God loves inheritance and the West hates it

All throughout the Scriptures we see that God defines inheritance as something extremely important.

  • Firstborn sons were given a double inheritance as they would succeed the family lineage
  • Levirate marriage was required to produce an heir for their deceased brother
  • Inherited land that was sold off by a family could be redeemed
  • There is, of course, the obvious example of the inheritance of the land of Canaan due to the promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as well.

We see similar things in the NT, as God through Christ adopts us as His own children and provides us an inheritance:

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things [m]in the heavens and things on the earth.

In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

The West hates inheritance as it does many of the things of God such as authority, one man and one woman marriage, and other Biblical things.

Coming from a family background that is more “priveleged” will get you the scorn of others, despite the fact that generally the families that provide the priveleged background worked hard for their success and ability to transmit such an inheritance to their children.

Of course, the fact that we have inheritance does not mean we are to treat it lightly or scorn it like Esau. We should use any of it rightly and humbly as we can, but we should not despise it like many in our culture tell us to.

Our inheritance from being children of God makes us the most priveleged in the world, and that should motivate us to share it with others just as He has shared it with us.

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to God loves inheritance and the West hates it

  1. feeriker says:

    Our inheritance from being children of God makes us the most priveleged in the world, and that should motivate us to share it with others just as He has shared it with us.

    And that, right there, is the problem. Our inheritance from the Lord attaches a responsibility upon us to share it with others, and if there is one thing that Westerners hate more than inheritance of things Holy, it is responsibility.

    TL;DR version: it requires too much effort to be a “real” Christian.

  2. Wood Chipper says:

    Patriarchy builds and passes values, knowledge and wealth down to the next generation. This is a privilege that should be celebrated and not resented. Legacy is a huge motivator of men and the west hates it just as much. How many people even know anything about their grand parents let alone how their grand parents’ values and decisions affected where they are now?

  3. ChristianCool says:

    We have not even began discussing Old Testament Scriptures, which praises leaving an inheritance for their children in the highest manner possible.

    The “social justice warrior” (SJW) “Christians” believe when they discuss “inheritance”, Biblical writers are only referring to knowledge or “love” you pass to the next generation. 🙄 They refuse to see the blessings of saving and creating some degree of wealth to pass on to the next generation, so they start off their lives with a slightly better chance of success then the previous generation. (Please notice that I put “Christian” in quotations, since SJW and Christianity and antithetical, at best).

    It is not so much “The West” that hates passing on a financial/property inheritance to your child(ren). It is the Left, in its various forms, such as big spending Socialist politicians, the entire Democrat party, SWJ, Beta “Christian” cuck, College-indoctrinated upper middle class whites, academia, and leftist “Christians” of any kind (i.e. Unitarians or “gay marriage churches”, etc).

    Leaving an inheritance to the next generation, be it good genetics, good upbringing, property, or whatever – it leaves a legacy for the parent as well. I am sure the next generation, maybe even one after that will remember you as a positive force in their life.

    “The name of the righteous is used in blessings, but the name of the wicked will rot.” Proverbs 10:7

  4. white says:

    The West hates inheritance because it’s a no-win scenario for feminists. Nothing exposes the lie of feminism more than inheritance.

    Traditionally, the eldest son (or sons) inherits the lion’s share. Feminists don’t like this. If feminists play the “equality” card, that would mean all sons and daughters get a share, and the fathers’ empire would be divided and diluted. Worst, the daughters will then marry men from other families, taking their inherited wealth with them to the new, foreign family. When this happens it looks bad, it becomes obvious something is wrong, and wealthy/prestigious families obviously want to avoid this.

    In response, feminists try to eliminate the concept of “family/last name” altogether. Completely removing family/last names would be too obvious, and would anger too many perhaps even the feminists themselves. The solution is to “hyphenate”, or join the surnames together. Obviously, pretending to join 2 families will not actually do so, but also inheritance exposes the lie of the hyphenated surname: why does an A-B get to inherit family A property?? Why give land to an A-B when Family As have been the landowners for centuries? Should Family A descendants be henceforth renamed “Family A-B”? This is a big deal especially in European cultures.

    19th-20th century feminists hence came up with the current laws: give the wife the lion’s share of the inheritance! But that has problems too, it robs the children (sons) of their inheritance, exposing the hypocrisy of feminists playing the “best interests of the child!!!” card. This is most obvious in Chinese cultures, where the wife does not change her surname upon marriage, and it becomes clear that an “outsider” is about to inherit property that is not her’s. (Look up Empress Wu Zetian) Modern feminist laws make the concept of Chinese families look like a joke.

    Westerners do not feel the full impact of the feminist revolution as the West are all basically living in separate, “nuclear” families. But the rest of the world do.

  5. ChristianCool says:

    @white says: The West hates inheritance because it’s a no-win scenario for feminists. Nothing exposes the lie of feminism more than inheritance.”

    Not sure it is “the West” as a whole…. I think it is the feminists and beta male white knight cucks do not see the benefits of inheritance.

    That is a good point about this being part of a feminist ploy. I did not think about it in terms of Feminists being largest beneficiaries of allowing the wife to steal the children’s inheritance. That is a good point.

    One thing is for sure: feminists do NOT want equality. They want privilege. Equality for feminists is code for privilege.

    If feminists supported equality, we would see them calling for:

    1) Mandatory equal sentencing for same crimes committed by either gender. Men get x3 to x12 times the sentence for same crimes women commit; women are almost never punished for serious crimes like making false criminals accusations or battery of men.

    2) End of chivalry of any and all kinds and demand men be allowed to speak to women like men speak to other men. How often do you hear harpies going off: “how dare you speak to a woman like this? How dare you not help a woman?” Etc etc.

    Yeah… like that little clip above.

    3) End all divorce-rape laws and guarantee shared custody of children except under extreme circumstances.

    4) Require all allegations of “sexual harassment” at work be substantiated by evidence, not just the word of the accuser.

    Do you see nay feminists calling for any of that? 🙄 lol

    Any man who will agree to hyphenate the last name of his own children is a colossal beta and deserves what he gets. May seem harsh, but that is simply one of the most humiliating things a father can endure, short of a paternity fraud or being publicly cuckolded by a woman.

    Oh I think the citizens of Western countries are feeling the full impact of feminism very well already. Scandinavian countries, Germany, and other Western EU countries have negative birth rates when only considering their own native, ethnic populations. Go to Germany or Sweden and see how many women you see pushing a stroller with a child of their own heritage. This one guy at RoK spend a couple months in Dresden Germany, he can only remember seeing 1 German child and tons of foreign kids.

    Go visit a male prison and see how many men are feeling the impact of feminist laws, designed for women to easily accuse and imprison men using false verbal allegations.

    Go to a divorce court hearing and see how an Emperor in Black Robes (a/k/a/ “family Law Judge”) treats men and how they dismiss prenuptial Agreements as “advisement only” and give the cheating woman 70%, 80%, even 90% of the “family assets”. If she falsely accused the man of domestic violence or any other such crime, husband will be forcibly removed from home under penalty of prison and she gets the house free and clear in the divorce, even if house was bought before marriage…. prenup or not.

    I worked 6 years in legal field, and I have had a front-row seat in the legal of this s#ithsow first hand here in America. I think we are feeling the “full impact” of feminist legal system already. What else do the feminists wants, short of no-trial sentencing to gulags and mass castration of all men?

  6. white says:

    I should have been clearer: the whole world feels the impact of feminism in different ways. I say this because too often I hear Westerners who think that feminism/”moral decay” is a Western phenomenon, and that is simply not true.

  7. ChristianCool says:


    No doubt about it! Almost the entire world is feeling the curse of FemiNazism. Some countries are hit much worse, though.

    Brazil is easily the most radical feminist country in the world, in terms of criminal laws designed to unfairly imprison men and destroy them. They have a law in Brazil called “Lei Maria da Penha”, it is a radical feminist dream to imprison men by the tens of thousands without any evidence..,. in the USA, the closest we get to that is the “Yes Means Yes” law in California.

    Even the most radical leftists admit “yes Means Yes” is a terrible law, but they love the goal: mass incarcerate men without evidence of a crime with almost no due process of law, create fear for men, and enable FemiNazis to lie and destroy anyone whom they disagree with.


    Scandinavia is probably the worst socialist region in the world, but in terms of unfairness to men, out of the 91 countries that most repress men, the AngloSphere countries (UK, USA, Australia, Canada) are THE WORST overall. The USA is particularly bad because the criminal law penalties are so severe and because the USA is so litigious and judges have almost unlimited power.

    ALL Leftist movements are global in nature, and that is why things like FemiNazism, Socialism, and Communism are all the same crap anywhere they are set-up. Communism has failed equally all over the planet, with exception of China, that created a “totalitarian free market ” blended system. Everywhere else, Communism failed just as horribly whether it was in Eastern Europe, Venezuela, Cambodia/Laos, Cuba, or Central America.

    Communism is just the grandfather of the Leftist ideas. The rest all derive from its evil, with globalism always being their main common goal.

  8. ChristianCool says:

    Interesting thing I learned from a Norwegian friend, who has had a court battle against his dad and older brother. Did you guys know some Viking-era laws are still in effect in Norway today? My friend is the youngest in his family and his father’s farm passes, by law, to his eldest brother and youngest gets nothing in the case of a farm situation (even though it is just the two of them).

    Why? Because during Viking age, food production was so critical for winter survival that the oldest child, even if a woman, would have to start farming and producing food right away. And the youngest of the bunch get the “sword and shield” to go raid northern European cities for loot. 😮

    Typical of The West today…. old laws that make no sense anymore or new laws designed with feminist intent in mind to destroy men.

    And then we have idiots like Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke say the US Constitution should be done away with, so someone like him, a truly enlightened supreme being, can rule over the rest of us stupid little peasants with an iron fist/. -_- That kinda talk reminds me of Stalin’s rhetoric.

  9. white says:


    That’s interesting, especially the story about the Norwegian friend. I’m surprised to hear Norway still has Primogeniture laws (oldest inherits all), though judging how feminist Norway is today I’m guessing it’s Absolute/Cognatic Primogeniture, specifically (oldest child inherits all, regardless of gender). As mentioned above, Absolute Primogeniture has it’s “drawbacks”, and it also goes against the “equality” card feminists love to play. After all, what about the younger siblings? Don’t they deserve “equality” too?

    But I guess it could be worse. The spouse could have been de-facto heir (Uxorigeniture…? lol)

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 )

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