Never Mistake Christian Meekness for Weakness

Our Lord, the Second Person of the Most Blessed and Holy Trinity, tells us, in His scriptures, that the “meek shall inherit the Earth”, and though this idea many be wrongly perceived by many today as promoting human weakness and craven submissiveness, this is, in fact, completely wrong, for the Lord Himself, who inherits the Earth and all of creation from His Father, shows us what meekness means, and that meekness is not weakness, but rather it is serious strength wrapped in submissiveness to an appropriate and moral authority who is worthy of obedience, and indeed, we see this in Christ Himself who, though powerful enough to easily prevent His own death–in fact, powerful enough to utterly annihilate those wishing to destroy Him–nevertheless willing and freely withheld that strength from expression on Earth given that doing so was the desire of God the Father, and thus Christ was meek and submissive to the Father in order for the Father to be able to fulfill His will through Christ, but in no way was this meek Christ weak, and so it is for us, for we must be strong against the sins of men and yet meek, and thus submissive, to the will of God, and in doing so, we, the meek towards God, but not towards men, shall inherit the Earth; and note that if history is any guide, it certainly seems that Christ was correct, for the Christian faith has now touched all corners of the Earth and is the numerically strongest faith on this Earth, and furthermore today, in the parts of the world where Christians are meek towards God and faithful to Him–in places such as Africa and China–Christianity is growing and thus literally inheriting more and more of the Earth, but in places were Christian have been meek towards the rules of men and rebellious against the rules of God, they are arguable losing their Earthly inheritance, both demographically and culturally…which is what would be expected if the “meek are to inherit the Earth”.


Meek to God, not meek man


Why a Gospel Army of Fishermen and Fools?

It is fascinating to ponder why Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Most Blessed and Holy Trinity, would choose fishermen and fools to be His messengers and spreaders of the Gospel message, and thus it is a wonder to wonder why this was done, and yet when one thinks about it from the perspective of showing the power of Christ and the truth of Christianity, it is actually easy to realize why Christ chose the low-level bumpkins and blue-collar commoners that He did to articulate His message to the world, for the fact is, had Christ chosen men of great power and means and money and persuasiveness to spread His message, then it would be rather easy to dismiss the survival and rise of early Christianity to human means rather than to divine ones, but given that Christianity–that religion which was foolishness to Greeks and repulsive to Jews–did survive and thrive even though spread by poor and uneducated commoners, and though it did so against the expectations of what we would think would happen for such a religion if said religion was only a human-made invention spread by mere fishermen and tradesmen, then the fact is that the very reason that Christ did choose such people as His representatives is because in doing so, and in knowing that they would succeed in spreading His message even though having every obstacle against them and no human power to achieve their aim, then the fact that they so succeeded would serve as at least some reason to see that their success could not come about simply by human hands, but that it needed the power of the Almighty behind it to make it work; and so, Christ’s selection of the earthly weak rather than the humanly strong as His Gospel-bearers was a deliberate act meant to show us and give us a reason to see that the Gospel message, if not supported by the power of God Himself, should not have succeeded in being heard, and yet since it was, then this latter fact is at least some reason to accept that message as being a true message from God (and, for example, contrast this with Islam, which did, in large part, gain its foothold as a surviving and thriving religion through the use of the earthly power of sword and steel, and which had men motivated both by heavenly and earthly rewards of booty and bounty, unlike Christ’s apostles, who, in this life, were promised pain and death).

Just the Latest in a 1400-Year Line of Victims

With yet more deaths at the hands of Islamist jihadists in European and Western lands, and with this being yet one more attack of Islamist jihad in this era of terroristic jihad–and era that started in earnest just a sliver of time after the two thousandth anniversary of the birth of mankind’s Lord–many people in the West weep and wonder why these victims, seemingly random and unconnected to jihad, had to perish so horribly, and yet what so many of the historically-ignorant man-children of the West forget is that these victims were not random and not unconnected, for they were not randomly targeted but were specifically selected precisely because they were citizen members of what was once Christendom, and these European victims were not unconnected to history, for they are intimately connected to the European Christians who died, or were raped, or were kidnapped, or were enslaved, or were mutilated at the hands of jihadists countless times over centuries and centuries, such as when jihadists invaded Spain, or fought in France, or occupied the Balkans for generations, or pushed towards Vienna, or destroyed Constantinople, or pirated the Mediterranean, or raided the coasts of Italy, or any of the other countless atrocities worthy of condemnation that jihadists committed since the birth of Islam; so let us not think of these victims as somehow standing alone, or somehow not being connected to the other jihadist victims of history, for these newest fatalities are but the latest in a long-line of historical victims of jihad, and though Europeans may have forgotten this fact due to the historical blip of communism which has loomed large over the past century, the fact is that the main attacker against the West has always been Islam, and it seems that now that the scourge of communism has largely died in the West as a political force running nations (but it has increased culturally), it now seems that Islam is re-asserting itself with the same sort of violent rigor that it did at its founding.

