Lady Gaga's Judas -- Spreading the Occult Gospel

[NJBeliever]

I have updated my blog with an article that gives a Christian analtysis of the symbolism and hidden meanings in the Judas song and video by Lady Gaga. All comments are welcome.

Lady Gaga's Judas -- Spreading The Occult Gospel

 

[Feldew]

Good grief. And just when I thought she couldn't get any more distasteful.

 

[Cheyenne K]

See the Alejandro performance they had on American Idol (I believe). It's just as bad. I don't know if she's trying to be Satanic or truly that weird, but either way, God help her.

 

[Jake]

See the Alejandro performance they had on American Idol (I believe). It's just as bad. I don't know if she's trying to be Satanic or truly that weird, but either way, God help her.

not sure if it's the same, but last night she sang a song called "on the edge of glory", it was disgusting, she was standing on a cliff and then at the end "she fell into glory" - wow, she is messed up.

i agree, she needs ALOT of prayer.

 

[Pard]

It saddens me so much...

I used to sing one of her songs all the time because it was stuck in my head, and frankly it was ridiculously catchy. She's gone from "that" girl to the girl who pushes every boundary in order to get attention. I feel bad for her.

 

[cyberjosh]

Wow, good analysis. Christian cultural commentary is a much needed thing these days.

And, wow again. Intentionally blaspheming and "redefining" Jesus for some personal gratification (whether for fame, publicity, or if really believing that about Jesus makes her feel better)! And Jesus is not somebody's "boyfriend", he is Master and Lord of the Universe! Fear and trembling should be the response when talking about Jesus, not treating Jesus as some trifling historical character whom one can redefine at will. Very sad, scary, and enraging. You don't play with fire and not get burned. God will not be mocked. She better watch herself if she starts deliberately trampling the truth of God under foot. It will not turn out well for her.

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[ctbcvp]

Wow, good analysis. Christian cultural commentary is a much needed thing these days.

And, wow again. Intentionally blaspheming and "redefining" Jesus for some personal gratification (whether for fame, publicity, or if really believing that about Jesus makes her feel better)! And Jesus is not somebody's "boyfriend", he is Master and Lord of the Universe! Fear and trembling should be the response when talking about Jesus, not treating Jesus as some trifling historical character whom one can redefine at will. Very sad, scary, and enraging. You don't play with fire and not get burned. God will not be mocked. She better watch herself if she starts deliberately trampling the truth of God under foot. It will not turn out well for her.


Could not have said it any better myself brother. A direct mockery of the Lord is not something to be taken lightly. We'll all have to keep her in prayer.
God Bless,
~Josh

Could not have said it any better myself brother. A direct mockery of the Lord is not something to be taken lightly. We'll all have to keep her in prayer.

 

[Lewis]

Don't you all get it, this stuff sells, it keeps her in mansions, many of them don't even believe half of that stuff, but it keeps them rich.

 

[Bonairos]

Don't you all get it, this stuff sells, it keeps her in mansions, many of them don't even believe half of that stuff, but it keeps them rich.

Okay. But rich or not, convinced or not; might she still be playing with fire as one member posted? Or perhaps it doesn't apply here but elswhere?



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Lewis]

Okay. But rich or not, convinced or not; might she still be playing with fire as one member posted? Or perhaps it doesn't apply here but elswhere?



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

Some of them are playing with fire for real, like the once Catholic Marilyn Manson, and many others. And to a few it is a gimmick.

 

[Bonairos]

Some of them are playing with fire for real, like the once Catholic Marilyn Manson, and many others. And to a few it is a gimmick.

Would the results be different? ("For Real" vs. "Gimmick") Just asking.



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Lewis]

Would the results be different? ("For Real" vs. "Gimmick") Just asking.



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

To be honest I never gave that much thought.

 

[jasoncran]

whenever i see her picture i see a woman that seems to be possesed by a devil.

i cant say for sure but her continance has this dark stare to it.

 

[NJBeliever]

Wow, good analysis. Christian cultural commentary is a much needed thing these days.

