Showing posts with label Progressivism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Progressivism. Show all posts

Saturday, February 6, 2021

Steve Harvey Is Wrong About Salvation; Christians Watch Out!

          Millions of people follow Steve Harvey. He is “an American television presenter, comedian, actor, broadcaster, author, game show host and businessman. He hosts The Steve Harvey Morning Show, Family Feud, Celebrity Family Feud and the Miss Universe competition (since 2015)… He is a six-time Daytime Emmy Award winner, two-time Marconi Award winner, and a 14-time NAACP Image Award winner in various categories..”1

            Recently Steve Harvey alluded to the possibility of many ways to heaven.

            This is so blatantly wrong on so many levels.

            Many think that Steve Harvey is a Christian. Steve Harvey calls himself a man of faith.2

            As a man of faith, he proclaimed there is more than one way to heaven.3 He said, “"There's no one way to Heaven, no one way to paradise,” Harvey declared. “It's like television, now there's [sic] over 800 channels on cable, and they're all pretty entertaining. So I'm pretty sure that to get to Heaven, there's got to be more than one route. Because somebody watching another channel or taking another channel than you, they're still getting entertained, and they probably still getting to Heaven.””4

            This blatantly contradicts an essential Historic Christian tenet that belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven (John 14:6, Acts 4:12).

            If Steve Harvey is a Christian, does he not know his Bible?

            Alternatively, if Steve Harvey calls himself a Christian, he could be a Progressive Christian.

            Progressive Christians, under the pretext of religious tolerance, believe that all religions lead to heaven. (Hence, those subscribing to Historic Christianity do not believe that progressive Christians would go to heaven.)

            Many people listen to Steve Harvey for his counsel on many matters. If you are one of those, be sure that Steve’s counsel need not be predicated on the Historic Christian tenets. In other words, Steve Harvey’s counsel need not necessarily be based on Biblical principles.

            So be careful when you listen to Steve Harvey.  

            If you wonder why all religions cannot lead us to heaven or God, then please read my blog entitled “Three Reasons Why All Religions Do Not LeadTo God Or Heaven.”5

Endnotes:

1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Harvey

2https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5dhOFPlM0&list=WL&index=1&ab_channel=TheOfficialSteveHarvey; 0:26 mins.

3https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5dhOFPlM0&list=WL&index=1&ab_channel=TheOfficialSteveHarvey; 1:40-2:08 mins.

4https://www.christianpost.com/news/steve-harvey-says-theres-no-one-way-to-heaven.html

5http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2019/01/three-reasons-why-all-religions-do-not.html

Websites last accessed on 6th February 2021. 



Wednesday, January 6, 2021

Amen & Awoman! Progressive Christians At Work???

            Did you come upon a Democrat Congressman’s bizarre prayer at the 117th Congress on 3rd January 2021? Here’s a summary, “Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), an ordained Methodist pastor, offered some unusual words in the opening prayer for the 117th Congress on Sunday.

            He ended the prayer with, “May the Lord lift up the light of his countenance upon us and give us peace. Peace in our families. Peace across this land and, dare I ask...oh, Lord...peace even in this chamber now and ever more. We ask it in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and gods known by many names by many different faiths. Amen and a-woman.”” 1 [Emphasis Mine].

            This prayer is bizarre for two reasons:

            1. The supposedly Christian prayer mentions various deities of the major religious worldviews.

            2. The prayer closes with a very atypical ‘Amen and Awoman.’

            First, why is there such a backlash against this prayer? This prayer is simply nonsensical from the Historic Christian perspective.

            A progressive Christian2 (who may not be a Christian, to begin with) can pray this prayer, but a Christian subscribing to Historic Christianity cannot pray this prayer.

            Why is this prayer wrong?

            First, a Christian subscribing to Historic Christianity would pray his/her prayers in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:13-14). A prayer that is prayed in the name of the gods of this world is not Christian prayer. Period.

            Second, amen is not a gendered word. Amen does not refer to males or females.

            Amen is from the Old Testament, so it has Hebrew origin. Dr. Brown explains by giving a context to this prayer:3

In case you haven’t heard, House Democrats want to remove all gendered language from their legislation, while the prayer to open the 117th Congress ended with, “Amen and A-woman.” I kid you not. Who would make up something so insane?

A PC Prayer

Let’s start with the PC prayer, which has to be seen to be believed. It is offered in “the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and ‘god’ known by many names by many different faiths.” And it concludes with, “Amen and A-woman,” as if the “men” of “Amen” was somehow a gendered term. How patriarchal and bigoted to use the “men” word in prayer!

