The Biomorality Of Christ

Zman has been writing about the possibility of having stable ethnostates via Christianity. Excerpt:

h ttps://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=24835

“This has always been the failing of the Right. They have always assumed that once they proved their case, the other side would have no choice but to throw down their weapons and embrace them as brothers. This is not reality. Unless one can connect biological reality with morality, they exist in two separate domains. The race realists have yet to attempt this connection. This should be where the militant Christians step into the breech, but people like Jones make that difficult. …It would be interesting to see someone approach this topic from traditional Christian ethics.”

Challenge accepted. This is an easy and natural connection for Christianity because we believe humans are a created species… created not just for God’s amusement, but to mature us into direct participation with God. We start at the beginning.

Genesis 1:27

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

You may have heard a lot from the Churchians about “being made in God’s image”. I recommend discarding it for today. Whatever baby-talk they fed you, it probably does not include the fact that human sexuality is to demonstrate our relationship to God.

Right away, we have made a profound moral statement. Our governments teach that you can have any gender, any sexual attraction, any permutation of human gonads EXCEPT MAN AND WIFE. Anybody should be able to recognize that what we’re being taught about our own sexuality is not what our sexuality is or should be. Our birth rates are cratering as a direct result of believing that humanity is not sexually dimorphic.

We now have the most basic form of biological reality-based morality (hereinafter biomorality): the dick goes in the chick. That should not be a profound statement upon the human condition yet it undeniably is. Sexual perversion has increased in pace with our society’s collapse and history confirms the correlation.

The next step in biomorality is, of course, marriage. The institution of marriage is not arbitrary or standalone. It’s a direct analogy. Christianity teaches that husband is to wife as God is to humanity.

Ephesians 5:22-33

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

Like sexual dimorphism, this too should be very simple. Women being less capable and independent than men, need a man to get them through life… especially once she gets busy with kids. 

Meanwhile, the husband’s job is to overlook his wife’s shortcomings, teach her what she can’t figure out for herself and provide for her.

This is the same situation as between humanity and God.

God wants our company. He wants to spend time with us and do stuff with us. Big problem, however: we are not equals. Not peers. There can be only one Almighty. We have the soul of God but not the strength of God just as woman has the shape of man but not his intelligence, muscle, wisdom, courage, inventiveness or… you get the idea.

Fortunately, both women and humans are incredibly desirable to the other side. No usefulness required.

By practicing marriage as demanded by our biology, we learn to become participants with the divine.

So then, why is the concept of marriage so completely desecrated, undermined and straight-out banned?

Original Sin. Genesis 3:1-7

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden [of Eden]’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Eve/humanity envied God His male privilege and disobeyed. Adam, the first simp, was standing right there… refused to tell her No then knowingly followed her into evil so he wouldn’t lose her.

Her envy and his abdication. Feminism. This is also part of our natural, biological impulses. It can be a nervous thing for a woman to depend on somebody she doesn’t control for her survival, especially if she resents how much better he is at everything. That is an instinct than God does not tolerate–humanity resenting Him and searching for alternative spirituality–and men must not tolerate. You don’t let the lesser rule over the greater or allow the envious to handle your possessions. No matter that strong impulse to make Momma happy.

Marriage fell apart because humanity divorced God. Not by replacing Him with other gods… not at first… but by empowering wives to rule over her husbands and trade him in if, in her limited capacity, she judged him unworthy.

In violation of our biology.

Of course, that created the need for a replacement deity/husband/wallet. Cue the welfare state, boldly stepping in to be the no-questions-asked paycheck that her hubby refused to be. And the government administering that welfare state is a strong-horse replacement for ol’ Bucky Beta!

I just created a biomorality argument that state-sponsored welfare is evil. You can skip every reference to God and reach the same conclusion that Scripture does. There are similar arguments to be made about all kinds of family-life issues from child-rearing (kids, obey your parents; parents, don’t push them too hard) to euthanasia (don’t kill the helpless just because they’re inconvenient).

That’s great, but Zman was also interested in biomorality as a building block for politics, not just family structure. First off, there’s a reason I began where I did. Once we accept that our biology demands we behave in some ways but not others, we gain a foundation for government–a reason why people should be forced against their will to do this but not that.

Second, we have targets for that government to face off against: the queers, the abortionists, the oathbreakers, the thieves and rebels. (Not meaning violence, understand. If one government is not substantially different from another then do you really have a choice? Vive la difference.) This can be the big-tent unifier that a lot of dissidents are searching for. IIRC, the early Romans were patriarchal but (of course) not Christian, and they were able to build an empire on the strength of biomorality.

Third, we men are in a spiritually awkward position. Nobody can be God’s equal but we are equals to each other… better/worse at specific tasks, but essentially peers. 

Ephesians 5:21

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Philemon 8-14

…Although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus—that I appeal to you for my son [and your runaway slave] Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.

I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.

This was more or less the American experiment, freedom of association for men on equal legal/spiritual standing. Obviously, not all men or races are equal in ability or temperament, hence allowing men to group and sort out their issues as best they can… remembering their spiritual reality as wives/servants of God.

