Nov 10, 2023·edited Nov 10, 2023Liked by Stephen G. Adubato
Drag shows are satanic. There are philistine Catholics yes. I listen to post metal. The trad philistines think I’m bad for this. This is stupid. But the desecration at Notre Dame has NOTHING to do with this problem.
The outrage and protests against the desecration of Notre Dame by this satanic and filthy monstrosity is not to be criticized in any way. In any way. You are giving energy and cover to the evil. To call them philistine Catholics for their righteous indignation is grotesque.
I’m not a Catholic, but am a fellow Christian. Philippians 4:8 tells us “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” So while I agree with your point that there can be good art with morally questionable subject matter-- is that something a Catholic or other type Christian should be engaging with? I don’t mean this as a legalistic moral requirement, but as an act to guard one’s heart. As a Christian, who believes that God made man male and female, I don’t think it’s good or praiseworthy to have men dressed up like scantily dressed women. Why would I want to engage in an art that subverts God’s order to things. I don’t. Not because I think I’ll fall into some sort of quasi immoral standing with God if I go to a drag show, but more of an idea that I want to guard my heart against ideas, thoughts, and images that are not Biblical. Obviously, I can’t guard myself against everything-- we aren’t meant to live as monks hiding from the world. But if there are alternative art events to attend or see that fits more with Phil. 4:8, why wouldn’t I focus on that?
It doesn’t have to be moral outrage to denounce a drag show. It might simply be prudence as to what is good to fill our minds with. (And a Christian should be concerned with morals, not as a way to earn salvation but because after he/she encounters Jesus, we do as He commands us because we love him.) This distinction is key-- I don’t support drag shows because I think my moral outrage at such things shows that I am a good person. Rather, I love Jesus and he says that certain things are moral and certain things are not, and I strive to obey him in that, and do not want to risk my heart being corrupted by the immoral, as I recognize that the sin in me makes it very easy for me to be corrupted in that way.
I'm not saying you should go see a drag show. I don't go to see them (at least not anymore). I'm saying that people who have reservations about drag should learn to make their argument from an aesthetic/ontological level rather than a merely moral one. Moral arguments don't really reach down to the "meat" of a given subject, and rarely communicate anything to the opps.
I agree that it is hard to argue against something morally to somehow who has a completely different worldview about morality than you. I’m just not sure you can completely disregard the moral implications of such things for the Christian. Morals are a part of faith, and I agree that we get the order and importance of them really wrong sometimes. Perhaps the ontological approach is better received by others with different worldviews. So I hear you there. But I also don’t know the perfect balance (and no one really does) between being understand by the world and being outside the world. Christians are supposed to look different to the world. Doesn’t it speak to something about our faith when we do care about morals when everyone else in the world thinks all morality is relative?
I never said to disregard the morals. I said to view the morals as stemming from an ontological reality. I'm saying to start with the question of "what is drag?" before you get to "is drag good or bad?" Much easier to start a conversation with someone who has a different worldview than you about question a than about question b.
also, I have to push back on the morality is relative thing. Nobody actually thinks that. Charles Taylor offers a solid explanation of the common conception of morality that most people have today....it's expressivist, which is extremely distinct from relativism.
Thats fair. I agree that starting with “what” before determining morality is a good place to start. The way the article was written sounded a bit like you were putting down the Catholics for considering morals at all. How would you propose the response to the drag show should have gone if following a framework of ontological discernment and then to a moral one? Just curious how that would look like in your mind.
I’m not so sure about the relativism thing. I am not a philosopher, so I admit I don’t exactly understand you when you say “expressivist.” But from observation, the Western progressive apologists for Hamas seem to say that killing woman and babies is morally good if you are fighting for supposed freedom from oppression but morally reprehensible if you accidently kill women and children in a defensive war. I would call that moral relativism.
There was a time rock and roll was the devil’s music. In many contexts it is. But like Larry Norman sang, “What does the devil have all the good music?” Which means any art form can take on a G-D inspired meaning and messaging. Is camp trans by itself or just kitschy? The fruit of the spirit tells us the way to be and debauchery is on another list of ways not to be. People want to willfully sin? Have at it. Just not in inappropriate places, like where I have to look at it or by being there or allowing it, seem to condone it. Unfortunately, for sinners they desire so to be validated in their sick or wicked ways. So they do not want just be allowed or accepted, they want approval. That is forced and coercive, which only proves how far from G-D a lost spirit can go. I cannot be socially forced to agree with them. What is next? They have a right to parade naked through our church services?
