Culture – Page 23

One See’s the Strangest Things on the way to Vanity Fair

So, we have Vanity Fair seeking to create the impression that Transgenderism (TranJennerism?) is normative. By putting “Brutlyn” Jenner on their cover they are, not so subtly, communicating that being Transgender is as normal as your average bombshell babe gracing the cover of your average run of the mill New York sleaze rag.

Of course the transmogrification of Jenner, former All American Stud and Athlete, into “Brutlyn,” the svelte and hubba hubba cover girl communicates that there is not that much distance between Bronco Nagurski and Marilyn Monroe. All of us, really are the same.And yet, in order to pull this off transmogrification off they have to wrap the 1976 Olympic Decathlon gold medal winner in Christian Euro-centric notions of beauty and femininity that have been with us for a very long time. So, they are desperately trying to change the social order but in order to pervert the social order they have to appeal to standards of the social order in order to pervert it. This is a classic example of Van Til’s “sitting on God’s lap in order to slap Him in the face.”One could easily make the case that the photo-shop, make-up, and lighting, creators of “Brutlyn Jenner” are practitioners of racism, trans-phobia and worst of all are guilty of Euro-centric biases. This is seen by their casting “Brutlyn” with a traditional white feminine mien along with the notion of European beauty. How dare they subtly suggest the WASP standard of beauty is the standard of beauty.

What’s even worse, is the white that “she” is regaled in, on the cover of Vanity Fair. This demonstrates “Vanity Fair’s” racism perhaps as well as any other component of the cover photo. In the European mind the color “white” is associated with purity and virtue and here is “Vanity Fair” having the cheek to reinforce that shibboleth by clothing “Brutlyn” all in white.

And what of the long hair of Brutlyn? This exudes patriarchy since women have, for centuries, been told by the misogynist Bible that “Long hair is a woman’s glory.” And “Vanity Fair” is supporting all this Christian Euro-centric hatred and misogyny that the West has been burdened with for centuries by placing that vile hateful picture of a shapely Euro-centric “Brutlyn” dressed in white on their cover complete with long flowing hair and feminine come hither smile.

What should we expect next from “Vanity Fair?” A photo shoot with “Brutlyn” as a traditional stay at home wife and mother baking cookies for the neighborhood children?

Please do not mistake me here. There is no excuses for the perversion here. There is the point that even when the Cultural despisers go pervert they unconsciously still support Western notions of beauty and femininity. The irony is found in the fact that they cannot destroy Western culture without appealing to Western culture.

Some might insist that “Brutlyn” could have been black or mestizo. I don’t think so. Only in using a European is the first step arrived at in making debauchery palatable to the masses. If you can make Christian Europeans debase themselves, then everyone else will follow. That’s been the modus operandi of the 20th and 21st centuries. Doubtless on subsequent covers you will be sure to see an oriental.

The West is dead and continues to integrate downward into the void but the really funny thing is — the thing that should be screaming at all right thinking people — is that the Christian West, in order to destroy itself and strip itself of every smidgen of Christian residue, must appeal to residual Christian and Western standards in order to do so.

Trueman vs. Trueman

We might also throw in to the mix that he (Kuyper) did this (His work) at a time when European culture was far more sympathetic to broadly Christian concerns than that of the USA today. And Kuyper failed to effect any lasting transformation of society.

Karl Trueman
14 August 2013

____________

Our task is to work hard, master the arguments (scientific, ethical, philosophical, social), understand the history of how we arrived here, defy the temptation to give up through boredom, build a coherent movement of defiance, and thereby prepare if not ourselves, then at least the next generation, for the moment when the revolution collapses under the weight of its own delusions and contradictions.

Karl Trueman
11 May 2015

_________

So, Karl would have us involved in a movement of defiance that is guaranteed to fail? After all, if Kuyper failed to effect any lasting transformation of society how can we lesser mortals hope for success?

On one hand Karl encourages us to build a coherent movement of defiance today while faulting Christians of yesteryear who themselves built movements of defiance, because in the end those movements of defiance of yesteryear failed.

I can’t keep up with Reformed “thinking” anymore. It just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.

Hillary’s Call To Change

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,”

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will, and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

Hillary Clinton
Speech — Women in the World Summit

1.) Politically speaking this quotes represents Hillary playing to the extreme left base. Hillary almost has to say things like this because there are those who could jump into the Democratic Presidential primary contest (i.e. — Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren) who could sap Hillary’s support from the lunatic fringe Left (lfl). This isn’t to say that Hillary doesn’t really believe this. It is to say that if she did not feel pressure from the lfl she might not say this kind of radical thing in public.

2.) Note here that we have a full admission of a candidate for President of these united States which explicitly tells us that those who are worldview Biblical Christians much surrender their belief system if they are to be Americans. This is the smoking gun admission that a Biblical Christian will not be allowed their convictions in the public square should they remain in this country.

3.) One can’t help but wonder that if these “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,” how is that to be accomplished? Will we have re-education camps? Will we label Christians who have, what they consider to be desiderata beliefs, psychological unstable so that they have to be treated? Will we disallow them to function in the public square until those dangerous Christians get on board?

4.) Of course this requirement for “full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies” does not include those girls who are tortured and murdered in their Mothers wombs. Those girls must not be allowed any participation.

5.) Notice the totalistic aspect of Hillary’s Worldview Feminism. Her worldveiw must cover the globe.

6.) If Hillary is elected we will have for Feminism the next 8 years what we’ve had for “Civil Rights” the previous six under Obama. Instead of minority rights it will be “women’s rights.” The consequence of both is the advancement of the Cultural Marxist Revolution — a Revolution that seeks to unravel what little is left of Christendom in the West.

7.) One wonders how R2K ministers handle this? Hillary is calling for these changes in beliefs as those beliefs affect the public square. I suppose R2K ministers could challenger Hillary by telling her that their Christian beliefs don’t have anything to do with what Hillary is concerned about and that she can go ahead an change away.

Religionsgeschichtliche School Non-Christian

http://ultraculture.org/blog/2015/04/07/heres-awesome-map-evolution-religions/

Just a word about the evolution of religion chart linked above. The whole thing presupposes a evolutionary worldview where monotheism is the result of religion evolving from the original and first religion of animism and polytheism, etc. But of course for Biblical Christians monotheism did not evolve from lower religious forms but indeed monotheism, with the God of the Bible worshiped, was the religion before the fall. Biblical Christians then hold that other religious expressions (animism, polytheism, henotheism, etc.) were a consequence of the Fall and not a beginning point from which monotheism eventually “evolved.”

Another problem with the “history of religions” school is that truth becomes relative. Believing that religion evolves means also believing that truth evolves. This introduces the idea of “process theology” where God and truth is constantly becoming, most often in conjunction with man and his interpretations (paging Hegel). The problem with this is that truth becomes relative to God’s most recent point of evolving. This plays havoc with God’s name “I am who I am,” which communicated being over becoming.

A third problem with the history of religions school ( Religionsgeschichtliche) is that it is doing theology in a anthropological fashion. It is “theology” from man to God as opposed to theology by way of God’s revelation to man. Religionsgeschichtliche thus is anthropocentric speculation on, and even creation of the character of God.

Pilgrims Regress Redux & the Sodomite Marriage Debate

In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis wrote about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

Today, with Sodomite coupling (“marriage”) we have reversed engineered Lewis account. The account should now tell the story about a man who ordered Cow Urine and Chicken fesus from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the Cow Urine he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied “Cow Urine is only cow’s milk.” After eating the Chicken poop he commented on the tastiness of the poop. Again the waiter responded that Chicken poop is really the same as chicken eggs.

A person at the next table observed all this in incredulity and shouted to both waiter and customer, “You two are insane. You don’t know the difference between what God has meant for garbage and what He meant for nourishment.” At this the waiter and customer along with much of the rest of the customer clientele, who was also dining on Chicken shit and Cow piss, arose to denounce the man who pointed out the insanity of the waiter and customer. They denounced the intruder as being a urine-ist and from suffering from fecalphobia. They insisted that he was a “hater” and demanded to know where his compassion was. They quoted scripture to him about the evil of judging. They insisted that all restaurants, in the name of fairness and equality, be forced to sell Chicken shit and Cow piss to all who wanted to buy it from them as a breakfast entree.

With the normalizing of sodomite “marriage” we are insisting that grotesque garbage is in fact the very same thing as Marriage. We are insisting that we call that which is destructive to human flourishing to be the same as that which is nourishing and refreshing to human thriving. We are in even worst shape then the waiter and customer in Lewis’ original parable. In the orignal parable the customer was at least eating and drinking the proper production of Cow and chicken, even if Lewis’ waiter was trying to draw an equivalency between nourishment and refuse. What we are doing instead is consuming the refuse while insisting that offal garbage is the same as nourishment.

And the really odd thing … the thing that is breathtakingly bizarre is that many in the Church are telling us that we ought to join in the celebration of a grotesque impossibility thus giving our whole hearted approval to the equivalency of someone dining on chicken shit and cow piss all the while insisting that it is really eggs and milk. It is ministers in the Church who want us to call and support a grotesque impossibility as the same thing as “Holy Matrimony.”

Actually, neither C. S. Lewis, nor Lewis Carroll could have ever conceived of this scale of utter madness.