What are the race-realist implications of this? Most people do best while living among people who look and act like them. If ethnostates help then go for it. If outright xenophobia helps then go for it. But never treat outsiders as less than human.

I am sorry that Christianity does not give a more strongly worded guidance. The reason we can have so many nations in the first place is that wiggle room is granted to men in order to experiment and build. God is the Creator and He wants the men to practice at being creators in turn. Giving us a magic formula would ensure that only one kind of nation would exist… and when God did exactly that and called it Israel, results were not promising.

But this is more than enough for current politics. The biomorality of male peerage is diametrically opposed to the massive consolidations of wealth and power that we see happening. “You will own nothing and be happy” but how can you create without tools? WHY would you create without ownership? Just as God owns the reality He created, a man should own what he builds.

(That’s not Marxism. Marx taught, so far as I can grok his rantings, that while the proletariat owns what he makes it’s the helpful Socialist bureaucrat who gets to redistribute it. He gave ordinary men the ‘means of production’ just so he knew who to rob, much as an expansionist empire might declare all members of a rival nation to be its brand-new citizens. Don’t be a traitor in the coming war of annexation!)

But that gets into the spiritual morality established by our biology rather than direct biological reasoning. Although I could point out that our opposable thumbs and weak bodies make us natural tool users, thus man is meant to be a creator.

So, this is the biomorality of Christ. The nuclear family as decreed by Him and the flesh He gave us, followed by working with whatever other men we get along with to build and maintain a civilization. If the former be inviolate than the latter will not go far wrong. To secure these ends, governments are established among men.

Romans 13:1-7

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

One final point. While it’s clear what behaviors are best for our reproductive biology, it is equally clear that humanity frequently, obscenely and violently rejects those best behaviors. We must be taught how to be human! If you cannot believe in a God who doesn’t show himself then please, at least acknowledge that humanity exists in a state of rebellion against its own best, biological interests.

The magic of our Earthly bodies is that in learning how to be human, we learn how to be gods. That is how Zman might adopt Christianity as an official religion with which to stabilize the West’s demographic implosion.

Just don’t try to conquer by that sign.

 

10 thoughts on “The Biomorality Of Christ

  1. Eve/humanity envied God His male privilege and disobeyed. Adam, the first simp, was standing right there… refused to tell her No then knowingly followed her into evil so he wouldn’t lose her.

    Excellent summary of what the Bible shows in Genesis 3. And I’ve never heard a hireling so clearly articulate Eve’s responsibility or that the failure of Adam was to listen to the voice of his wife and go with her desires rather than God’s commands.

    So then, why is the concept of marriage so completely desecrated, undermined and straight-out banned?

    It started with the banning of Biblical marriage within the church. If the church does not whole-heartedly accept marriage as God designed it, why would we expect the atheists to do so?

    1) Marriage, as shown in the Bible, requires the consent of the virgin’s father. The state is irrelevant. The young woman’s desires will likely have some affect on the father, but she does not get a vote. And the church is irrelevant. In case any hirelings or churchians are present, I’ll repeat the last idea; the church is irrelevant to getting married.

    The Roman Catholic religion demanded that nobles have a church wedding, to legitimize their children, as a power ploy to control civic government. Too bad the governments of the day did not just run the Satanic hirelings out of their countries.
    Then the average person wanted the church wedding that the nobles were “allowed” to have. Jealousy is stupid every day, and twice on Sundays.

    2) The final authority in the family is the husband. Not the pastor. Not Child Protective Services.
    I’ve never heard a hireling advise the women to not ask him questions, but rather to ask their husbands at home. I’ll admit I have failed in this area too, answering women, but I have the slight excuse that I was not being paid to live out Christian leadership at a Professional Level (M.Div).

    3) There is nothing wrong with a man having multiple wives.
    1 Corinthians 7 shows that a married man will have his interests divided between serving God and pleasing his wife. Titus 1 shows that a man can have only one wife if he wants to be an elder. Likely due to the aforementioned dividing of his interests, even with only one wife. But the hirelings listens to the voice of the wives of his group, and decided to add the unbiblical teaching that it is immoral for a man to have three wives.
    By contrast, God allowed multiple wives, enough stating that he would have given King David more than the (about) five that he already had. (As part of the condemnation for David’s adultery and murder.)

    4) There is nothing immoral about marrying a young woman. The only hint in the Bible about delaying marriage was a metaphor God gave in the OT, wherein it shows that God observed that Israel’s breasts had blossomed, and a “time after that” he took her. How much time is not specified. At most we can say it was after the start of puberty.
    And the whole question is irrelevant anyway, since the purpose of the passage is describing God’s behaviour toward us, rather than a command about when a father should sell his daughter into marriage.

    Get a church to teach marriage as it is commanded and shown in the Bible, and maybe we’ll start to have a Godly influence on the world. Otherwise, same shit different bucket. Or maybe a slightly-sweeter variant of shit.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. There is nothing wrong with a man having multiple wives.

