Monday, February 13, 2017

The Grammys and Beyonce as Mother Goddess

An unmistakable  metaphor ...

I saw a woman seated on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names ... Book of Revelation

Beyonce's performance last night was kind of fascinating - but also kind of dumb - the gynecological chair tilt thing was strange - the chair and table design was so 'ordinary' compared to the rest of the spectacle.  That missed.

Her performance was actually more fascinating for the Mother Goddess imagery.  Bam!  In your face Gaia.  From devout Christians of course, albeit more spiritual than religious.  The music/entertainment industry channels New Age spirituality, which is quite simply neo-pagan idolatry.  Nothing surprising about that.

Just saying.  There is great gain in 'spiritual but not religious' - but you will never content with a sufficiency ...

This particular type of ritual - entertainment phenomena - seems to me to be a natural development of secular/pagan culture.  I think it fits in well with Joseph Ratzinger's 1958 lecture on neo-paganism, which has recently come to light online.

One [might] speak rather about the much more characteristic phenomenon of our time, which determines the real attack against the Christian, from the paganism within the Church herself, from the “desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be” (Mk 13:14).
The fact that today, even given an optimistic evaluation, certainly more than half of the Catholics (here we are considering only our Church) no longer “practice” their faith, should not be explained clearly in the sense that this large number of non-practicing Catholics should simply be called pagans. It is still evident that they no longer simply embrace the faith of the Church, but that they make a very subjective choice from the creed of the Church in order to shape their own world view. And there can be no doubt that most of them, from the Christian point of view, should really no longer be called believers, but that they follow, more or less, a secular philosophy. They do indeed affirm the moral responsibility of man, but it is based on, and limited by, purely rational considerations. The ethics of N. Hartmanns, K. Jaspers, and M. Heidegger, for example, defend the more or less known convictions of many morally upright men, but they are in no sense Christians. The well-known little book published by the List-Verlag (a German publishing house—Editor’s note) entitled, What Do You Think About Christianity? can open the eyes of anyone, who has allowed himself to be deceived by the Christian façade of our contemporary public image, to the realization of how far and wide such purely rational and irreligious morality has spread. Therefore, the modern man today, when he meets someone else anywhere, can assume with some certainty that he has a baptismal certificate, but not that he has a Christian frame of mind. Therefore, he must presume as the normal state of affairs the lack of faith of his neighbor. This fact has two important consequences: On the one hand, it includes a fundamental change in the structure of the Church; and, on the other hand, it has produced an essential change of consciousness on the side of the still-believing Christians. - The New Pagans

$American idol$

1 comment:

  1. Narcissism at its finest is what I came away with after that performance.

    Ah well ...


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.