History Belies the Fact that Islam is a Religion of Peace

Look, the fact of the matter is that Islam may or may not be true, but whether it is or not (and it is not, but that is a different story), the further fact of the matter is that history lays waste to the assertion that Islam is a “Religion of Peace”, for the truth is that for its approximately 1400 year history, and right up to the present day, and wherever Muslims had some larger numbers of men and material with a human population, Islam has been at war along its borders with non-Muslims of every stripe–essentially, Islam has bloody borders–and these wars have, as often as not, and in fact more often than not, been expansionist and offensive in nature, and even in the cases where some of these wars were “defensive” in nature, the wars themselves had earlier been spurned on and instigated by past Muslim aggression (the Crusades fit this category), and the further fact is that such vast expansionist aggression was not earlier seen in Arab pagans or Christians, and so the main unifying theme motivating this aggression was Islam and, of course, the earthly plunder that Islam allows its warriors to have; so again, whether it is ultimately true or not as an overall religion, for the sake of historical and contemporary truth, we need to stop saying that Islam is a religion of peace, for its record does, quite frankly, contradict such a claim to the ‘nth’ degree.

Thought on the Reason for Jesus’ Incarnation Among the Jews

It is a thing of interest to wonder how and why Jesus would have chosen to be incarnated amongst the Jews given that, as God, He could have chosen to incarnate amongst any cultural group (and could have chosen that cultural group as “His” since before time began), and yet part of this mystery begins to die when it is realized that perhaps one of the reasons that this was so was that given that the Jews were so fervently monotheistic and against the idea of an incarnation, that this would then lead to the case that it would be much less likely that any devout and true Jew would come to follow Jesus unless the evidence that He provided for His claims were of such strength that they would make even a devout Jew turn and embrace an idea which every fiber of his being was against, and so perhaps the very reason that Jesus incarnated amongst such a cultural group was that that fact would be most difficult to believe amongst such a group, and so if it was believed, then its belief amongst such men would itself be a rather telling thing; now this is not to say that this fact, in and of itself, is sufficient to fully account for the reason for why Jesus would have incarnated amongst the Jewish people, nor does this mean that this fact should be sufficient to make us believe in the Christian message of Jesus’ incarnation, but it is nevertheless truly is a telling thing, and one which we should not dismiss lightly, that many men with great and strong and genuine inclinations to believe otherwise, nevertheless came to believe something that by all rights they should never have come to believe…and perhaps they did so precisely because the evidence that they saw for its truth was simply too potent to deny.

Thought on the Unreality of our Time (and its Arguable Correlation to Atheism)

Looking around at the Western world today, one truly wonders how future generations will look at us (as insane perhaps), for today we not only live in an age of sin–for ages of sin have, unsurprisingly, been with us since Adam–but we actually live in an age of literal topsy-turvy unreality, where, for example, 1) speaking the truth (that Islam, for example, is not, in any serious respect, a religion of peace) is somehow “racist” (even though Islam is not a race) but spreading falsehoods (that, say, equality actually exists) is a virtue, or where 2) unreal “micro-aggressions” in “university safe-spaces” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) are considered nationally news-worthy stories but the fact that Christians are by far the most persecuted religious group in the world is barely mentioned, or where 3) opposing such things as same-sex marriage on principled philosophical grounds is bigotry but unjustifiably labelling a person as a bigot is a great and courageous act, or where 4) a certain religion continues, on a daily basis, to commit terrorist attacks but we must nevertheless say, on pain of social punishment, that that religion is a religion of peace (or else its followers might kill you), or where 5) it is considered fashionable to mockingly laugh at the idea of the Eucharist (as if God could not easily do such a miracle) but at the same time we must immediately and unhesitantly accept that a man can become a woman simply by calling himself one; truly, we live in an upside down world, and even though it is true that correlation does not equal causation, one has to wonder about the fact that we, in the West, also live in the most secular time in history, and if non-Christians were thus reasoning incorrectly about the existence of God and Christianity, and if, as the good book says “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Claiming to be wise, they became fools… (Romans 1:21-22, ESV), then, on Christian theism, it would not be surprising that a secular society would also reason incorrectly about the rest of reality, and is it thus not interesting that that is, I contend, very much what we see in our world today (as supported above), which makes you wonder if the correlation between secularism and embracing unreality is actually some form of causation between these two forces.

Thought on Why Jesus Could NOT Condemn Slavery

As has now been articulated in a number of previous ‘Thoughts’, we can begin to see that the idea of slavery, when looked at critically, is broad-ranging, and it can readily include what we in the West would call volunteer soldiers, and when we consider this fact, we note that no matter what an advanced civilized society does, whether it has a volunteer army (essentially, volunteering indentured servants) or a conscripted army (essentially, forced indentured servants), a society will always have these types of soldier-slaves in one form or another, and yet an advanced society needs a military (and police force) and cannot survive without one, and so it seems that any civilized society that wishes to survive must necessarily have slaves of one sort or another, and what this realization about the societal necessity of some type of slavery existing points us to is the fact that maybe the reason that Jesus did not condemn slavery in total, is because it would actually have been immoral for him to do so given that it would have been immoral for him to tell a society that it could not have an army to defend itself with (whether volunteer indentured servants or conscripted ones); instead, Jesus–and the New Testament scriptures–did precisely what they should have done:  they did not immorally condemn an institution that a society could ultimately never escape from, but rather they advised the citizens of a society to treat the slaves that it would always necessarily have to have in a way that respected those slaves and indentured servants as being made in the image of God (which is precisely how we, today, treat the modern soldier-slaves that defend our societies from harm), and so not only was Jesus not immoral for failing to condemn slavery completely, but he was actually acting morally by not doing so and by focusing on how slaves and indentured servants should be treated rather than on whether such slaves and servants should even exist.