The Right One Men Should Die For

In a recent post, Sunshine Mary wrote of meekness and submission in speech patterns. It is obvious that in more liberal circles, there is an air of quiet politeness that most follow. Christianity also requires its adherents to be polite and Jesus declared that the meek are blessed. Churches often call men to meekness toward their wives, reminded them of Paul’s words:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. – Ephesians 5:25 KJV

As Christ died for His bride, men are called to metaphorically “die” for their bride in meekness, being a servant-leader. It sounds heroic and nice, but it politely and nobly ignores a question.

If a man is to lay down his life who is the final arbitrator of this demand?

In the feminist line, the woman is the final arbitrator. It is her happiness and sense of security that become the dominate reason men are to die for their wives. A feelings-oriented concept of love, as opposed to a truth- and fact-oriented concept, has become the dominant theme. Dalrock writes:

What nearly all modern Christians have done is place romantic love above marriage.  Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage.

In a previous article, I write:

Without a solid and concrete basis for establishing marriage as one man and one woman for life, society is now free to base it on the most powerful force among people, emotion. Images of romance and “happily ever after” have given young men and women idealized worlds where truth is directly related to how one feels.

If anyone has taken the time to read William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, they will see it is a tragedy that begins with Romeo falling in love with Juliet. In his intense romantic fervor, his willing to die for her, to love her with all his heart. In fact, he is willing to lay down his life for her. He ultimately does, but there is nothing heroic in his death, only the tragic destruction from romantic love being the driving force.

(Note: I recently watched Frozen and was presented with a message that romantic love saves women from death as well as given a subtle sort of incestuous gay romance between two sisters that renders even the love a man might have for a woman null and void. Gotta love Disney!)

Again, the problem is that men are focused on the desires of women instead of the truth in Christ. Even though Jesus may be invoked, it is only dragging in the name of Jesus into a romantic scene to give it some sort of spiritual legitimacy.

A man needs to recognize that marriage, as an institution, comes from the Father. The ability to experience sex and romantic love comes from the Father. The idea of a man loving his wife in the same way as Christ loves the church comes from the Father. While marriage, sex, and romance can benefit women, women are not the authorities on how these should function and interact. This includes the Christian call for men to carry a loyal benevolence toward their wives.

The man Christ Jesus, being fully human and fully male, gives men the proper orientation and understanding when it comes to husbands loving their wives.

No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. – John 10:17

Christ has the power to literally die and come back to life and that power or authority comes from His father. Now Christian men do not have that power, but they have the authority to lay down their independence in order to be joined to a wife. The same authority that allows a man to choose marriage, allows a man to choose celibacy.

When it comes marriage, a Christian man is not required to love his wife in accordance to her feelings. Rather, he is required to love his wife according to the authority granted to him by God. A woman’s displeasure should not be a factor in his decision-making within marriage. He has been granted a measure of authority and responsibility that come from the Father and it is to Him and not his wife that he will be held accountable.

According to modern Christianity, Jesus’ words would be read as:

My wife has the right to my life and I lay my life down for her. I have every obligation to lay it down, but I have no authority to take it again. This commandment have I received of my wife, who is Best Friends Forever with Jesus, her other husband.

When Paul tells men to love their wives as Christ loves the church, they need to remember that it Christ and not their wives that grant them the authority to do so. It also means that a man has the authority to take up his life again. A wife should not presume that scripture has bound him to perpetual servitude to her.

If a man is to lay down his life for his wife, it should be because he is laying down his life for Christ first and foremost. A man is not called to throw his self on an endless line of swords in a tearful show of romantic passion for his wife. Rather, if he chooses to marry, he should recognize the duties and requirements that his Father has built into the institution and lay aside his interests, and hers, to please God.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

He Lives

Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: and as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. – Luke 24:1-7

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. – Matthew 22:31-32

Indeed. Amen.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The New Jesus Christ

As the Left continues its holy crusade (which they deny is a crusade since conservative, bible-believing Christians are the ones on a crusade) to conquer racism, sexism, and heterosexism, waging war against things like freedom of thought, speech, and association, they have co-opted Christianity as the face of their cause.

