Christian musicians - interesting link

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by Tusker: Interesting question and answer session. More questions than answers, I think but perhaps that is a sign of health. My question is... [b]why is it that almost any thread dealing with christian musicians or christian music devolves into a debate over beliefs.[/b] Could it be... the nature of these beliefs, the predisposition of the those who hold these beliefs, the predisposition of those who don't, or some other reason. I am enjoying this thread, and I am not suggesting we stop at all, just wondering why we behave so predictably? Or maybe my observation is not correct? Regards, Jerry[/quote] Excellent question! Some possibilities... [list] [*][b]Christianity is such an overwhelming force in the U.S. There is some discomfort to non-Christians because of those who have previously, and presently used Christianity to wield power over others.[/b] It's a bit paranoid, but it's hard not to worry when the most vocal Christians have less to do with Christ and more to do with power. (Billy Graham seems to be the one exception, as a famous Christian in the U.S.) [*][b]Many Christian musicians evangelize at their shows.[/b] This too, can be seen by outsiders as exerting pressure on non-Christians to be saved. That's half of why they prosthelize at all. [*][b]The willingness of Christian artists to pidgeonhole themselves into this role, rather than simply BE Christians in the course of being musicians.[/b] Don Koch co-wrote the song, Measure Of A Man, for the group 4-Him. If you listen to the lyrics, this could be a spiritual song for most ANY mono-theistic religeous person. (And, FYI, it was co-written by a Jewish songwriter.) If you listen to the music, you realize this could have been a huge secular hit. The band could have introduced their beliefs at concerts as most Christian bands do, and sent the message of being a strong person in today's society to a much larger audience.. if they didn't insist on pegging themselves as Christian musicians rather than musician's who are Christians. There's a subtle, yet powerful difference. [*][b]The Christian music "machine" in Nashville is infamous for even more cut-throat business tactics than the [i]secular[/i] old boys club.[/b] Warranted or not, this supports the notion that those in power want more power, not peace on earth, goodwill towards man. That frightens people. [/list] The long and short of it is, the [i]industry[/i] and the history of power wielded in culture by the church, influence non-believers to take everything they encounter with the word, "christian," as a prefix, with a watchful eye. I am not paranoid about these things, myself. However this seems to be the motivation of many posters here. They don't want to be saved, and they don't want people, seemingly, invading their non-religeous life with religeon. My personal belief, described above, is that there is no reason for an industry of Christian musicians. Just make your music and live your beliefs. People will understand, and you'll reach a much larger audience. Just some observations, based on reading several similar threads and conducting business with the Christian music industry. I'm not a psychologist or religeon expert, so please comment and/or contradict anything I've written. I'd like to listen, if someone has a similar or completely different take on this question.

[vintagevibe]

[quote]Originally posted by techristian: [b]I could have taken the same approach that I took 14 years ago. Back then (in the BBS DAYS) I had a thread going for over a month with over 250 messages. Back then we took the approach of proving God with SCIENCE. We discussed everything from GRAVITY bending LIGHT, TIME AND SPACE to trying to reason how the first single cell animal could possible develop 4 entire systems in a single mutation. This argument usually stops all "scientists" cold. How could the first living organism develop all 3 systems 1) Reproduction 2) Respiration 3) Digestion All at once? From a RANDOM mutation? Remember that these are entire SYSTEMS with HUNDREDS OF CELLS in each. You need more faith to believe that this could happen all at once than I need to believe in a designer. If any one of the 3 are removed the organizm will not be sustainable. But of course we're not going to talk science this time. Let me put it another way. How many "levelheaded" athiests believe in E.T. ? Dan http://musicinit.com [/b][/quote] Techristian, you don't understand this argument. The discussion of the intelligent design of the universe has nothing to do with you believing your bible. I see infinite organizing intelligence at the heart of creation. If you want to call that God I have no problems with that. That has nothing at all to do with your religion. It does not imply a God figure looking down on humanity and breaking his own rules (miracles) to help certain humans and defeat others. Your "logic" goes something like this: "I see order in the universe" "This proves the existence of God" "Therefore Jesus is my savior" You believe what you need to believe to stave off the uncertainty of life and the fear of death. That's fine for you. Just stop confusing it with knowledge or truth. The truth is that you just don't know so in its place you chose to believe.

[Dave Bryce]

[quote]Originally posted by Tedster: [b]As for dinosaurs, there is a reference (in the book of Job, I believe) as to God being He who created Leviathan...indicating some acknowledgement of huge beasts of some sort.[/b][/quote] I've heard that postulated before as well...I've always thought that there was a pretty big distance between that explanation and the theory that dinosaurs inhabited the planet for...shall we say...more than a few years. [b]Who knows? I sure don't. [/b] Well said, Tedster. That, of course, is my point. I do not believe that anyone knows anything for sure. I also do not believe that there is any reason to have to... dB [ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Dave Bryce ]

[Tedster]

[quote]Originally posted by Dave Bryce: [b] [b]Who knows? I sure don't. [/b] Well said, Tedster. That, of course, is my point. I do not believe that anyone knows anything for sure. I also do not believe that there is any reason to have to... dB [ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: Dave Bryce ][/b][/quote] And that, of course, is why it's called [i]faith[/i] :D . (Guitar intro heard in background): OH GOD...NOT GEORGE MICHAEL...NO-OOO! MAKE IT STOP!