Drag shows are satanic. There are philistine Catholics yes. I listen to post metal. The trad philistines think I’m bad for this. This is stupid. But the desecration at Notre Dame has NOTHING to do with this problem.
if you read the spectator article I linked you would see that I agree with you.
The outrage and protests against the desecration of Notre Dame by this satanic and filthy monstrosity is not to be criticized in any way. In any way. You are giving energy and cover to the evil. To call them philistine Catholics for their righteous indignation is grotesque.
I’m not a Catholic, but am a fellow Christian. Philippians 4:8 tells us “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” So while I agree with your point that there can be good art with morally questionable subject matter-- is that something a Catholic or other type Christian should be engaging with? I don’t mean this as a legalistic moral requirement, but as an act to guard one’s heart. As a Christian, who believes that God made man male and female, I don’t think it’s good or praiseworthy to have men dressed up like scantily dressed women. Why would I want to engage in an art that subverts God’s order to things. I don’t. Not because I think I’ll fall into some sort of quasi immoral standing with God if I go to a drag show, but more of an idea that I want to guard my heart against ideas, thoughts, and images that are not Biblical. Obviously, I can’t guard myself against everything-- we aren’t meant to live as monks hiding from the world. But if there are alternative art events to attend or see that fits more with Phil. 4:8, why wouldn’t I focus on that?
It doesn’t have to be moral outrage to denounce a drag show. It might simply be prudence as to what is good to fill our minds with. (And a Christian should be concerned with morals, not as a way to earn salvation but because after he/she encounters Jesus, we do as He commands us because we love him.) This distinction is key-- I don’t support drag shows because I think my moral outrage at such things shows that I am a good person. Rather, I love Jesus and he says that certain things are moral and certain things are not, and I strive to obey him in that, and do not want to risk my heart being corrupted by the immoral, as I recognize that the sin in me makes it very easy for me to be corrupted in that way.
I'm not saying you should go see a drag show. I don't go to see them (at least not anymore). I'm saying that people who have reservations about drag should learn to make their argument from an aesthetic/ontological level rather than a merely moral one. Moral arguments don't really reach down to the "meat" of a given subject, and rarely communicate anything to the opps.
No. It’s a moral and spiritual issue. Period. It’s Christ vs antichrist.
I agree that it is hard to argue against something morally to somehow who has a completely different worldview about morality than you. I’m just not sure you can completely disregard the moral implications of such things for the Christian. Morals are a part of faith, and I agree that we get the order and importance of them really wrong sometimes. Perhaps the ontological approach is better received by others with different worldviews. So I hear you there. But I also don’t know the perfect balance (and no one really does) between being understand by the world and being outside the world. Christians are supposed to look different to the world. Doesn’t it speak to something about our faith when we do care about morals when everyone else in the world thinks all morality is relative?
I never said to disregard the morals. I said to view the morals as stemming from an ontological reality. I'm saying to start with the question of "what is drag?" before you get to "is drag good or bad?" Much easier to start a conversation with someone who has a different worldview than you about question a than about question b.
also, I have to push back on the morality is relative thing. Nobody actually thinks that. Charles Taylor offers a solid explanation of the common conception of morality that most people have today....it's expressivist, which is extremely distinct from relativism.
Thats fair. I agree that starting with “what” before determining morality is a good place to start. The way the article was written sounded a bit like you were putting down the Catholics for considering morals at all. How would you propose the response to the drag show should have gone if following a framework of ontological discernment and then to a moral one? Just curious how that would look like in your mind.
I’m not so sure about the relativism thing. I am not a philosopher, so I admit I don’t exactly understand you when you say “expressivist.” But from observation, the Western progressive apologists for Hamas seem to say that killing woman and babies is morally good if you are fighting for supposed freedom from oppression but morally reprehensible if you accidently kill women and children in a defensive war. I would call that moral relativism.
There was a time rock and roll was the devil’s music. In many contexts it is. But like Larry Norman sang, “What does the devil have all the good music?” Which means any art form can take on a G-D inspired meaning and messaging. Is camp trans by itself or just kitschy? The fruit of the spirit tells us the way to be and debauchery is on another list of ways not to be. People want to willfully sin? Have at it. Just not in inappropriate places, like where I have to look at it or by being there or allowing it, seem to condone it. Unfortunately, for sinners they desire so to be validated in their sick or wicked ways. So they do not want just be allowed or accepted, they want approval. That is forced and coercive, which only proves how far from G-D a lost spirit can go. I cannot be socially forced to agree with them. What is next? They have a right to parade naked through our church services?
Agreed