    If that’s how you feel, you must love today’s society. We have de facto polygamy. The 80/20 rule. The few Alphas enjoy their harems, while the majority of Thirsty Betas (and Gammas, Deltas, and Omegas) end up with sloppy seconds or none at all.

    God did not intend polygamy. Adam had one wife. Lamech was the first recorded polygamist in Genesis, and he wasn’t very nice. From the line of Cain, not Seth.

    Did God allow polygamy? Yes. But He (through Moses) also allowed divorce because, as Jesus said, men’s hearts were too hard. But divorce was never part of the plan. Nor was polygamy.

    Polygamy is rampant in today’s West, and it’s clearly been destructive to the social order.

    Like

  3. Agree with RPL – the arguments against Polygamy can be both religious and secular. The secular argument is that if Alpha can have multiple wives, by necessity there will be lesser men who are unable to marry simply because the numbers work that way. There aren’t enough women available. And that is one factor that will cause men to “check out” of society. Why work more than I have to, if I cannot have a family? There’s no incentive.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. ‘Eve/humanity envied God His male privilege and disobeyed. Adam, the first simp, was standing right there… refused to tell her No then knowingly followed her into evil so he wouldn’t lose her.’

    Can’t be repeated often enough. This is the heart of the ongoing, and very hot, spiritual war. A real Christian pastor would be harping on the Fall EVERY WEEK.

    The Fall and expulsion from Eden is not just a historical event that brought death and suffering and evil into this world. The Fall is an ongoing process of expulsion, that regenerates each time a female usurps the male position, and each time a male submits to a female, and does the will of her voice instead of the will of God. (Meaning, every day and most everywhere.)

    The Fall IS feminism, both its female and male parts. The initial tragedy builds to a (present) global tragedy along the human timeline. This is the enemy’s chief and most reliable weapon. The female wants to rule over the male, and the male is more concerned about pleasing and retaining her than he is about pleasing and retaining God.

    Here at the end of the Romantic Millennium, God at last has been fully replaced by woman, even to the civic-institution level. The devotion that man should have for God, instead he has for woman, and therefore she has become his god. This is why in Daniel 12:1 the spirit-of-evil that dominates the last days is termed the tsah-rah, the FEMININE adversary, the spirit of vexation, anguish and tribulation. The New World Order is the New Woman Order; a woman rides the global beast before and during the Tribulation . . . the tsah-rah spirit that controls both the collective feminine and masculine on this planet.

    ‘Nobody can be God’s equal but we are equals to each other… better/worse at specific tasks, but essentially peers’

    Only in the sense that whether man or angel, we all are fellow-servants of the King, and we all are low and humble in status before God. Outside of this, Equality is an invention of Lucifer, indeed the very invention that brought about the current Age of the tsah-rah, after its prior manifestation as egalitee.

    The Brotherhood of Christ is very real and alive, and they act and live in fraternity, aiding and advancing one another towards Father. But they are not equal. The Kingdom of Heaven is hierarchic, and so are the demonic realms. Even hell has a hierarchic order, in the sense that not all damnations are equal. Scriptural/spiritual understanding comes from God, and in this world of sight-darkly, is how authority in the Kingdom is measured.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. That and scripture prohibits a man with multiple wives from taking any role or position within the church. That alone is instructive that god does not condone the practice, although it may not be expressly prohibited

    Like

  6. There is nothing wrong with a man having multiple wives.

    I should clarify that I meant that there is nothing immoral / sinful about it. That does not mean that it is ideal or to be held as superior to each woman having a man and each man having a woman (1 Corinthians 7). I personally think it is a stupid idea to accept two wives, unless there has been a bad war or something to decimate the male population.

    For the reasons pointed out by RPL, widespread polygamy is not possible, at least not without widespread damage to the society. But that does not show it to be a sin.

    Lexet: Titus 1 only bars a man with two wives from serving as an elder. Other positions, such as teacher, prophet, encourager, giver and general grunt-worker are not barred.

    Like

  7. A man having more than one wife is a surprisingly hot topic. I don’t believe it’s inherently immoral or sinful, mainly because God had the entire bible to condemn it, yet failed to do so. Christ has the opportunity, surely, to condemn it, but chose to condemn divorce instead. So what of it? As others have pointed out, it’s not feasible for most men to have more than one wife. I know that I had two wives, I wouldn’t have time or bandwidth to be an elder in the church because I would have too many children to raise.

    Like

  8. There are several possible motivations for polygamy being tossed around.

    1. Confusion that polygamy is what patriarchy looks like. It’s actually the opposite; women would rather share a high-status man than have an entire low-status man.

    2. Attempts to justify promiscuity. This was a big one on Dalrock’s old blog, led by a certain Toad.

    3. An effort to find common ground with Islam.

    4. Polygamy is the current situation, more or less.

    Chastity is never a fun business, within marriage or without.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I have been faithful to my wife. I wouldn’t consider polygamy myself because I don’t want to be disqualified as an elder in the church and because I made a vow to have only my wife and no other. However, all other arguments aside, the first of the reasons above is the one most important to me. Not engaging in polygamy is a pretty low bar.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s