Of course, “Amen” comes from the common Semitic root ’-m-n, with the word itself meaning, “So be it.” And it is used in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic liturgy, being found in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Arabic (along with English and many other languages)…

Learning New Phrases?

Following the logic of this prayer, we would have to learn new phrases like, “making awomends,” since “making amends” contains the dreaded m- word. Or, we would have to learn to be “awomenable,” lest we allow a male-dominated word like “amenable” to remain on the books. (Go ahead and make up your own list of words containing “men.” This is madness.)

        Amen is thusly not a gendered word. It means ‘so be it.’ Thinking of amen as a gendered word is absolutely insane and nonsensical.

        Do not use the word ‘Awoman’ while you close your prayer, a fortiori amen is sufficient.

        Can a Christian pray in the name of the gods of this world?

        No, most certainly not!

        Why?

        The God of the Bible is ontologically not the same as Allah or Brahma or any other God.

        If we think of God from the realm of metaphysics, God is a maximally great being or the greatest conceivable being. In fact, from an ontic sense, there cannot be two maximally great beings aka God.

        There can only be one maximally great being. That is the innate property of a maximally great being.

        So when we talk about God, it is either the God of the Bible or Allah or Brahman, etc. It cannot be both the God of the Bible and any other God. Neither can the God of the Bible be called Allah nor Brahma etc. for they are ontologically distinct. The one who believes in the God of the Bible would not and cannot believe in any other god, for there cannot be another maximally great being.

        Therefore, a Christian would only pray in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

        The prayer prayed at the 117th Congress is absurd.

        Any Christian, who subscribes to Historic Christianity, should only pray in the name of the Lord Jesus and should only say Amen (so be it) at the end of the prayer.

         Amen!

Endnotes:

1https://www.klove.com/news/faith/opening-prayer-for-congress-uses-amen-and-a-woman--19043

2A progressive Christian does not believe the Bible as God’s Word. He believes all gods are the same. The progressive Christian also believes in the contradicting Scriptures of other religions. A progressive Christian departs from serving the God of the Bible while striving to be politically correct. He/she interprets the Bible to his own subjective inclination to form a cultish Christianity that disobeys the God of the Bible in order to conform to the world and its evolving degenerative ethical system.

3https://stream.org/congress-has-officially-gone-gender-crazy/

Websites cited last accessed on 6th January 2021.


Monday, November 16, 2020

What Do Some Sincere Christians Ignore When They Approve Homosexuality?

            Some Christians, who cannot be termed progressives, approve of homosexual practices (read LGBTQ). These are rather sincere Christians.

            They believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. They believe in the Bible. They do not think that Christianity and other religions are one and the same. If we take their approval of homosexuality out of the picture, these Christians can be termed as faithful followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            But the allure of the material world (through social media) is seemingly so robust that these Christians are influenced strongly by the ideologies of the secular world. Hence, they decide (more so on an emotional basis) that homosexuality is an acceptable practice.

            If they oppose homosexuality, they reckon, they are not showing true love towards their gay friends. So in order to prove their love for their gay brothers and sisters, they approve and endorse homosexual behavior.

            But what about the explicit Bible verses that deem homosexual behavior as sinful (Genesis 19:5-7; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7)? How do these Christians interpret these verses?

            Although these verses explicitly deem homosexuality as a sin against God, they believe that love is a superseding factor. Very minimally, when it comes to terming gay people as sinners they believe that they would be disobeying the Lord Jesus if they deem gay people as sinners. A couple of reasons could be the causal factor:

            1. Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.

            2. The great commandments are predicated on love – to love the Lord God and to love our neighbors as ourselves.

            Hence they believe that ‘to love’ is of far greater value than ‘to condemn’ our gay neighbors of their sin.

            They also argue since homosexual practice is consensual and harmless to society, it is okay to practice homosexuality. (Based on these factors would you then endorse Necrophilia? Just asking!)

            Furthermore, Christians supporting LGBTQ practices believe that they are exhibiting greater tolerance by approving gay practices, thus they imagine they are paving way for a peaceful society.

            So they concur with the material / secular world to accept and endorse homosexual behavior.

            This is not only unreasonable reasoning; it embraces faulty hermeneutics and does more damage to society. Superficially, this line of argument seems plausible. But if we dig deeper, it is not, and here’s why:

            First, what is a sin? Sin is an assault against God. A sin is a practice or behavior that offends God. Since God is good and there is no evil in HIM, anything that opposes good or is evil is a sin.

            Second, who classifies a practice as sin? It is ONLY God who can classify a practice as a sin because HE is the Supreme Being – an embodiment of perfection and righteousness. God’s decision is an objective decision. Every action of mankind is to be referred against God and HIS attributes, because man’s sole objective is to worship and glorify God.

            Third, who can declassify a sinful practice to an acceptable practice? If God classified an evil or a wrong practice to be a sin, then it is ONLY God who can declassify that practice from being sinful to acceptable behavior. Man has no role in this whatsoever. Man cannot play God.

            Fourth, why can’t man declassify a sin? Man is imperfect; his knowledge is far from being perfect. Man’s definition of sin is dependent on the mores of his time. It is dependent on the culture of his time and scientific development. The superlative rational thought of a man will always be contaminated by the imperfection hardwired into his essence.

            Significantly, man’s decision will always be subjective and not objective e.g. some cultures accept cannibalism as acceptable behavior, whereas other cultures do not.1 Furthermore, man’s decision is always vulnerable to evil/corruption.

            Man’s law evolves over a period of time e.g. some countries considered adultery to be a crime but these very countries have decriminalized adultery now. Hence, man’s opinion or judgment changes from time to time. In other words, man’s definition of truth is subjective and not objective, and is subject to change over a period of time.

            So no law imposed by man can remain eternal for the later generations can always supersede the former to either decriminalize the law or perpetually change/erase it.  

            Fifth, what are the repercussions of man declassifying LGBTQ from sinful to acceptable behavior? If we, mere mortals, deem LGBTQ practices as acceptable, in stark contrast to the Bible, especially when the Bible explicitly classifies LGBTQ practices as sinful, then every sin can be [unjustifiably] and thusly declassified. 

            Consider this instance. Adultery (voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's current spouse or partner) is considered sinful because God classified it as a sin, since it violates the sanctity of a heterosexual marriage between man and a woman.

            But some countries have decriminalized adultery. Adultery, which was once a crime, is no longer a crime in countries such as India (however it remains as a valid ground for divorce).2

            Therefore, it may only be a matter of time when every stigma concerned with adultery may be removed and adultery may be an acceptable practice sooner than later.

            Consider Polyamory - the practice of engaging in multiple romantic (and typically sexual) relationships, with the consent of all people involved. If gay marriages are deemed acceptable by some Christians, on what grounds would they deem polyamory as sinful? The polyamorous ‘throuple’(a relationship between three people who have all unanimously agreed to be in a romantic, loving, relationship together with the consent of all people involved.) would demand endorsement from the church and the state based on the factors that it is harmless and consensual à la homosexual practice.

            The Metropolitan Community Churches (MCC) have already endorsed polyamory as an acceptable behavior: [Emphasis Mine]3

WE AFFIRM a self-conception of having inherent worth, being loved by God, and belonging to a family or community should be defined as God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture. We affirm that homosexuality, bi and pan-sexuality, asexuality, transgender and non-binary gender, polyamory and all other forms of queer identity are as much valid and holy self-conceptions consistent with God’s holy purposes as cisgender, heterosexual and monogamous identities.

WE DENY that an imposition of a strict gender binary of male and female being and loving was God’s idea in creation, as such demands cause harm to God’s people and God’s church.

            So it is only a matter of time when most of the churches would bless polyamorous relationships because the approval of LGBTQ practices is a valid precedent.

            This clearly demonstrates that if man defines a sinful practice by overriding God, and the Bible, then most or every sinful practice could be deemed as acceptable behavior in due time. 

            Those who support LGBTQ practices will be responsible for the endorsement of much more deadly practices that are detrimental to the society such as Polyamory, Pedophilia, and Bestiality etc.

            Significantly, since they oppose God, their salvation could be in jeopardy. They are treading dangerous waters, ““But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea…” (Matthew 18:6, NET).

Endnotes:

1https://www.ranker.com/list/cannibalism-around-the-world/jacob-shelton

2http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1140-decriminalization-of-adultery-in-india.html

3https://www.mccchurch.org/an-mcc-response-to-the-nashville-statement/

Websites last accessed on 16th November 2020.