And, wow again. Intentionally blaspheming and "redefining" Jesus for some personal gratification (whether for fame, publicity, or if really believing that about Jesus makes her feel better)! And Jesus is not somebody's "boyfriend", he is Master and Lord of the Universe! Fear and trembling should be the response when talking about Jesus, not treating Jesus as some trifling historical character whom one can redefine at will. Very sad, scary, and enraging. You don't play with fire and not get burned. God will not be mocked. She better watch herself if she starts deliberately trampling the truth of God under foot. It will not turn out well for her.

God Bless,
~Josh

Amen! Very well said. God will not be mocked. I'm glad the article could be a blessing.

 

[NJBeliever]

whenever i see her picture i see a woman that seems to be possesed by a devil.

i cant say for sure but her continance has this dark stare to it.

Especially in this video. Her stare at the camera is very strange.

 

[cyberjosh]

Don't you all get it, this stuff sells, it keeps her in mansions, many of them don't even believe half of that stuff, but it keeps them rich.

I took that as the partly tongue-in-cheek comment that it was (assuming "Don't you all get it" was a rhetorical question), but the point is that there is no difference because - as Bonairos suggested - the results are no different. Whether one thinks Jesus is an icon to be "used" (abused) or if one really buys into their own confused views of Jesus they still are propagating lies about Christ. That's why I said whether for fame or due to real beliefs it is playing with fire.

Lyrical irresponsibility and callousness is a secular music industry standard now (think: Eminem), meaning it's "regarded" as acceptable or 'OK', but that doesn't make it morally acceptable because "they don't really mean it" or "it's just to get a few bucks" (which is greed: made worse by obtaining it by putting down what is holy & righteous - which is also blasphemy). License to sin with one's mouth is not granted. I'm sure you know that, but I'm just stating for the record.

God Bless,
Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Amen! Very well said. God will not be mocked. I'm glad the article could be a blessing.

Thanks. And as I suggested above, I just get fed up with lyrical irresponsibility from time to time (actually all the time, but I can't bear to think about it much or I'd go crazy). And I hope no one really buys into the "its okay because its just a song" argument. As if every teenager hasn't tried using that one to justify to their parents why they listen to certain ungodly music (and is just about as lame as the "I just like it for the beat, not the lyrics" argument). That argument gets reapplied in many other ways & areas too (not just music) to try to justify sin. It takes a level of discernment in the spiritual realm to really realize that, which is why unbelievers don't.

My .

God Bless,
Josh

 

[Lewis]

I know that it is wrong, but their is nothing that I can do about it. Tony Iommi and Geezer of Black Sabbath said that all that devil looking album covers and pushing them as some kind of member of satanic cults were all lies. They said that Warner Brothers was getting album covers drawn up without their permission and that is was not a thing that they could do about it. In other words they were puppets just to make money. Tony also said in this video interview that the biggest satan cult leader in Europe begged them to join and Tony said that they flat out refused. But it can't be denied that this dark image made these guy's rich, and especially Ozzie.
I have seen them twice, both times in the early 70's drugged out of my mind. What use to get me was, if they are dark why did they wear the over sized crosses around their necks and Tony and Geezer still do today. I think that the name that they choose is a big part of the problem. But I also know that when you are young you do things without to much thought. Tony said that they have run into a lot of problems in the past behind that name, from protest to lights being turned off on them at a concert, to being banned. Don't get on me about this article, I am just a reporter.

 

[Bonairos]

They said that Warner Brothers was getting album covers drawn up without their permission and that is was not a thing that they could do about it.

Except, perhaps - maybe choose not to let it happen again? Once is enough?

Sort of like, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

In other words they were puppets just to make money.

Question is, "Who decided that?!"


I appreciate the reporting. It keeps me connected with what's really going on.



Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[antares434]

Thanks. And as I suggested above, I just get fed up with lyrical irresponsibility from time to time (actually all the time, but I can't bear to think about it much or I'd go crazy). And I hope no one really buys into the "its okay because its just a song" argument. As if every teenager hasn't tried using that one to justify to their parents why they listen to certain ungodly music (and is just about as lame as the "I just like it for the beat, not the lyrics" argument). That argument gets reapplied in many other ways & areas too (not just music) to try to justify sin. It takes a level of discernment in the spiritual realm to really realize that, which is why unbelievers don't.

My .

God Bless,
Josh

What should be done about "lyrical irresponsibility" in general?