Progressives first dismantled orthodox Christianity to the point that Truth is relative, Jesus is merely a martyr, and the Bible is merely myth, then laid claim to the title of “Christian,” remade in their own image. In the name of their own personal Jesus, they believe themselves to be sent by God, which they may not even believe exists, or if he/she does exists, believe to be irrelevant, to change entire human history in the name of Social Justice for minorities, women, and gays. Like Jesus, they have proclaimed themselves prophet, priest, and king.

Progressive Prophet

Like Nathan in the Old Testament, the Progressives have confronted the West for its sins of Christendom, patriarchy, and traditional marriage. “You are the racist, the sexist, and the homophobe!” they cry.

Progressive Priest

As Jesus is the High Priest, offering Himself a sacrifice for sins, blameless and pure, so the Progressives offers themselves as a martyrs for their cause, being crucified in the arena of ideas by those who hold fast to sacred scripture, male headship, and sex between one man and one woman. They suffer the lashes of being called wrong and irrational. Every gay man that commits suicide because the orthodox Protestants will not accept homosexuality is a thief on the cross. They will be with Jesus in paradise.

Progressive King

Because Progressives have come from God on a holy mission to purify the world of the sin of “hate” (racism, sexism, and homophobia) and are pure and blameless in their cause, they have been seated at the right hand of righteousness (The State) and will rule forever and ever. Indeed, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Equality is Lord of lords and Diversity is King of kings to the glory of The State, who is praised forever and ever, amen!

As for the racists, the sexists, and the homophobes, those who will not repent of their hate, they will be cast into outer darkness, into the eternal fire prepared for the Anglo Orthodox Christians. And if there is no eternal fire, then the State will create one.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Quick Thoughts On Waterboarding

This week, the Whitehouse released details on the CIA use torture to gain information from capture terrorists. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein ordered the report released. This is, no doubt, a political move meant to discredit Republicans after midterm elections and as a type of payback against George W. Bush.

However, the question of whether torture is a moral means transcends the political scene. In this case, the particular method used was something called waterboarding. If you’ve ever been swimming and had water up your nose, you have an idea of how the torture works. Like previous methods of torture used in centuries past, the goal is to inflict enough pain, even to the point of death, to obtain from the captive whatever is desired.

As a conservative, I remain staunchly opposed to the political left and the progressive movement and as a lover of America, and of human life, I am appalled that terrorists would commit monstrous acts of violent barbarism against American citizens. Hunting down the terrorists and having them stand trial and executed if found guilty suits me just fine. But I part ways with fellow conservatives on the issue of torture.

Torture goes beyond the limits of American justice. It is one thing to determine a man’s guilt and then mete out a timely punishment, even if that punishment is death. It is another to continually inflict on a man the most intense pain imaginable and declare that his crimes warrant such treatment without limit or mercy. To inflict perpetual torture as judgment is the dictate of God, but not of man.

Civilized societies are established to eliminate the barbaric and cruel so that its citizens can live in relative peace. If the government sanctions torture of its enemies, then that torture can be visited on citizens it deems its enemies. For the government to turn toward barbarism and cruelty to battle the barbaric and cruel is both foolish and evil.

As Vox Day writes:

Enthusiastic use of the most brutal torture did not help the French hold Algeria against Islamic rebels, nor did it bring victory to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Debates about whether “water boarding” is more acceptable than the rack or thumbscrews are meaningless; the point is that civilized societies do not indulge in such activities since they are evil and effectively useless.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Thinking Of God As Masculine

The man Christ Jesus.

The man Christ Jesus.

In all of the various battles that Christianity has fought in recent decades, the battle against the feminist siege seems decidedly absent. Answers are given and adapted theologies are conjured up in an effort to find some sort of wise non-hostility. Yet, feminism continues to manifest itself within the walls of the church, the walls of which should keep out such obvious decay.