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

Straight Pride; Why Our World Adores The LGBTQ Agenda


            Nothing is more important than the LGBTQ agenda to our world. Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire nailed it, “As everyone knows, June is African-American Music Appreciation Month. It's also National Safety Month and National Smile Month. And we can't forget that it is ALS Awareness Month, Alzheimer’s and Brain Awareness Month, Cataract Awareness Month, Hernia Awareness Month, Myasthenia Gravis Awareness Month, National Aphasia Awareness Month, National Congenital Cytomegalovirus Awareness Month, National Scleroderma Awareness Month, and Scoliosis Awareness Month. But all of these holy observances must take a backseat to the most hallowed of them all: LGBT Pride Month.”1

            Interestingly, Matt Walsh claims that the LGBTQ community is not persecuted in the USA, rather they are privileged.2

            The secular world worships the LGBTQ community. Suddenly, the LGBTQ community has become a privileged community. Why?

            Oppression could be the key reason.

            An article in the USA Today enlightens us:3

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently apologized to the thousands of LGBTQ men and women who were fired by government agencies, including the military, between the 1950s and 1992. They were investigated and interrogated, some even forced to undergo polygraph testing, then discharged because they were considered threats to national security. It was a “gay purge,” and it was still happening less than 30 years ago.
Visibility and equality
These fights for acceptance and equality aren’t over.
Living proudly and openly in societies where your well-being (emotional, physical, professional) is constantly at risk is nothing short of brave. The fact that we are seeing more people live openly and honestly despite these challenges is a miracle.
Almost every day, we see threats made against members of the LGBTQ community. The scaling back of hard-earned rights and protections of LGBTQ people, particularly transgender people, is difficult to ignore.
So when straight people ask why there is a need for gay pride or wonder why there aren’t straight pride celebrations, it feels a lot like they are saying contributions by LGBTQ people — a minority group that faces constant adversity — are simply not worthy of recognition. Further, they’re denying the importance and significance of identifying as LGBTQ and achieving things — surviving, even — when the odds are stacked against you.
The resilience of the LGBTQ community alone is worthy of celebration.

            Fair enough!

            The laws that govern our world ought to provide protection to everyone – offenders included. The innocent cannot suffer and the guilty cannot not be punished. Even the guilty should be protected, which is precisely why prisons or correctional centers exist.

            This then is precisely the reason for the divide – in supporting or opposing the privilege offered to the LGBTQ community.

            First, the secular world does not find anything morally wrong with the practices of the LGBTQ people. For instance, they claim there’s nothing morally wrong in practicing homosexuality.  They claim homosexuality is an accepted behavioral practice, for it offends none (God excluded). On the contrary, most theists claim that homosexuality is a sin against God.

            Second, the logical second step for the secular world is to protect those being [apparently] incorrectly incriminated for their lifestyle. Thus the insulation-era of the LGBTQ community was ushered. They are being insulated/protected from all means of persecution. Thus, they are no longer persecuted in many progressive societies.

            Those who oppose the LGBTQ agenda (hardcore conservatives excluded) would welcome the protection and the provision of equal status to the LGBTQ community.

            LGBTQ may not be morally wrong in the eyes of our lawmakers. Our lawmakers act according to the forces that reign in their era.

            The practice of LGBTQ is an assault on God. It is a sin against God.

            Thankfully, an eternal and omniscient God cannot be outdone by finite human forces. Hence, HIS commands remain. HIS command that homosexuality is a sin remains irrespective of the human era or the forces that rule. (Homosexuality is taken as a specific case in point.)

            Although the forces that rule our era cannot outdo God, it has the power to vanquish susceptible humans. This is accomplished under the deceptive guise of love.

            Hence, they built a narrative to make the LGBTQ community a privileged one. A narrative in which love is the brand that sells the LGBTQ product. (But the adoration of the LGBTQ community has nothing to do with love; rather it has everything to do with moral blindness.)

            Thankfully for these morally corrupt forces, the Bible speaks much about love. Significantly, the two greatest commandments of the Lord Jesus did not emphasize worship, obedience or belief in God. Rather they emphasized love for God and love our neighbor. These commandments were predicated on love.

            But the Bible makes a very significant distinction. Love of God and of our fellow men does not relegate sins into the realm of endorsement or acceptance. A sin remains a sin and love remains love. 

            In fact, sin mars/ruins the love between God and man. When man sins against God, HIS relationship with God is marred. Hence repentance, confession, and forgiveness become the order of the day.

            This is God’s economy.

            Man’s economy is rather atypical/different from God’s.

            Since the progressive secular man does not consider homosexuality as a sin or an offense against the law, he rides the love-bandwagon and loves the LGBTQ community (and there’s nothing wrong in loving the sinner). That love ride blinds the moral senses of the secular man. When his love for his fellowmen blinds his moral senses, the secular man commits a great blunder.

