Some reading here might ask, “Why now? Why not before the election?” I’ve already explained that in previous posts, so I’m not going to belabor here, but I’m also saying “partly of Trump.” I wouldn’t put Trump’s picture next to “fake playboy manhood” in the dictionary. However, we live in a culture, whether left or right, that does not push actual manhood. Left or right. Trump got attention for it in the campaign, but it wasn’t defined for what it was. It’s called sexism, but I’m calling it “fake playboy manhood.”
There are various iterations of fake playboy manhood. Not all the “playing” is sexual, like Trump revealed. Some of it is the glory given to man-aged males, promoting their playing above their taking responsibility. I say it is “partly of Trump,” because Trump obviously takes responsibility and works. He is a hard worker — that is obvious. For him to build what he’s built and get where he is, he has had to fulfill a lot of conditions of manhood, like Solomon built up Israel with all of its splendor. Because he took responsibility, a lot of people had employment and jobs. He earned it. However, Trump also promoted the fake playboy manhood that he and all others should repudiate.
Fake playboy manhood is everywhere. It is manhood today. It isn’t manhood, but it is as good as manhood in this culture. Like I said, they call it sexism, because they can’t refer to manhood and womanhood. They can’t say there are distinct roles of men and women. They can’t say that, so they use the murky, flimsy castigation, “sexism,” a shell of a word intended for maximum injury with minimal understanding. You could be sexist for holding the door open for a woman.
Many males today, who are playboys, would take what Trump has procured if they had Trump’s resources and abilities. They settle for playing around a lot. I looked up “playboy” in dictionary.com and it said, “a man who pursues a life of pleasure without responsibility or attachments.” That’s exactly what I’m talking about. It’s why I don’t think of Trump as a playboy. He has given somewhat the impression of one, one that actual playboys might aspire to. Even if he isn’t an actual playboy, he has encouraged it, especially with the NBC leaked footage from during the campaign, what he called locker room talk. I haven’t been in an actual locker room, such as he referred, in many, many years, but in my assessment, it’s locker room talk. I’m sure men talk that way among themselves.
I don’t see anywhere in scripture for a man to be a playboy. If you are a real man, you’ve got plenty to do. You have God, church, and family. Each of those can take up all of your time. If you do each of them right, you don’t have much time for playing around. I see men, especially young men, with a huge commitment to their “spare time.” I didn’t even include taking time for intellectual and aesthetic enrichment that will make someone a better man. I didn’t including working out, keeping yourself fit. The latter very often the playboys still keep as a priority. They’re into their bodies, even though Paul wrote that bodily exercise profits little. I’ve always worked out consistently and regularly, but it’s a means to an end. I recommend shrinking that amount of time and putting more into spiritual disciplines, like evangelism, study, and prayer.
I’ve noticed that playboys have a lot of buddies. Their buddy relationship revolves around temporal things. Their common ground is temporal. They hang out together. They joke. Now its also the social media, the snap chat and texting. God is left out of the equation. They might enjoy the superficial admiration of women, but they won’t commit themselves to marriage and a family. You’ve got to lead spiritually there, and they are too self-centered to take that step. They don’t want to be judged. They are looking for acceptance, admiration, and fun. That’s all.
Mr. Brandenburg, I found your site from someone else who said you respect the King James Bible. This is probably off topic, but since you mentioned that real men are mature and spend time studying, I'll try to at least make my comment somewhat relevant to the topic by talking about studying. So here I go.
In studying the Bible, I am deeply perplexed by all the recent changes that have been made to the King James Version.
First, what is the reason for adding all of these new words to the King James version? Bottles; stuff; schoolmaster; ferry boat; senate; sorry; silly; conference; matrix; employment.
Secondly, apart from new and unusual words, what is the purpose of changing some verses? For example, why does Genesis 3:15 no longer say "crush"? Why does Luke 17:34 now mention two men in bed? Is the King James Version now trying to be more gay-friendly? Why did they change that from man and wife like it was for the last several hundred years? Other than trying to more inclusive of our friends in the gay community, I don't know why they felt it necessary to make that particular change. I love my gay friends, but this seems like taking "hip and cool" a bit too far.
These are just a few of the recent changes that I'm really wondering about. I need to be very careful that I am NOT criticizing or questioning the Bible. I think that would be blasphemous. The only thing I am questioning is this particular version of the Bible (KJV) and wondering why it has been changed so much recently. Any comments or insight you have would be appreciated.
Mr. Brandenburg, please pardon the multiple posts. I forgot one. I always thought the King James Version verse of Ecclesiastes 3:11 was very insightful in how it said God put "eternity" in their heart. Why did it now change to "world"?
Bro. Brandenburg,
Do you think it is the responsibility of Christians to rebuke President-Elect Trump for his sexual "playboy" sins? I am thinking of John the Baptist telling Herod that is was unlawful for Herod to have his brother's wife. Knowing President Elect Trump's admitted adultery, it he lawfully married to Melania? If not, should be rebuked similar to the way Herod was rebuked? Is this how Christians should think of him?
Thanks
Vic Crowne
Dear Poster,
Trump is my president, but he's not my pastor, so in that regard I think it's a waste of time and energy and resources to try to even pursue what you are referring to, in my opinion. If any of the other Republican candidates who are bisexual, customers of call-girl services, etc. had won would you have the same question for them? (I'm not trying to be rude or unkind, by the way, so please don't take my comments as harsh.)
If Trump starts to load his cabinet with CFR members do you think it's the responsibility of Christians or anyone who likes freedom and independence to call these decisions into question? I think it is.
First Anonymous Commenter about the KJV, trolling and posting things in the wrong spot,
I commented to you in the last post.
KJV 1611 and my KJV both say, "bruise," not "crush."
You say that it has been changed to "crush." I haven't seen that. Again, you'll need to say your name and answer when someone talks to you if you are going to have further comments posted.
Anonymous again,
To show how ridiculous what you're writing is. KJV1611 and KJV today, both say world in Eccl 3:11, and you say that it was changed to world from eternity. No, eternity is the modern translation in the NAS and NKJV.
Commenters,
Stop posting anonymously. Post here with your name. I write with my name. Do you have no courage? What's your problem? The only exceptions would be a Moslem country and someone who communicates to me some actual danger. Your not wanting to look like you associate with me, that shouldn't be a threat to you.
Vic,
I don't vouch for Trump's character or his past. That's not how we judged this election and I've written again and again about that. Have you noticed who Trump is using in his cabinet? He's doing everything he said he would do and there are some who still won't admit that, which seems dishonest. I actually think it is dishonest. If your almost entire premise was, Trump is a liar, so he's not going to do anything anyway that he says, you should be making some admissions now, since you publically said that. Ted Cruz was saying that. He's celebrating Trump's picks now, calling them an All Star team, but he said he would lie. He also said Trump would never get above 30 percent, and things like that, which weren't true. They weren't true!
Trump has said he was wrong then. He surrounds himself with people who would say it's wrong. He surrounds himself with pro-life characters. Hillary surrounds herself with terrorist sympathizers, pro-abortion, and communists.
You are saying that someone should cry out like John the Baptist with Herod. Many people have said something like that about and to Trump. Trump has said that he shamed himself with his behavior. He has said he regrets what he did with his marriages. Should his past behavior disqualify himself? It should in a perfect world. It didn't disqualify Reagan to people, as he went through his first wife. Look at the wreck Reagan's son Ron is compared to the Trump children. Look at his daughter Patti Davis. I loved Reagan. I'm just saying.
Obviously right here I've written against fake playboy manhood. It's rampant. It's been around and accepted by almost a majority for awhile, including by conservatives.
I can't say that Trump is just a playboy. He isn't. The guy works too hard to be called one. I'm saying though that he makes that acceptable perhaps, and so I include him in the article.