The church seems deliberately oblivious to this unholy spirit sitting in its pews and pulpits. Having bought into feminist ideology, it is blatantly blind to the reality of what is happening.

If Christianity is to directly counter feminism, granted that it actually acknowledges both that there is feminism and that it is inherently evil, then an important step would be to sow the seeds of a masculine theology. The church must ask again the question, is God male?

The common answer is similar to this:

Spirits—because they are non-corporeal beings—have no physical body, and thus, by definition, are incapable of possessing gender. In speaking of the humans who one day will inhabit the heavenly realm, Jesus remarked that they “neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as angels” (Matthew 22:30). His point was that we shall not take up our earthly gender roles in heaven, just as the angels, as spirit beings, have played no gender roles throughout their existence. Similarly, God, as a Spirit Being Who inhabits the heavenly realm, has no gender.

Basically, God has no body, therefore neither penis nor vagina, and as such is neither male nor female. The fundamental assumption is that masculinity is physical but not spiritual. This means that masculinity and maleness did not exist before the creation of Adam in Eden. The problem with this (at least for me) is the person of Jesus Christ.

Christians generally believe that the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, is eternal and non-created. So it has to be asked if Jesus was a Son from all eternity, or if He became the Son of God only during His earthly ministry, His physical time in this physical world.

This is important because if Jesus was the Son of God from eternity, then the Father and Son relationship is also eternal, not merely something that is found in the physical creation and in the languages of man. In other words, God is male and not female because masculinity and maleness are first and foremost spiritual and eternal, as God is spirit and eternal, and secondly manifested in the physical creation of Man.

It makes sense then that the scriptural account of man’s creation would read (in more literal translations):

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

It is man, not man and woman, who was created in the image of God. Woman, it can be said, was created in the image of man.

Going back to the common answer of God’s maleness, if God is neither male nor female, then why not call God a Mother who has a Daughter? The other common answer is simply because God commands man to use masculine language to describe Him.

But must we refer to God via masculine terms? The question has nothing to do with what we would like to do, but rather with what God tells us to do … It is not man’s (or woman’s!) place to question God’s sovereign authority or divine will; neither falls under mankind’s jurisdiction.

So if the truth is that God is not a male, but God commands humans to call Him by male terms, then God has divinely appointed man to openly declare what is false (it might be argued that God is also called by terms like “rock,” but rocks are not made in the image of God and the man Christ Jesus is the direct image of God). It seems much more reasonable to say that God is revealed as the eternal male figure Father through the eternal male figure Son is because God is male. God lacking maleness renders the concept of Father merely abstract, like smoke and mirrors, having little to do with reality past mere symbolism. If God is neither male nor female, referring to God the Mother and God the Daughter is as much the truth as the male references. The only reason to deny man the freedom to call upon God the Mother is because it is a false idea.

All of this may be called ad hoc theology (I’ve no M.Div or Ph.D), but trusting that both scripture and nature reveal God as He is, especially in the man Jesus Christ, is paramount. If God is not male, then scripture in all its declarations of God in male terms is fundamentally wrong,  to be denied as factual.

Working through these issues, which seem obvious, will be an important first step if Christianity is to fully and soundly reject feminism and defeat its nefarious influence.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Our Man Is A Man

Robert Redford in All Is LostLately, Hollywood produces films that feature some trapping of progressive thought or feminist angst, when they are not producing films that garner “lame” as its own genre. Generally I watch older films or films that tend to avoid, if not downplay, some of these aspects. Fortunately for me, I discovered a film that is distinctly un-Hollywood and is downright politically incorrect.

The film is All Is Lost and it stars Robert Redford. Here’s the trailer:

The main thrust of the story is a man alone on a boat in the middle of the ocean and struggling to survive disaster (I won’t say any more). It is simplistic, straightforward, and beautiful in its blunt story telling.

