He is so named not as begetting them of Himself, but as caring for them and shielding them. But whereas God, as we have said, is in an improper sense the Father of men, of Christ alone He is the Father by nature, not by adoption: and the Father of men in time, but of Christ before all time, as He says, And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Your own self, with the glory which I had with You before the world was John 17:5 .

11. We believe then In One God the Father the Unsearchable and Ineffable, Whom no man has seen 1 Timothy 2:16, but the Only-begotten alone has declared Him. John 1:18 For He which is of God, He has seen God : whose face the Angels do always behold in heaven Matthew 18:10, behold, however, each according to the measure of his own rank. But the undimmed vision of the Father is reserved in its purity for the Son with the Holy Ghost.

12. Having reached this point of my discourse, and being reminded of the passages just before mentioned, in which God was addressed as the Father of men, I am greatly amazed at men’s insensibility. For God with unspeakable loving-kindness deigned to be called the Father of men—He in heaven, they on earth—and He the Maker of Eternity, they made in time,— He who holds the earth in the hollow of His hand, they upon the earth as grasshoppers. Yet man forsook his heavenly Father, and said to the stock, You are my father, and to the stone, You have begotten me. Jeremiah 2:27 And for this reason, methinks, the Psalmist says to mankind, Forget also your own people, and your father’s house , whom you have chosen for a father, whom you have drawn upon yourself to your destruction.

13. And not only stocks and stones, but even Satan himself, the destroyer of souls, have some ere now chosen for a father; to whom the Lord said as a rebuke, You do the deeds of your father John 8:41, that is of the devil, he being the father of men not by nature, but by fraud. For like as Paul by his godly teaching came to be called the father of the Corinthians, so the devil is called the father of those who of their own will consent unto him.

For we shall not tolerate those who give a wrong meaning to that saying, Hereby know we the children of God, and the children of the devil 1 John 3:10, as if there were by nature some men to be saved, and some to be lost. Whereas we come into such holy sonship not of necessity but by choice: nor was the traitor Judas by nature a son of the devil and of perdition; for certainly he would never have cast out devils at all in the name of Christ: for Satan casts not out Satan. Mark 3:23 Nor on the other hand would Paul have turned from persecuting to preaching. But the adoption is in our own power, as John says, But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the children of God, even to them that believe in His name. John 1:12 For not before their believing, but from their believing they were counted worthy to become of their own choice the children of God.

14. Knowing this, therefore, let us walk spiritually, that we may be counted worthy of God’s adoption. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. Romans 8:14 For it profits us nothing to have gained the title of Christians, unless the works also follow; lest to us also it be said, If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. John 8:39 For if we call on Him as Father, who without respect of persons judges according to every man’s work, let us pass the time of our sojourning here in fear 1 Peter 1:17, loving not the world, neither the things that are in the world: for if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 1 John 2:15 Wherefore, my beloved children, let us by our works offer glory to our Father which is in heaven, that they may see our good works, and glorify our Father which is in heaven. Matthew 5:16 Let us cast all our care upon Him, for our Father knows what things we have need of.

15. But while honouring our heavenly Father let us honour also the fathers of our flesh Hebrews 12:9: since the Lord Himself has evidently so appointed in the Law and the Prophets, saying, Honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, and your days shall be long in the land. Deuteronomy 5:16 And let this commandment be especially observed by those here present who have fathers and mothers. Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord. Colossians 3:20 For the Lord said not, He that loves father or mother is not worthy of Me, lest you from ignorance should perversely mistake what was rightly written, but He added, more than Me. Matthew 10:37 For when our fathers on earth are of a contrary mind to our Father in heaven, then we must obey Christ’s word. But when they put no obstacle to godliness in our way, if we are ever carried away by ingratitude, and, forgetting their benefits to us, hold them in contempt, then the oracle will have place which says, He that curses father or mother, let him die the death.

16. The first virtue of godliness in Christians is to honour their parents, to requite the troubles of those who begot them , and with all their might to confer on them what tends to their comfort (for if we should repay them ever so much, yet we shall never be able to return their gift of life ), that they also may enjoy the comfort provided by us, and may confirm us in those blessings which Jacob the supplanter shrewdly seized; and that our Father in heaven may accept our good purpose, and judge us worthy to shine amid righteous as the sun in the kingdom of our Father Matthew 13:43 : To whom be the glory, with the Only-begotten our Saviour Jesus Christ, and with the Holy and Life-giving Spirit, now and ever, to all eternity. Amen.

(Source)

The Consolation Prize

In his latest post, Ace of Spades examines the dreaded “Friend Zone.” His post focuses on one particular line from the web-comic which his post examines:

“Sorry my friendship is a crappy consolation prize!”

Ace gets right to the point:

Putting aside the childishly stated false apology (as irritating as it is), I arrive at this:

It isn’t a “crappy consolation prize”.

It simply isn’t a prize at all.

…

It’s an effectively useless offering.

What Ace is pointing out is something that has been pointed out in the ‘sphere many, many times- when a woman “friendzones” a man, she isn’t interested in actually being his friend about 99% (0r more) of the time. Rather, she keeps him around as a meatshield, as a mule, and as a walking ATM.

Ace asks three questions to point out the absurdity of claiming friendship in these kinds of scenarios:

What do we have in common?

What are the interests we share?

What are the tasks you can and, more importantly, will do for me when I’m in need?

It is the third question which really gets to the heart of the matter. I can have things in common, I can share interests with people who aren’t my friends. As a matter of fact I know a fair number of people with whom I share many interests and have much in common who are anything but my friends. What makes a friend a true friend is a willingness to help you when you are in need and without expectation of immediate or even long-term payback. The “Friend-Zoner” has no interest in any such thing. As Scripture warns:

There are friends who pretend to be friends,
    but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

(Proverbs 18:24)

The “Friend-Zoner” is not among the latter.

Of course, Ace isn’t done. He has this to say:

…I already have a handful of men that can and will readily do those things for me.

They’ll talk with me.

Share with me.

Help me out of a jam.

I don’t need another person to do those things.

Plus, they’ll back me up in a physical altercation, should it be necessary.

They’ll also help me move heavy things.

The great irony here, is that both men and women seek male friendship for what quantifiable things men can provide.

Ace doesn’t ask the question, but he certainly implies it. And what is that question? Simple:

What benefits does a female friend provide that a male one doesn’t?

In this modern day age of empowered, strong, independent women, what does a modern women provide as a friend that a man cannot? What valuable skills does she bring to the table? What unique talents is she offering as a friend?

Do yourself a favor, and don’t spend too long on those questions.

Pretty much all of my male friends are better cooks than the women I know. Few, if any, of the women I know are able to sew. Even on those tasks which were traditionally female, women are no better than men these days. As I sit here at my desk, I am scratching my head trying to think of how a female friend is better than a male friend in the modern age (or any age, for that matter). So far the only thing I can think of is that she can offer her perspective, biased and subjective as it is, about your current dress and appearance. Otherwise I have nothing- at least for men in general. Specific men with unique circumstances might find something, but in general a female friend confers no advantages… and plenty of disadvantages.

And even for those men who find some advantage, there is always this:

Not to mention, the majority of women are miserly with their resources, emotional, financial and non-sexually physical.

…

They conserve them, wisely – to be fair, for the men with whom they are enamored (reciprocated or not).

I suspect that if a man were to expect little, he would not be disappointed.

As I think on it, I should note that I only have a few female friends. And they are real friends, in that they will -and have- helped me out in the past. What is shared in common between all of them is that I never had a romantic interest in any of them. Not simply that I expressed none, but had none, for a variety of reasons. The reverse is also true as near as I can tell. And I suspect that is the reason why they are actual friends. But even then, what Ace explained is correct- they are more miserly than my male friends. Not that I blame them- they are doing exactly what Ace described- conserving their resources for “the men with whom they are enamored.”

Now, before I sign off, there is another matter. One that I want to explore in this post. A concept or a theory I want to bounce off my readers.

I call it the “LJBF Drop-off.”

Now, I haven’t been the subject of many LJBF “offers” in my life- for a variety of reasons. In recent years I can only think of one or two that might qualify.

With those, and others I’ve seen/experienced in mind, I notice something: when that LJBF moment arrives, the nature of the relationship invariably changes. Even if a man accepts the “offer,” the woman doesn’t treat him the same. While she never was lavish with her “resources” before, afterwards she is even more stingy. I suspect that this is the case any time a woman rejects a man as a romance candidate. Once that rejection is made, her interest in and “support” of that man drops off. She will offer little, although still take as much as before. I’m curious if my readers have spotted that as well.

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #75

Today’s post features a broad selection of passages from Scripture. Deep Strength’s most recent post got me thinking about how we should look for evidence of positive traits in a woman, and how that ties in to scripture. Here is a snippet from the Book of Sirach on what makes for a good wife:

¹³ A wife’s charm delights her husband,
    and her skill puts fat on his bones.
¹⁴ A silent wife is a gift of the Lord,
    and there is nothing so precious as a disciplined soul.
¹⁵ A modest wife adds charm to charm,
    and no balance can weigh the value of a chaste soul.
¹⁶ Like the sun rising in the heights of the Lord,
    so is the beauty of a good wife in her well-ordered home.

(Sirach 26:13-16)

What binds the positive traits in a wife (or a women a man is considering for a wife) listed here is that all can be detected and discerned by observation. What are those traits, and how can they be observed? A few from those four verses:

• Pleasant personality- Can be discerned based on how she interacts with other people and how they respond to her
• Skilled Cook- Easy to test- just taste some of what she cooks
• Reticent- Can be observed over time to see how often she talks, and if it is unnecessary or not
• Modest- Observed body language is important here
• An able Homemaker-  An examination of her living space, whatever it might be, will reveal if she knows how to keep an ordered home or not

We can never know a person’s heart. But we can know a great deal based on the fruit of a person’s works. And while we are on the topic of fruit, here are some sobering words from our Lord:

³³ “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. ³⁴ You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. ³⁵ The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. ³⁶ I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; ³⁷ for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

(Matthew 12:33-37)

Knowing when to speak, and when not to speak, is one of the most important disciplines that a Christian can practice. I know that it is one that I myself must constantly strive to work on,  as all too often I tend towards one extreme or the other. Like a horse, we must bridle and train our speech, else we find ourselves thrown astray.

An example of how speech can condemn us can be found in the story of David. While in flight from his rebellious son Absalom, David and his party ran across a man named Shimei:

⁵ When King David came to Bahu′rim, there came out a man of the family of the house of Saul, whose name was Shim′e-i, the son of Gera; and as he came he cursed continually. ⁶ And he threw stones at David, and at all the servants of King David; and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left. ⁷ And Shim′e-i said as he cursed, “Begone, begone, you man of blood, you worthless fellow! ⁸ The Lord has avenged upon you all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you have reigned; and the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Ab′salom. See, your ruin is on you; for you are a man of blood.”

⁹ Then Abi′shai the son of Zeru′iah said to the king, “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and take off his head.” ¹⁰ But the king said, “What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeru′iah? If he is cursing because the Lord has said to him, ‘Curse David,’ who then shall say, ‘Why have you done so?’” ¹¹ And David said to Abi′shai and to all his servants, “Behold, my own son seeks my life; how much more now may this Benjaminite! Let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him. ¹² It may be that the Lord will look upon my affliction, and that the Lord will repay me with good for this cursing of me today.” ¹³ So David and his men went on the road, while Shim′e-i went along on the hillside opposite him and cursed as he went, and threw stones at him and flung dust.

(2 Samuel 16:5-13)

David spared Shimei this time, but later advised his son Solomon to deal with him. And so Solomon did:

³⁶ Then the king sent and summoned Shim′e-i, and said to him, “Build yourself a house in Jerusalem, and dwell there, and do not go forth from there to any place whatever. ³⁷ For on the day you go forth, and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die; your blood shall be upon your own head.” ³⁸ And Shim′e-i said to the king, “What you say is good; as my lord the king has said, so will your servant do.” So Shim′e-i dwelt in Jerusalem many days.

³⁹ But it happened at the end of three years that two of Shim′e-i’s slaves ran away to Achish, son of Ma′acah, king of Gath. And when it was told Shim′e-i, “Behold, your slaves are in Gath,” ⁴⁰ Shim′e-i arose and saddled an ass, and went to Gath to Achish, to seek his slaves; Shim′e-i went and brought his slaves from Gath. ⁴¹ And when Solomon was told that Shim′e-i had gone from Jerusalem to Gath and returned, ⁴² the king sent and summoned Shim′e-i, and said to him, “Did I not make you swear by the Lord, and solemnly admonish you, saying, ‘Know for certain that on the day you go forth and go to any place whatever, you shall die’? And you said to me, ‘What you say is good; I obey.’ ⁴³ Why then have you not kept your oath to the Lord and the commandment with which I charged you?” ⁴⁴ The king also said to Shim′e-i, “You know in your own heart all the evil that you did to David my father; so the Lord will bring back your evil upon your own head. ⁴⁵ But King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord for ever.” ⁴⁶ Then the king commanded Benai′ah the son of Jehoi′ada; and he went out and struck him down, and he died.

So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.

(1 Kings 2:36-46)

You reap what you sow. Shimei sowed hated, and it bloomed into fell fruit in due course. His tale is a warning to us all not to anger others without later seeking their forgiveness. Jesus addressed this subject, with a lesson that Shimei could have benefited from:

²¹ “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ ²² But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire. ²³ So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, ²⁴ leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. ²⁵ Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; ²⁶ truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.

(Matthew 5:21-26)

Our time on this world is short. We would do well to seek forgiveness while we still have time to do so.