[michael saulnier]

I'm a Catholic by upbringing... a little less than active these days. A few questions always bugged me. 1) So God creates Adam and Eve. The first and only humans right? They have two kids, boys, Cain and Able. Who do they marry to continue the human race? 2) Jesus is born of a virgin Mary, (I'm Catholic... apparently not all Christians believe this...), and the book of Luke goes to great detail to portray Jesus as being from the blood line of Abraham. (Abraham begat Isacc, who begat etc.), but the line runs through Joseph. WHO WAS NOT JESUS's FATHER. No blood line, no connection other than similar to adoption. What gives? 3) Free Will. Do we have it in Christian belief? If God "knows all", does he already know our "future" if so, is it "pre-ordained"? Then what about free will? 4) If God is all powerful, can he make a rock even He can't lift? (Tip of a hat to George Carlin). Have fun with these... guitplayer

[Uh Clem]

These are good questions. One more: If the complexity of the Universe needs a God to have created it - since it supposedly could not have happened without intervention, and since God is even more amazing than that, then how did God come to exist? Does God believe in a superGod? Of course, this is no less vexing than "where did everything come from?". Those are tough questions no matter what you believe.

[Dave Bryce]

[quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b]1) So God creates Adam and Eve. The first and only humans right? They have two kids, boys, Cain and Able. Who do they marry to continue the human race?[/b][/quote] Look back up the page a few posts, Michael. I asked this same question in detail...I've always wondered about that one, too. dB

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by stevepow: [b]quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's been said that THE PROBABILITY that all of the systematically ultra-complex life that we presently know from microcosm to macrocosm assembling itself from a random cosmic collection of subatomic particles, elements and energy in the unmeasurably ultra-huge area we call "space" into celestial bodies occupying their own domains, and gravitational (like solar) planetary system "neighborhoods", materials and zoological tissues (skin, hair), then those tissues combining into thriving humano-animal-beings dynamically interdependent and sustained by the other similarly awesome enviro-systems ----is the same probability that a bunch of parts thrown up in the air will somehow become a car. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some logician out there chime in - I'm pretty sure that there's a term for this kind of improper logic that I can't think of right now.[/b][/quote][[A thousand pardons for my absence from discussion, please. We're deploying a major corporate website and my quality posting-time was basically absent yesterday.]] BTW if it's logic you crave, you may want to refresh yourself on its academic tenets of what's proper and improper at this followable but not easily digestible college link: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rfreeman/reason.html Not much has changed since "Philosophy and Logic 101" at SMU three decades ago. After a few hours with Venn diagrams and their validation principles, categorical syllogisms, truth tables, fallacious arguments in their multitudinous variations, truth trees, et al, then if you want we can gladly cruise down that highway. [But the little exchange we're having may seem rather tolerable, graspable and sensible after all after your review. --[i]Check out the "Argumentum ad Hominem" fallacy and the few that follow with Bullfinch and Martha -- fairly funny with lots of familiar things you've seen on MP.[/i] [quote]Originally posted by stevepow:[b]quote: At any rate, you have, at best, presented a case that the universe is not a random set of events which does not neccessarily imply God as the explanation. [/b][/quote]Not 'at best', sir, just 'at start' ...and if that's all you got, you missed a lot. To quickly summarize and not belabor something you can research yourself both logically and scientifically__ the expanded point is you've got these alternative scenario possibilities overall, and you can mix and match for hybrid scenarios to season to taste :) : --you've got the universe just auto-assembling itself from free-form elements into the various gaseous, liquid or solid and plasma states of all the resultant molecular-bonded materials tha exist, then into awesomely intricate sytems that some computer programs (& programmers) have had a hard time coming to grips with until lately, or --you've got maybe a race of ultra-super-human alien life forms several light years tall with fire-proof hands who were never born, suckled and raised from childhood to adults nor did anybody create them [that would make them Gods to you, right?] who created the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them including you and me, and the laws of nature and science (who've prefered to remain anonymous since their awesome creation act). or, --you've got an all powerful God who in love and goodness created all things in perfect cosmic balance, much of which still is (but a few more nuclear explos in space and we'll cure that, by golly:grin :) ____Oh, yes__then you've got a flesh-and-blood human --like us-- who made it all (but can't even cure himself of a cold) :rolleyes: . When a Nation of Islam Imam told me that at age 17 I laughed at him [i]in the mosque[/i] with incredulous wonder that he could believe that, but we humans love our exotic theories. [quote]Originally posted by stevepow:[b]quote: "I cannot understand this, therefore it must be supernatural". That is a fairly easy approach, but it is overly simplistic.[/b][/quote] That's not my approach, nor the Bible's, which is the ultimate reality authority for most(?) of us Christys. Since you seem not familiar with that aspect, let me share some in part with emphases, please...read the rest if you care to [b]investigate[/b] and not vegetate in unexamined pre-set prejudices: [quote][b]That very night the believers sent Paul and Silas to Berea. When they arrived there, they went to the synagogue. And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth. As a result, many Jews believed, as did some of the prominent Greek women and many men. ((For those who don't like sand in their hair, and will let their open minds do a checkout--this is found in Acts Chapter 17, statements 10-12)[/b][/quote] and [quote]...people who push the truth away from themselves. For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. .... Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. ... So God let them go ahead. (Romans 1, statements 18-20, 21-22, and 24.)[/quote] And agnostic evangelism without the investigative disproof or corroboration that should attend such lofty intellectualism is as much "blind faith believing" as the 'poor ignorant Christians' often accused of that. [quote]Originally posted by stevepow:[b]quote: If I, having been isolated all my life, finally ran across a car, would my only choices for explanation of its existance be: "these parts were thrown into the air and made a car - fabulous" or "how wonderful, God made this car"?.[/b][/quote](Either way, steve, with those responses you're responding to faith in the miraculousness of what you're seeing) Of course not, and that's not what my quote you referenced stated nor implied. First of many things, you'd need to EXAMINE the car to determine it IS made of parts -- it could be just as easily a one-piece poured and allowed to dry structure set on wheels. Logicians might offer that your statement contains the fallacy of [b]Argumentum ad logicam[/b]. [quote]Originally posted by stevepow:[b]quote: What you have is [b]faith[/b] (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.) - it is fundamental to religion.[/b][/quote]You ASSUME that, sir. My faith actually does rest on the logical factual verifiable proof long ago that all my best Edgar Cayce reincarnation believing (we humans love that one big time), Astrology-leaning, Immensity-of-the-universe-adoration, Uri-Geller-spoon-bending-loving, Psychic-enjoying intellectualizing made my life of super-potential-accomplishments a pitiful, horrible mess after seven years of that schlock. I returned to Jesus adter running out of viable intellectual options and "boy, howdy"!!! Everything got REAL better REAL quick -- and during an economic recession (that's some logical proof and material evidence). [quote]Originally posted by stevepow:[b]quote:This cannot be argued successfully with Logic (but, maybe with ProTools ;) ) and there is certainly no material proof. You have to want to have the faith to have it - you may even need to have it - it is a leap from the comfort of logic and proof that you have to make in our own mind.[/b][/quote] Very strong opinions, sir, and [b]very wrong facts[/b]. Lots of believers didn't want nor seek the faith, couldn't care less, or actively hated it -- Paul the New Testament apostle to begin with ... he actually helped killed Christians at first. Do a search. Better still just as an experiment, hang outside a church and ask somebody if they know some former badass among em you can talk to to confirm it...they don't keep it a secret and can play you a movie of themselves face to face more realistic than these words we're sharing here. I never stop being amazed that so many atheist-agnostic believers try to re-invent the wheel many good years of their precious lives rather than just ignore out the wackos (they're in everything, not just religion) in the faith they criticise and check out the proof.