It is a story of a man who persists in the face of the odds.

There are no women in this film. There are no fat, angry feminist telling him what he is doing wrong and deliberately trying to provoke a fight while thinking it’s all cute. There are no power-boss ladies tromping up the steps of their power and lustfully enjoying the emasculation of the men around them. There are no light, wallpaper girls who fall in love with shy, metrosexual boys who have yet to find puberty. There are no female super-toughs. Thank God there are no female super-toughs.

At the same time, there are no overblown macho men who smoke cigars while shooting endless bad guys with dual guns while flying a helicopter carrying a tank. There are no street-wandering adolescent man-boys who fall in love with those shy, stumbling girls.

Here is a man who is nothing more or less than what he is. He is confident, adventurous, and courageous. His decisiveness and self-control are constant throughout every ordeal he faces.

This film is what a man needs to be. It is not what progressives want men to be, nor what the gaytopia crowd wants men to be, nor what feminists want men to be. Our Man is his own man.

The West needs men like Our Man.

If only women would let Our Man be a man.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Beautiful Women Need Not Apply

John C Wright has an article up on the value of beauty. He makes several good points, but one in particular stands out.

The Left hates this argument [the argument of beauty], because – since it is not put into words – it cannot be refuted in words. It can only be refuted in images: a urinal, a several cow head, a can of shit, a messy bed. These images are ugly, aggressively ugly, meant to be demeaning, meant to be absurd, harsh, jarring, repugnant and gross.

If there is one reason to reject the culture of feminism, it is because it seeks to deliberately destroy what is most beautiful in humanity: feminine beauty. The push for “strong” female characters who trash talk, the celebration of “body art” (which is actually body disfigurement), butch-bitch haircuts, and the crème de la crème of the anti-beauty movement, fat acceptance is all part of the feminist rebellion against the reality of beauty.

The motivation for such movements is said to be the need to counter men’s sexual exploitation of women and the unrealistic visions of beauty portrayed in magazines and entertainment. Feminism may be right in saying that American decadence has promoted both sexual exploitation and supreme superficiality, but that becomes mere excuse for the fundamental rejection of beauty in and of itself.

And as feminism seeks to purge beauty from women, they have no problem encouraging the same in men. Gay men in feminine fashion and boyish hairstyles parade their attempt to be beautiful men by mimicking feminine beauty in a superficial sense.

It is considered a crime of epic proportions for a man to say he dislikes overweight women with pixie haircuts, foul mouths, and chunks of metal piercing various parts of their face. However, it is a man’s right to say so and it could be said it his duty. Women who defile themselves externally show they are defiled internally. While there may be a legitimate reason such internal defilement (men can be monsters), to seek the abolishment of all beauty by endorsing and encouraging blatantly irresponsible behavior towards the body is fighting a wrong with evil. The result is ugliness.

It is more than external ugliness. A woman with a defiant and foul mouthed attitude, a woman who drives herself through life loudly and proudly, reveals that she has no ability to appreciate the beauty of feminine meekness, a beauty of the heart. So often men marry ugly women and attempt to emulate the feminine beauty of meekness their wives should possess.

Men are motivated to be gentlemen when there are ladies to be found. When a woman discards her beauty for her appetites and her feminist-induced hatred for beauty, she leaves behind the natural femininity that is deserving of a gentleman’s strength and honor. Men no longer have a reason be gentlemen as feminism continually soils and rips apart the feminine beauty that they yearn for.

This makes American sexual dynamics utterly confusing to men. They naturally desire feminine beauty and look for it in women, where nature says it is to be found. What they find is feminism shaming them for searching for that beauty in women and encouraging them to mimic it in themselves, which is unnatural.

The result is men becoming increasingly withdrawn from marriage and relationships for individualistic stoicism and hedonism. Or they adopt some form of feminine beauty to make up for the deficiency in their wives. Or worse, they maintain their masculinity and hammer it into utter passive submission to the demands of masculine women.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments