What is the foundation of culture?
In thinking about this, I have a vague recollection of hearing someone (I can't remember who) saying something to the effect that "the foundation of cult-ure is the cult; the religion held by the people and holding the people together."
In this sense, the religion of held by the people is a unifying force and when it finds its expression it leads to those elements of culture that many find profound, such as the arts.
When I was travelling and living in East Asia, especially in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, the dominant cultural expression that I witnessed was rooted in their Buddhist beliefs. The statues, paintings, architecture and temples were everywhere. When people talk of travelling through Italy and France, they remark on the Cathedrals and the art work, much of which has religion themes and subjects.
When we look at modern western culture, we see that it is dominated by sex and much of the political discourse is focused on death. We see that modern culture is fragmenting society through an ever increasing list of -ists and -isms for which people can be derided, shamed and shunned. Tolerance is the buzzword, but it is not actually practiced. Modern culture is becoming more and more totalitarian in its practice as elements within the culture (the loud radical left) scream for ever more censorship, deplatforming and shunning of opposing views, especially those that would be considered more traditional and those that oppose their agenda.
The fracturing, wounding and decaying of western culture is due to its foundational cult - sex worship. The slut pride walks, the gay pride parades, the destruction of the family unit, and the murder of millions upon millions of innocent children is all due to the modern worship at the altar of sex and the profane. By seeking to destroy the culture of the past, rooted as it was in Christianity, they producing a society that is not only opposed to Christianity but is its opposite.
Where Christianity promotes unity, the modern naturalistic, amoral, relativistic sex cult promotes disunity.
Where Christianity promotes the sanctity of human life, the modern naturalistic, amoral, relativistic sex cult denigrates and demeans human life.
Where Christianity promotes the sanctity of the family as the foundation for society, the modern naturalistic, amoral, relativistic sex cult demeans and destroys the family unit.
Where Christianity promotes humility and love, the modern naturalistic, amoral, relativistic sex cult promotes pride and arrogance.
Where Christianity promotes meekness and service, the modern naturalistic, amoral, relativistic sex cult promotes violence and selfishness.
Western culture is changing, it is being undermined by people who hate what it once stood for and what it once promoted (unity, life, family, humility, love, service, meekness) and want to see it replaced with disunity, individualism, pride, arrogance, violence and selfishness.
I've heard too many people foolishly say that it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is how you act; but our actions are rooted in our beliefs.
If you believe that traditional western culture is worth saving, then act accordingly.
If you believe that it needs to be destroyed, well when you sow to the wind, you reap the whirlwind.
Satan has long been trying to destroy what God has established, but we know that he will not prevail against Christ and his Church.
In the words of Moses, today you have been given a choice, to choose blessing or curse, to choose life or death. Choose life.
fragmented religious beliefs lead to a fragmented culture and is a disunifying influence.
An attempt to strive for sanity in an insane world. An attempt to stay intellectually active in an increasingly unthinking society.
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Games of Thrones' hollow empty heart
So Game of Thrones season two will be starting up soon and I'm sure that there are many fans waiting with great anticipation.
I have to admit to my indifference.
I watched the first episode of season one when it came out of it not wanting to see any more. I'm a big fantasy and science fiction fan. I had been anticipating this show for a while, and had purposefully not read the books because of the TV show. I was left disappointed.
So after many many people told me how great it was and how I should give it another shot, I watched the first season and was left no great passion for the show.
My indifference stems from the same place that births such passion for the show in others. Its supposed realism.
Well, speaking of realism concerning a fictional world seems a bit much, but I understand where they are coming from. The show (and obviously the novels) dispense with what many consider to be the tired cliche of black and white, good guys and bad guys, hero and villain and instead brings to life a world of grey, where concepts of right and wrong are subject to context and perspective. A world where might makes right and the ends do justify the means.
Many see this as a reflection of our current world and enjoy that sense of realism. It left me searching for a reason to care for characters and the show in general.
The one character it seemed that most closely resembled the 'tired cliche' of yesteryear fantasy fiction was Ned Stark. Not a perfect man to be sure but one that tried hard to live by a code of conduct that many would see as positive. He tried to be good to his friends and straight forward with his enemies. He was a man in a position of power to took responsibility rather than trying to abuse that position.
So when Ned was killed by the new young king, I'm sure that it was meant to be a shocking moment. Here was the person who for the most part served as the main character lying headless. I'm sure that as an audience we were meant to be rooting for that last minute save. That moment of leniency from the king that would see Ned's life spared, even if it meant imprisonment.
But it wasn't shocking or meaningful to me because I didn't care.
It was meant to be a moment that drove home for the viewer that this world was not a world where good wins and evil is defeated. It was meant to drive home to the viewer that such notions are antiquated and that ideas of rigid or even semi-rigid codes of right and wrong are not to be found here.
But this was one of the things that propelled Martin's books to prominence, so it came as no real surprise when the world functioned as it was constructed and engineered to function.
I didn't invest myself in any of the characters because they had nothing worth investing myself in and as such my lack of personal investment provided no emotional impact on an event that was meant to be a very emotional moment.
The story is interesting and I'll probably watch the second season once its finished, but when a character dies I won't care because I'm indifferent to their struggles, their desires, their intrigues and passions. I'm indifferent because I don't feel that I can relate to them and if I can't relate to them. If I can't find some piece of myself in them then there is no connection, no connection means no resonance or power.
Its a story, a fairly well told story so far, but its excesses of narcissism, violence, incest and frivolous nudity will always keep me at arms length from the story's heart; its characters and so long as that is the case then it will simply lack the power that would make it great.
I have to admit to my indifference.
I watched the first episode of season one when it came out of it not wanting to see any more. I'm a big fantasy and science fiction fan. I had been anticipating this show for a while, and had purposefully not read the books because of the TV show. I was left disappointed.
So after many many people told me how great it was and how I should give it another shot, I watched the first season and was left no great passion for the show.
My indifference stems from the same place that births such passion for the show in others. Its supposed realism.
Well, speaking of realism concerning a fictional world seems a bit much, but I understand where they are coming from. The show (and obviously the novels) dispense with what many consider to be the tired cliche of black and white, good guys and bad guys, hero and villain and instead brings to life a world of grey, where concepts of right and wrong are subject to context and perspective. A world where might makes right and the ends do justify the means.
Many see this as a reflection of our current world and enjoy that sense of realism. It left me searching for a reason to care for characters and the show in general.
The one character it seemed that most closely resembled the 'tired cliche' of yesteryear fantasy fiction was Ned Stark. Not a perfect man to be sure but one that tried hard to live by a code of conduct that many would see as positive. He tried to be good to his friends and straight forward with his enemies. He was a man in a position of power to took responsibility rather than trying to abuse that position.
So when Ned was killed by the new young king, I'm sure that it was meant to be a shocking moment. Here was the person who for the most part served as the main character lying headless. I'm sure that as an audience we were meant to be rooting for that last minute save. That moment of leniency from the king that would see Ned's life spared, even if it meant imprisonment.
But it wasn't shocking or meaningful to me because I didn't care.
It was meant to be a moment that drove home for the viewer that this world was not a world where good wins and evil is defeated. It was meant to drive home to the viewer that such notions are antiquated and that ideas of rigid or even semi-rigid codes of right and wrong are not to be found here.
But this was one of the things that propelled Martin's books to prominence, so it came as no real surprise when the world functioned as it was constructed and engineered to function.
I didn't invest myself in any of the characters because they had nothing worth investing myself in and as such my lack of personal investment provided no emotional impact on an event that was meant to be a very emotional moment.
The story is interesting and I'll probably watch the second season once its finished, but when a character dies I won't care because I'm indifferent to their struggles, their desires, their intrigues and passions. I'm indifferent because I don't feel that I can relate to them and if I can't relate to them. If I can't find some piece of myself in them then there is no connection, no connection means no resonance or power.
Its a story, a fairly well told story so far, but its excesses of narcissism, violence, incest and frivolous nudity will always keep me at arms length from the story's heart; its characters and so long as that is the case then it will simply lack the power that would make it great.
For greatness comes in over coming something not in wallowing in the filth. So while many may feel that The Lord of the Rings is a tired tome, it holds more meaning for many because they can identify with the struggle, they can relate to pressure to give up or give in, and they can see the power that resonates from those that are able to fight on, to push through and overcome and are able to find meaning in their lives beyond the shit an filth of daily life. Its in the struggle to carve out for yourself beauty and meaning that resonates with characters such as Sam and Frodo in a way that one can't with Ned or Jamie, because to give up, to give in is not heroic and as much as some say that they don't want or need heroes, the power of humanity is found in those moments of heroism that many may not see but others cling to in a grey grey world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)