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by Magical Pig: [QB]lovesinger,(do you actually sing love songs, nothing but lovesongs?) ;) The only thing that quote needs is a IMHO. I fear we'll have to agree to disagree cause that all sounds like propaganda to me or at best, the statement of someones opinion. QB][/quote] Magical, it was a launching pad that came after prayer. I just obeyed. Oh, sure it's "greek" to some, and it wouldn't have been my choice as a starter, but somebodys (s intended) will be life-changingly helped by it. Such is the built-in power of Christ's inspired word. Like nuclear radiation to those near it -- they WILL be affected. That's what's so good about this life ... what God knows that may seem potentially pointless at times to my natural understanding has always paid off. Like when a coach from his different vantage point has spotted a scoring opportunity and sends some 'stupid' play out to the field which make his players think he's addled, then it wins the game for them. As a coach I've done that repeatedly with winning results. Thanks for the HD tip. Oh, yeah -- I do sing mostly [God is]Love[1 John 4:8] songs, and some you might not recognize as "religious". Working on mp3's to upload. Love is not ALL He is (he's not one-sided) but it's what he's given ME to sing. Almost 800 songs so far.

[strat0124]

I say go to the source.....read text, go to the ocean (easy for me...right on the back porch!), instead of point counterpoint.....the issue is confusing enough with all the different views. Agree to disagree! I've had Pentecostal folks tell me I'm goin to hell if I don't commit to their "True" church....as well as 7th Day Adventists, Baptists that say the Catholics are wrong, and nearly all Christians saying the Muslim faith is wrong...etc etc etc. Once you've figured out that religeon was created by man, you can begin to understand and sort out all the inaccuracies about spirituality. It is a personal thing, one that you might want to share, but NEVER force upon another. Todays churches and mosques in America attract folks by their works.....not the fear of eternal damnation.

[vintagevibe]

lovesinger, Thank you for so clearly illustrating that you are a believer and that you should in no way be confused wiht a thinker or a knower. It is said that ignorance is bliss. Perhaps this is why you worship ignorance.