            That blunder is his endorsement of the LGBTQ practices. This is where he chooses to not realize that love for someone need not necessarily lead to an endorsement of every behavior (only in the context of legitimizing LGBTQ).

            Elsewhere the secular man does not conflate love and endorsement. He may love his neighbor, but when his neighbor steals from another, the secular man imprisons his neighbor under the force of his law. In this context, theft is an offense against the law of the land. Love cannot, in any which way, override the law of the land to acquit a convict.  

            Therein the hypocrisy of the secular man dawns into full-blown brightness/intensity. 

            On the one hand, he loves his neighbor who practices homosexuality, and he even endorses homosexuality. But on the other hand, he accuses his thieving neighbor and throws him behind the bars, thereby condemning the act of theft and the subject/person who steals. 

            The reason for this hypocrisy is the secular man’s choice to endorse homosexuality as an acceptable practice. The secular man has no difficulty, whatsoever, to endorse a behavior that God condemns because the secular man refuses to bend his knee to God.

            Upon removing God from his horizon, he has no difficulty whatsoever to legitimize homosexuality.

            Or is it so?

            When God is removed from the moral equation, evidently the evolutionary paradigm reigns. The secular man contends that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable within the evolutionary paradigm.

            This is where he goes blatantly wrong.

            It can be proved that homosexuality is an aberration even according to the natural law theory. In an earlier blog entitled Does Consensual and Harmless Sexual Intercourse Legitimize Homosexuality? I emphasized the manner in which the natural law theory debunks homosexuality:4

(1)  The nature or essence of every biological organ, according to natural law theory, involves its purposes (or final causes). So the purpose of the eyeball is to make us see. Similarly, sexual intercourse also has its own purpose, which is to procreate (bear children).
But I have heard arguments that the final cause or the purpose of sexual intercourse is the pleasure. This is wrong! Pleasure cannot be a purpose for sexual intercourse.
Think about eating. You may argue that eating is pleasurable, but the biological point of eating is not to give pleasure, but to offer the body the nutrients it needs to be healthy and survive. The pleasure of eating is nature’s way of getting us to eat.
As Professor Edward Feser states, “So, the final cause of sex is procreation, and the final cause of sexual pleasure is to get us to indulge in sex, so that we’ll thereby procreate…Notice also that nature makes it very difficult to indulge in sex without procreation. There is no prophylactic sheathe issued with a penis at birth, and no diaphragm issued with a vagina. It takes some effort to come up with these devices, and even then, in the form in which they existed for most of human history they were not terribly effective.”3
(2) Natural law theory states that an action or a behavior, even if it does not harm anyone else, need not be acceptable or need not be the normal way of living life.
The life of an alcoholic is not acceptable, even if he/she does not harm anyone. Similarly, a person – inclined to molest children (even if he has not molested children) – who masturbates to pictures of naked children is living a sick life. Such a person is not living the way a normal human ought to live.
Therefore, gay sex cannot be justified even if it were harmless.
(3) In the same manner, consensus cannot be a legitimate reason for an action/behavior. Gay people cannot argue that consensual sex is always righteous.
Consensual sex cannot be righteous always. A pedophile cannot argue that he had sex with a child because the child consented. A parent cannot claim that he/she had sex with his/her child (minor or major) because the child agreed to have sex with the parent. In a marriage, consensus between the husband and the wife to have sex with others outside the marriage does not justify their affairs.
I will summarize now:
A. According to natural law theory, the main purpose of sex is procreation through the sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. Thus gay sex cannot be natural, but it is an abnormal activity/behavior.
B. For reasons mentioned in (2) and (3), consensual and harmless sex cannot justify gay sex.

            So the reason behind the reverence of the LGBTQ community is the failure to recognize the practices of the said community as sinful against God and as an unnatural act according to the Natural Law Theory.

            While we should love every member of the LGBTQ community, we still maintain that the practices of the LGBTQ community are sinful and hence should not be endorsed. Although the secular world may adore and revere the LGBTQ community, we Christians should remain committed to God’s ways.

            And yes, we do take pride in being straight.

Endnotes:

1https://www.dailywire.com/news/48006/walsh-lgbt-people-are-not-oppressed-or-persecuted-matt-walsh
2Ibid.

3https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/01/why-we-have-lgbtq-pride-not-straight-pride-column/658306002/

4http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2018/06/does-consensual-and-harmless-sexual.html

Websites last accessed on 12th June 2019.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Recognizing Evil In “Progressive Good” (How Do We Respond To Progressive Content?)

            You know that morality plunged to another low in India when a Hindi television show1 depicted an 18-year-old girl marrying a 9-year-old boy and enjoying their honeymoon. You also know, undoubtedly, that this is an intrinsic evil that’s corrupted the moral fabric of the Indian subcontinent when the actress of this show sees nothing wrong with child marriage, “A girl aged 18 married to a nine-year-old boy having her ‘suhag raat’ and even enjoying a honeymoon may sound cringe-worthy and regressive to many, but actress Tejaswi Prakash does not see anything wrong with the storyline of her Hindi television show “Pehredaar Piya Ki”. She says it’s “progressive” content.”2

            She justified child marriage by disguising it as progressive3 content!

            Does progressive content possess an intrinsic privilege to violate the law of the land? This so-called progressive content blatantly violates, in my opinion, the ‘Sarda Act’ or ‘The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929.’

            The Child Marriage Restraint Act forbids the marriage of a child, wherein “child” is defined as “…a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty one year of age, and if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age…”4

            Actress Tejaswi Prakash justified child marriage in the show by stating that similar content has appeared in the wildly popular American fantasy drama, “Game of Thrones,” “Tejaswi also drew a comparison between the show to the most popular American fantasy drama “Game of Thrones”, created by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. “It also happened in ‘Game Of Thrones’.. People love ‘Game Of Thrones’ and if same thing happens in ‘Pehredaar Piya Ki’, then it’s an issue,” she added.”5

            It’s not just that the moral fabric of India is corrupt. The moral fabric of our world is corrupt and depraved.

            A classic example is the American TV drama, Game of Thrones, which has won a surplus of awards, “The series has received 38 Primetime Emmy Awards, including Outstanding Drama Series in 2015 and 2016, more than any other primetime scripted television series. Its other awards and nominations include three Hugo Awards for Best Dramatic Presentation (2012–2014), a 2011 Peabody Award, and five nominations for the Golden Globe Award for Best Television Series – Drama (2012 and 2015–2018).”6

            The glut of awards for Game of Thrones is an affirmation to the widespread acceptance of the content, some of which are utterly despicable. Here’s a sample:7

Craster and his daughters/wives
Craster is a wildling, and former ally of the Night's Watch known for marrying and sleeping with all of his daughters. Craster also would sacrifice any male children his daughters bore.
Incest, sacrifice, and nonconsensual relationships aren't uncommon occurrences on "Game of Thrones," but the combination of all three makes Craster and his unfortunate daughters/wives the worst relationship on "Game of Thrones."
Walder Frey and his child brides
It's hard to consider Walder Frey's relationships with his endless stream of disposable child brides relationships at all.
The nonconsensual nature of Walder Frey's relationships with his young brides makes these so-called relationships some of the all time worst on "Game of Thrones."
            The world expects us to condone morally despicable content in these TV shows because they are supposedly progressive in their essence. We are expected to accept and endorse incest, child marriage and by extension, homosexuality and what not - just because they are progressive content.  

            Most of the world’s population is gullible, ignorant and, at times, deliberately uninformed in the most crucial existential subject of morality and ethics. Such ignorance is not within the confines of any religious or secular worldviews. Hence, it’s quite plausible that these TV shows will infiltrate and corrupt gullible people to consider incest, child marriage, homosexuality etc. as legitimate.

            So does the term progressive smuggle a deceptive sense of legitimacy inasmuch as the expectation is for the public to consider any progressive act/content as legitimate? No, it need not!

            Every content/act smuggled into our domain disguised as progressive should be validated and endorsed by the Bible. Our subjective predilection or preference cannot pronounce legitimacy upon any content/act.

            Period!

Endnotes:

1Discontinued on 28th August 2017 amidst severe public backlash.

2http://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/pehredaar-piya-ki-is-progressive-tejaswi-prakash/article19471897.ece

3"Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of improvement of society by reform.[1] As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism)

4http://wcd.nic.in/child-marriage-restraint-act-1929-19-1929

5http://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/pehredaar-piya-ki-is-progressive-tejaswi-prakash/article19471897.ece

6https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones

7https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/every-game-of-thrones-romantic-relationship-ranked-from-worst-to-best-a7918571.html

Photo attribution: Photo by Wicker Paradise on Foter.com / CC BY

Websites last accessed on 26th June 2018.