Confusion and Continuity

Besides the rainbow flag that’s used to represent gay pride, the emblematic colour of homosexual movements and the LGBT community is purple—or lavender, as many make the point to specify. Why purple? Because it’s pretty, and why not? I would deign to stop there. Consider purple as the combination between red and blue.

Now, in the Hegelian Dialectic, a method of reasoning truth, the well-known German philosopher Hegel equates the colour red with the masculine, while blue represents the feminine. For him, colour marks a step in elevation of sensuous matter, just as colours naturally mark some placement on the ascending scale. Hegel said that blue is lower than red, associated therefore with the feminine, which, relative to the masculine, is passive, “milder, sensuous, more tranquil” than the active “masculine, dominant red”.

3_the-bruce-and-caitlyn-72dpi-10x10Now, considering purple, the fusion of red and blue, we see the colour as a symbol of not only the merging and transforming of the masculine and the feminine, but effectively, the anti-discrimination of either one or the other. Purple forces us to abandon recognition of either red or blue. Red and blue are both present in purple, while at the same time both invisible. Homosexual men assume the natural roles of women, lesbians assume the natural roles of men, and transexuals attempt the full transformation of a literal gender swap. In all of these cases, the men and women are not fully masculine or feminine. They are both, and neither, much like purple.

But let’s dig deeper.

On the most fundamental level, where does this liberal attitude originate that says it’s natural to behave contradictorily to your nature?

There is an ancient theological worldview which formed the basis for all pagan thought, known by the term “continuity”. This perspective suggests that there is no distinction between nature, humanity, or the divine. The three are equally continuous with each other. Man, tree, and god are all one in essence. In fact, seeing borders or distinctions between any two living things is generally considered bad. In the ancient pagan myths formed around this idea, the gods and the characters of the myths all displayed acts of homosexuality, incest, prostitution, adultery, and other immoral behaviours to demonstrate a lack of distinction or boundary, even between men and animals, hence bestiality. It is thought that the ultimate ideal is that, one day, we will all return to a state of absolute uniformity with everything else, melding into an ambiguous, undefined mass known vaguely as the “meta-divine”. The acts of the gods happen in eternal cycles, exhibiting the never-changing laws of the universe, and nothing new will ever bring change to what is and has always been, so there’s no need to feel accountable to objective laws, or fear the prospect of burning in hell. The divine is natural, the natural is human, and the human is divine.

You can see how this principle of continuity quickly returns to a classic case of the serpent in the tree convincing Eve that she can be her own god. I might assert that this is indeed the same basic lie Satan’s deceived us with all throughout history, from Eden to this day. The whole of history has essentially been an exhibition of the war between the two most prominent theological views: continuity vs. transcendence. Contained in this war is every major religion in the world, including atheism.

Transcendence is the conflicting view—the Biblical view—suggesting that God is transcendent of His creation, as opposed to the idea that the divine is one with its creation. Transcendence says that God is differentiated from humans; therefore, differentiation is natural. In this idea, there is no eternally repeating cycle, but unique historical events which do occur in linear time. There is an objective divine law by which we are prohibited from the liberties of changing our nature, rendering any attempt an act of self-destruction, mutilation, rather than transformation.

If continuity is correct, then to be purple, neither red nor blue, but both and neither at once, is a good thing, perhaps a step closer to the ultimate ideal of meta-divine unity. But, if transcendence is correct, then seeking to be purple when one has been born red or blue is a perversion of the natural order created by God.

Dr. Peter R. Jones more simply defines continuity as “One-ism” (everything is one), while transcendence is dubbed “Two-ism” (1:Creator, and 2: creation). Oneism is by far the most popular and comprises the vast majority of the population—such a majority is spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 7:13,14: “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

In other words, you want to be in the minority.

The goal of one-ists is to break down the two-paradigm and erect the one-paradigm. It wouldn’t be terribly far-fetched to conjecture that this may have been represented by the symbol of the Twin Towers collapsing on 9/11 and being replaced by a single One World Trade Centre tower.

It all kind of makes you wonder about today’s vehement campaign against “discrimination”, and what such an ambiguous sentiment is really promoting in some highly subliminal manner. Somehow, it’s beginning to feel like the battle on racial tensions is slowly diverting us all towards the much grander philosophy of evil existing in the difference between any two things. When an advertisement for a third-world welfare effort tells you that “We are one”, what’s really being advocated?

In the book “The Bible among the Myths”, the author, Dr. John N. Oswalt, equates modern continuity with the popular realm of secular naturalism, listing some common consequences of this belief, such as a loss of objective truth, the loss of internal standards, the meaninglessness of “right” and “wrong” morality, and a defence of sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and gender confusion. Secular naturalism is nothing new. Claiming to be atheistic at its core, it will often discreetly or ignorantly parallel polytheistic creation myths. For instance, in the ancient Middle East, it was assumed that matter is eternal. The same was said by Carl Sagan on the PBS show Cosmos: “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”

Continuity, in essence, liberates a human to guiltlessly indulge the desires of their flesh nature, thus ignoring God’s call to salvation through the Lord Jesus from the corruption of their flesh. Continuity says, “Do as you please”—just as is written by satanist Aleister Crowley as the cardinal rule of Thelemic Devil-worship, “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

So, as Dr. Oswalt so eloquently put it in his book concerning members of the LGBT community and homosexual behaviour, “They are not primitive behaviours, nor are they, as some maintain, the result of urban sophistication. They are theological statements, necessary expressions of the worldview of which they are a part.

One thought on “Confusion and Continuity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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