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by dino321: [b]These posts are mostly useless. You can't have a productive argument with a Christian (or any BELIEVER" for that matter. They are true believers. Truth, evidence and reality are no match for their beliefs. Truth is never found by first deciding to believe something and then trying to make reality fit your believe. Truth is found by opening your mind and heart and senses to the creation on all its levels and trying to understand it. If you have to believe any scripture you will also have to disbelieve anything that threatens your belief and you will therefore be required to close your mind and heart to anything that doesn't fit your belief system. What you end up with is people who believe the world is 6000 years old. You can't reason with the "scripture worshipers".[/b][/quote]i went WAY OVER WORD QUOTA with my reply to Stevepow, so I may be nearing the end of sharing in this thread [emails and private message 'discussions' are welcome]. I'm curious, Is there a reason some of you brothers' agnostic/atheistic thinking is so constricted to your apparently-never-checked-out narrow opinions of believers and believing? Let's not blame it on the music -- I'm in too deep :D . SURELY you don't think a few antique words by Spurgeon is the sum total of what's to be said about this matter --- a man who dramatically impacted his 1800's world with this stuff before we had cars to drive and axes to play power chords on? It was given only as a start, and seems to have started wheels turning in the next direction nicely. If you're not inclined to engage in the long and winding road of discourse by the principles of logic and reasoning a la the above link or others [I'D rather not, so tedious], then please allow a little concretely provable action like so: Ever see a man grow a tree? maybe you didn't understand the question. not plant a seed, water, weed, fence for protection, train and nurse it for 2 to 4,000 of years (in the case of the great redwoods). I mean create from scratch its seed blueprint, the tree-to-be's cell structure, different tree-types' dna, leaf design, density, disease-resistance properties, color, maximal width, height, branch pattern, .... where shall we stop? Tree too unreasonably tough?...maybe a flower then. Oh, it was "nature" that did it. well what is "nature". a super virus or bacterium that hops around the world creating awesome wonders and ecosystems and keeping everything rocking and rolling in balance like it should to stop this earth from breaking up or its many inhabitants from floating out into space? and where did "nature" get such ideas?... viruses and bacteria generally create disease and death, not life, especially life on the huge planet earth scale. Likewise ever see a man create a mountain (from nothing)? A lake? ok ok :) , small stream. DROP of water? a pebble, then? ok something easy __ dirt! Contrary to strong popular agnostic opinion, scriptures encourage examining evidence and reasoning about the awesomeness of creation. It just directs us not to WORSHIP the creation. That's what historical EVIDENCE proves (IF you'll examine it) created all the throw-my-baby-in-the-fire-to-appease-the-gods religious madness that even beloved Israel fell prey to at one time -- which God's prophets had cautioned them against ahead of time, but did they listen? Nooooo. It's so much more interesting to ditch old stupid hangups by moldy old prophets and the invisible-so-he-must-be-imaginary God of 'em, and do the modern exciting stuff the cool people are doing. As strong as my Christian belief is, I don't know definitively if earth is 6,000 or 6 trillion years old nor do I give a comet's blast :wink:, so you won't find me saying "6,000 years -- no more". As an amateur scientist I find both extremes very intriguing, and as a man who in that area accepts what is and not what I want it to be, I'll be equally happy if either proves true. Either number will show God all-powefully awesome. Why? Because if there is a "devil" (i speak as you might) he hasn't been able to stop God's flow of universal good any more than Osama's been able to stop America. If there ain't one, neither has nature. But even if I get the age right, that can't save me for eternity. dino, in all my adulthood I've seen your quote above more true of religion-hating agnostics than not: that "Truth, evidence and reality are no match for their beliefs.", that they start out "first deciding to believe something and then trying to make reality (especially Christian reality which is experienced not just in our heads but in our total being) fit their belie(f)" without so much as setting foot in a church to see for themselves [of course we can empatically understand that if they'd only experienced counterfeit cult-like Christianity]. "If you have to believe any scripture you will also have to disbelieve anything that threatens your belief and you will therefore be required to close your mind and heart to anything that doesn't fit your belief system" describes perfectly in the converse their close-minded opposition to things Judaic or Christian. No examination, just attack. A LOT of Christians I know have been New Agers of some stripe or other, either hardcore or serious dabblers. Very few of my anti-religion friends and acquaintances have ever known even the basics of the faith's examinable truths, and some can misquote scripture profusely, but haven't tried to learn what it means; the church was just a social exercise to most of the others. Everything we believe in we were invited to believe. Even if made to go to church as kids with no option (was fun for me), and we found a boatload of hypocrisy especially as teen awareness grew, one day we either felt Christ's invitation calling us personally and accepted, or decided to go another way. If we decided to be into something else, we didn't just one day say out of thin air "I want to worship Zoroasterism"...something on TV, a movie, radio, in a book or from a person [i]invited us[/i] to check it out. No matter what we've chosen, God's invitation is still good. Life brings everyone to a big crossroads, where you have to PROVE TO YOURSELF that what you rely on spiritually has power, not word impact -- power. Where you fish or cut bait, put up or shut up. At such crossroads is the power of the Cross available for help...what you do with it is up to you.

[Charlie-brm]

[quote]Originally posted by guitplayer: [b]I'm a Catholic by upbringing... a little less than active these days. A few questions always bugged me. 1) So God creates Adam and Eve. The first and only humans right? They have two kids, boys, Cain and Able. Who do they marry to continue the human race? 2) Jesus is born of a virgin Mary, (I'm Catholic... apparently not all Christians believe this...), and the book of Luke goes to great detail to portray Jesus as being from the blood line of Abraham. (Abraham begat Isacc, who begat etc.), but the line runs through Joseph. WHO WAS NOT JESUS's FATHER. No blood line, no connection other than similar to adoption. What gives? 3) Free Will. Do we have it in Christian belief? If God "knows all", does he already know our "future" if so, is it "pre-ordained"? Then what about free will? 4) If God is all powerful, can he make a rock even He can't lift? (Tip of a hat to George Carlin). Have fun with these... guitplayer[/b][/quote] 1) Adam had a wife before Eve - Lilith. Not much is revealed about her but her last name may have been McLachlan. 2) The bible is a collection of works, selected by the church (however you want to describe that at any given time). Many works were intentionally left out because they were considered either too disturbing, too revolutionary to keep the masses in check, or would put Jesus in an unflattering light, eg. playing pranks as a child with his miraculous powers. I like discussions comparing Judaism/Christianity with my friends who are studying the Torah, and I named some Old Testament books. They don't recognize any of the names, yet we're talking about the same historical era.

[vintagevibe]

lovesinger, You are a believer. "Logical" discourse is not what you are offering here. You are trying to prove your vision of God as some being separate from the creation that created it and then sits "somewhere else" to watch over it and pull strings to correct the inherent imperfections in the creation. This is not what is to be seen from really looking at the creation. If you open your eyes and look you'll find the creation is still happening. When you see your tree grow from a seed you are seeing creation happening. You would like to assigns all kinds of human qualities to the creator but that is not what is seen. I see the infinite miracle of a continuing creation every day and that shows me the (IMO) obvious existence of a creator. Sadly these are the things that are usually missed by people trying to believe texts that were written by men. Take your head out or your bible and open your eyes and you may truly see God. Being a believer is what keeps you from being a knower. I have no doubt of the existence of a creator. I see it everywhere. If you have to believe you don't know. If you know you don't have to believe.

[rold]

[quote]Originally posted by stevepow: [b]These are good questions. One more: If the complexity of the Universe needs a God to have created it - since it supposedly could not have happened without intervention, and since God is even more amazing than that, then how did God come to exist? Does God believe in a superGod? Of course, this is no less vexing than "where did everything come from?". Those are tough questions no matter what you believe.[/b][/quote] LMAO - good point! :D

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by dino321: [b]lovesinger, You are a believer. "Logical" discourse is not what you are offering here. You are trying to prove your vision of God as some being separate from the creation that created it and then sits "somewhere else" to watch over it and pull strings to correct the inherent imperfections in the creation. This is not what is to be seen from really looking at the creation. If you open your eyes and look you'll find the creation is still happening. When you see your tree grow from a seed you are seeing creation happening. You would like to assigns all kinds of human qualities to the creator but that is not what is seen. I see the infinite miracle of a continuing creation every day and that shows me the (IMO) obvious existence of a creator. Sadly these are the things that are usually missed by people trying to believe texts that were written by men. Take your head out or your bible and open your eyes and you may truly see God. Being a believer is what keeps you from being a knower. I have no doubt of the existence of a creator. I see it everywhere. If you have to believe you don't know. If you know you don't have to believe.[/b][/quote]dino, I appreciate your enthusiasm but it sounds like you're immersed (trapped?) in semantics...and more. It's also clear your adamance again religion with written texts as reference authorities is apparently a personal axe you feel a need to repeatedly grind to fulfill your mission of chopping off whatever 'ignorant' reliance on their texts they choose to use. This seems a curious focused intolerance compared to much divergent thought. Where does it come from? Who made you hate written texts so much? Without written tomes the rich legacies of all kinds of knowledge would not exist as precious gifts from each generation to the next, eliminating the need to repeat ALL the mistakes of the past. So whassup with the "printed text" thing with you? It's no different than chemists depending on the periodic chart and laws of molecular bonding to create their chemicals. They still have to creatively do the work...they've just got sense enough to know what not to do so things don't blow up and their careers go up in flames. We're not even talking religion here it seems -- whatever it is seems more generic and deep-rooted in you. "If you have to believe you don't know. If you know you don't have to believe." is as [b]dogmatic[/b] an assertion as any you perceive among "believers". You say to me (repeatedly) "You are a believer"__ like a chant. with a contextual attitude of something like "You are a leper". Don't have a cow, man. :D You're a believer too! Reread your own posts, you'll see. Your statements are very dogmatic and authoritarian-sounding for a liberated no-text free-thinker. In one fell swoop you've been judge, jury and sentence-giver. Has it occurred to you that the broad-brush pronouncements you're making about what I'm not offering (wrong according to the facts, or maybe you've redefined "logical" for the world also?) about what I'm trying to prove (what you said is not in my posts, but you do give hint of the God-is-in-everything pantheistic shrine at which you worship by making that statement. So God is in trash?..then why not let his sweet trashy fragrance stick around a few months instead of taking him out each day?), about "what is to be seen from really looking at the creation" (should stupid scientists and theologians worldwide buy your course?). In case you wonder, friend, I am definitely NOT being sarcastic. You've come on like gangbusters with a flurry of absolutist dogma of your own in the guise of trying to de-dogmatise "believers", and it leaves this intellegent observer of creation asking you [just for the record, since you've already shown your hand] what's REALLY going on? I respect your right to believe God is in a charging saliva slinging 10-foot grizzly bear who wants to eat you for dinner. I just hope he believes and obeys you when you tell him you're god, too, like he is, so he shouldn't follow his hungry instincts. [quote]Originally posted by dino321:[b]When you see your tree grow from a seed you are seeing creation happening. You would like to assigns all kinds of human qualities to the creator but that is not what is seen..[/b][/quote]Sir, you're confusing "creation" with "re-creation" AKA "reproduction". Or do we have to buy your new dictionary and laws of science too? Brother, you're trying to re-define EVERYTHING it seems, which logicians would roundly denounce as consumate fallacy.

[SFOracle]

This dialog is jumping all over the place, so I am going to try and take a few pot shots to address and connect some of the issues brought up. Being a believer, as Dino321 pointed out is a matter of faith. I can not convince someone to believe. You can not prove the existence (or non-existence) of an invisible God. But having faith does not negate your intellect. Dino, you assume too much when you infer that all Christians have essentially checked their brains at the door. There are Christians who sincerely believe the earth is only 6000 years old. There are others like myself to whom the literalness of the account of creation is so peripheral to important spiritual truths of Genesis that it is not worth arging about. Genesis teaches that we are created by God, in His image (having an eternal spirit), and that as result of sin we are spiritually separated from God. Whether the earth is 6000 or 6 billion years old is inconsequential. It is not necessary to believe the earth is 6000 years old to be a Christian. To those who do believe so, I hope they grow in spiritual maturity and understanding so that thier faith is not shattered by the truth about the physical world. Several people have mentioned what they percieve to be contradictions or or scientifically absurd things in the bible. I spent one year in seminary; this does not make me an expert on theology (indeed, it only showed me how little I really know), but I did learn a bit about how to interpret the bible. When reading the bible, you need to consider several things. 1. The bible is old. It was written over a period of almost 2000 years by a variety of writers. The most recent books of the bible are almost 2000 years old. That puts it's earlies portions back into the late bronze age or early iron age, and it is generally accepted that the oldest books of the bible were compiled and edited from earlier oral accounts. 2. Christians hold the bible to be inspired by God, but few believe it was dictated word by word. Instead, inspiration took the form of ordinary men writing what they were inspired by God to write, using their own words, and influenced by their own cultural and historical perspective and their own knowledge of the physical world. The writers used terminology, and references to the physical world that were familiar to the original recipients - anything else (though more accurate by todays standards) would have sounded like nonsense to the original recipients or scripture. A book that stood the test of modern scientific rigor would probably not have been preserved. 3. The bible was intended to teach spiritual truth. It was never intended to be a history book, or a science text. References to to historical events, people and places or the physical world are to be accepted as accurate only to the extent that the writer's understanding of history, goegraphy and natural science were accurate. 4. When interpreting scriptures, you must must give the highest consideration to the meaning of a text to the original people to whom it was addressed. This is the historical and cultural context. Any meaning or application today is secondary to it's original intent. (Note this is the same consideration that the Supreme Court often uses when interpreting the Constitution - a document that is only 200 years old). 5. Next you must consider the meaning of a portion of scripture in the context of the entire chapter, passage or book in which it is contained. This is the literary context. Sometime to truely understand the subtle nuances of a passage of scripture you also have to study it in the original language in which it was written (Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic). To some of the questions that Guitplayer brought up, Cain and Able exist in the Genesis account to illustrate that a sacrafice for the atonement of sin requires blood to be spilled. I don't know if there was a literal Cain and Able or Adam and Eve for that matter - it is not important. This is my own personal take on this. If you do take a literal interpretation of Genesis, there is nothing in Genesis that says that Cain and Able were the ONLY children of Adam and Eve. If you do take a very literal interpretation of Genesis, Adam lived to be over 800 years old. You can have a lot of children in 800 years. The lineage of Jesus is given for 2 purposes. To explain why Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem from Nazareth (because Joseph was of the house of David and the tax notice required everyone to go to their ancestral home). The second reason is to fulfill prophecy that the Messiah would come from the house and lineage of David. Is an adopted son not an heir? The predestination versus freewill question is ages old and the church is divided over the extent to which free will is emphasized over predestination. It is not so much a contradiction as it is a difference in interpretation or emphasis on certain scriptures that could be read different ways. Except for the extreme proponents of either interpretation it makes little difference to those who believe. Does it really matter if you chose God, or He chose you? It can make a difference in how you emphasize works (legalistic) versus grace (permissive) in daily living your faith.

[Dave Bryce]

[b]When reading the bible, you need to consider several things. 1. The bible is old. It was written over a period of almost 2000 years by a variety of writers. The most recent books of the bible are almost 2000 years old. That puts it's earlies portions back into the late bronze age or early iron age, and it is generally accepted that the oldest books of the bible were compiled and edited from earlier oral accounts.[/b] I not only take that into account, I firmly believe that. It is actually as a direct result of this that I have such a hard time taking the Bible literally, and why I am confused by those who do. [b]2. Christians hold the bible to be inspired by God, but few believe it was dictated word by word.[/b] That's not the point. The point is that I believe that there are more that a few Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I also know quite a few Jews that do as well. I know plenty of people who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old because the Bible says so, and who firmly believe that Adam and Eve were the first people on the earth, and that Moses really did part the Red Sea and that all of the quotes of Christ are literally the exact words that came out of his mouth. [b]Instead, inspiration took the form of ordinary men writing what they were inspired by God to write, using their own words, and influenced by their own cultural and historical perspective and their own knowledge of the physical world. [/b] I am inclined to agree with most of that. [b]The writers used terminology, and references to the physical world that were familiar to the original recipients - anything else (though more accurate by todays standards) would have sounded like nonsense to the original recipients or scripture. [/b] So, am I correct in gathering that what you are saying is that you believe that the stories in the Bible were essentially dressed up so that they would be more palatable to the people who were reading it at the time? Essentially, that they employed marketing spin? ;) [b]A book that stood the test of modern scientific rigor would probably not have been preserved.[/b] Do you mean that a book written back then that would have passed the scrutiny of today's scientists would not have been preserved by the people back then? Are you saying that it was possible back then for the Bible to have been written in such a manner, and that man or God (or both) actively chose not to do so in order that it might be preserved? Wouldn't it then behoove us to update it so it makes sense for modern times? [b]3. The bible was intended to teach spiritual truth.[/b] Whose truth? God's truth? If so, then why does it vary so much from culture to culture? Why does the Koran say that the Jews and the Christians are the enemies of Islam? Why do the Eastern cultures not subscribe to the same truths? Why did God choose that part of the world and that set of people to give his truth to? For that matter, why are there so many different interpretations within Christianity itself? [b]It was never intended to be a history book, or a science text. References to to historical events, people and places or the physical world are to be accepted as accurate only to the extent that the writer's understanding of history, goegraphy and natural science were accurate.[/b] ...which I believe they basically were not. Who back then knew anything about geography and/or natural science? As to history, they knew was what had been passed down as stories from generation to generation over hundreds of years, about the goings-on in that little corner of the world. Is it possible that these stories were at all distorted as they were passed down? Is it at all possible that there were other things going on in other corners of the world that had nothing to do with the people who wrote the Bible? [b]4. When interpreting scriptures, you must must give the highest consideration to the meaning of a text to the original people to whom it was addressed. [/b] Agreed. [b]This is the historical and cultural context. Any meaning or application today is secondary to it's original intent. [/b] Again, agreed. [b]5. Next you must consider the meaning of a portion of scripture in the context of the entire chapter, passage or book in which it is contained. This is the literary context. Sometime to truely understand the subtle nuances of a passage of scripture you also have to study it in the original language in which it was written (Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic). [/b] I do not doubt at all that the Bible was somewhat changed in it's translation. [b] Cain and Able exist in the Genesis account to illustrate that a sacrafice for the atonement of sin requires blood to be spilled.[/b] What does this mean? Whose sacrifice for whose atonement of sin? Please clarify... [b]I don't know if there was a literal Cain and Able or Adam and Eve for that matter - it is not important. [/b] I object to your dismissal of this as being unimportant, although I recognize it as being a often-used debating technique. I suggest that it may be important to people who take the Bible literally. I have had very long discussions with people who believe this is the case, and who quote from the Bible as though it's every word were fact. Quite a few people with whom I have been associated over the years believe this fervently. I do not agree that it is just a few people who choose to interpret the Bible literally - as a matter of fact, I would venture to guess that some of the people who have posted in this thread believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally. [b]This is my own personal take on this. If you do take a literal interpretation of Genesis, there is nothing in Genesis that says that Cain and Able were the ONLY children of Adam and Eve.[/b] As a matter of fact, there is mention of at least one more - Seth (Genesis 5:3). [b] If you do take a very literal interpretation of Genesis, Adam lived to be over 800 years old. You can have a lot of children in 800 years. [/b] Do you believe that Adam lived 800 years? I cannot comprehend how it is possible that anyone can believe that. Look at the first part of Genesis - Seth lived 912 years (that's pretty specific), Enosh lived 905 years, Kenan lived 910 years...I ask again - isn't it possible that these stories have been distorted and exaggerated as they were passed down? I apologize if I am coming off as being combative - it is not my wish to do so. I just find that whenever I ask these sorts of questions that the answers that I get back are invariably evasive and non-specific - this is usually what I run into right before I'm told that the only way that I'll understand is if I just allow myself to have faith. In other words - the only way that I'll get it is if I just allow myself to believe - then things will become clear. I have been told exactly that on more than one occasion. From a debating point of view, this is a great chop - there's not really any way to argue that point, is there? :) Once again, I am sorry if I have offended anyone. It is truly not my wish to do so. I am just trying to understand something that is beyond my comprehension, and does not make sense to me on a number of levels. Apparently, the only way it ever will is if I stop asking questions and just have faith. dB [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Dave Bryce ]

[MusicaL]

[quote]Originally posted by Dave Bryce: [b][b] Once again, I am sorry if I have offended anyone. It is truly not my wish to do so. I am just trying to understand something that is beyond my comprehension, and does not make sense to me on a number of levels. Apparently, the only way it ever will is if I stop asking questions and just have faith. dB [/b][/b][/quote] Dave I will respond to the last sentence above because IMO, there is a great misunderstanding (even among Christians) of what faith actually is. The following is excerpted from my favorite Christian Website (I edited it liberally to make the point.) "Frankly, if religion is merely an exercise in wishful thinking for me, I wouldn't wish up Christianity. It's far too inconvenient. Indeed, it seems that's part of the reason people hold many of the ludicrous religious views they do. They're appealing. They wish God was impersonal, because an impersonal God can't make the kind of demands on them that a holy God can. An impersonal divine force doesn't cramp their style on Saturday night. Eastern religions are high on individual liberty and low on individual responsibility. That's appealing. But, the Bible knows nothing of a bold leap-in-the-dark faith, a hope-against-hope faith, a faith with no evidence. Rather, if the evidence doesn't correspond to the hope, then the faith is in vain, as even Paul has said. If we want to exercise biblical faith--Christian faith--then we ought first to find out how the Bible defines faith. The clearest definition comes from Hebrews 11:1. This verse says, "Faith is the [b]assurance[/b] of things hoped for, the [b] conviction [/b] of things not seen." That is, confidence. Consider a guy who pushes a wheelbarrow across Niagara Falls on a tightrope every day. You've seen him do it so many times it doesn't even occur to you he won't make it. You believe with all your heart he can do it. One day he comes up to you and asks, "Do you believe I can push this wheelbarrow across the tightrope without falling?" And you say, "Of course I do. I've seen you do it hundreds of times." "All right," he says, "get in the wheelbarrow." It's only when you get in that you've exercised faith. You acted on your reasonable belief, as evidenced by countless times of watching the man push the wheelbarrow that he would be successful in getting you to the other side. It's the same way with biblical faith. It's not just intellectual assent without facts. It's not even just acknowledging that certain facts about Jesus, the Bible, the resurrection, or whatever, happen to be true. It's taking your life and putting it on the line based on your confidence in those facts. " My 2 cents (1.5 of which is borrowed from Greg Koukl.) Dave, you have very legitimate questions. They ought to be answered!! Here's the link to Koukl's site. He is a great thinker and has a radio show on Sudays in SoCal, called Stand to Reason. His show is on 790 am KBRT. Here's his website: [url=http://www.str.org]www.str.org[/url] Also, another couple of resources for the evidence for Christianity: 1. Evidence that demands a verdict (Josh McDowell) 2. The case for Christ (Lee Stroeble) HTH Albert [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: tuttorney ]

[Dave Bryce]

[quote]Originally posted by tuttorney: [b]/It's the same way with biblical faith. It's not just intellectual assent without facts. It's not even just acknowledging that certain facts about Jesus, the Bible, the resurrection, or whatever, happen to be true. It's taking your life and putting it on the line based on your confidence in those facts. "][/b][/quote] Would it be too much for me to ask for you to clarify what some of these facts are on which you base your faith? Perhaps that would help me to understand...I hope that my question is not too intrusive... Thanks, Albert! :D dB

[twotone]

[quote]originally posted by Tuttorney. Eastern religions are high on individual liberty and low on individual responsibility. [/quote] My (limited)understanding of eastern philosophy is that the opposite is the case. individual liberty = individual responsibility. Rather than subjugating yourself to a body of thought -religion- your journey for enlightenment is an internal one, drawing upon the greatness within. Western religion in a historical sense, was a means of governance. The Romans realised this when they conquered England. They drew local beliefs into their own belief system to make sure that the locals would be happy conforming to Roman laws. The scary part about western(read judaic/christian/islam) religion for me is how willing people are to stop thinking for themselves and forgo any individual responsibility because it is Gods will. The fact that it is always another human being telling them what they think is Gods will begets the question, is any organised religion little more than human beings trying to create power and weild it. As a species, we are always looking for ways to understand and control our environment, for better or worse. IMHO, faith and spirituality are personal journeys that every human being undertakes in some fashion. However religion is one of the ways that humans use to organise society in a way that enables the FEW to control the MANY!!!! Peace, Love and happiness Tom Rouch :p ;) :)

[Tusker]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b]My personal belief, described above, is that there is no reason for an industry of Christian musicians. Just make your music and live your beliefs. People will understand, and you'll reach a much larger audience. Just some observations, based on reading several similar threads and conducting business with the Christian music industry. I'm not a psychologist or religeon expert, so please comment and/or contradict anything I've written. I'd like to listen, if someone has a similar or completely different take on this question.[/b][/quote] Neil: Thanks for the reply. Gave me something to think about. As an Christian originally from South-Asia I have wondered why this particular sub-genre carries so much political resentment (if I can call it that). The subject of Bangra music may bring out discussions of ethnicity, but it's usually a lot less politicized. I play all kinds of music, but I am also (confession time) very involved with music at a local community church, and I find this to be very rewarding, personally. I accept your statements about the industry at face value. I have no doubt there is a concentration of power in Nashville. Where power is concentrated I would expect abuse. I am gathering from your post that there is a -ve social response for other reasons as well, however. I am gathering that non-christians have more of a problem with 'christian' music aimed at non-christians than at 'christian' music created for believers. Do you think this is true? Why is it that concerns about indoctrination don't typically get trigered by staples like Handel's Messiah with it's unabashed evangelistic tone, I wonder. Is one 'problem' with Christian music, the notion that it is music in the service of other ends (jingoistic) as opposed to music for it's own sake (artistic)? Thx, Jerry

[Tusker]

[quote]Originally posted by Dave Bryce: [b] Would it be too much for me to ask for you to clarify what some of these facts are on which you base your faith? Perhaps that would help me to understand...I hope that my question is not too intrusive... Thanks, Albert! :D dB[/b][/quote] Dave: I appreciate your inquiry and arguments addressed to Albert. There is some aspect of this which is a broader question to Christians in general. I am ready to answer the question of the reasoned facts surrounding my conversion to evangelical christianity .... if you would like me to. However, I'll wait for your invitation (ask me, ask me). :) Warmly, Jerry

[Rog]

This is a great thread, in equal parts amusing, hilarious, shocking, boring, inane and embarrassing :) http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/religion.htm pretty much sums up the way I see this whole thing. I understand some people's need to invent Gods to comfort them. Hell, it's a big, scary but mostly indifferent universe so who wouldn't want to believe that someone all powerful is looking out for them? I just find it all a little hard to swallow which suits me just fine ... I'm OK with the notion that there's nothing out there and that I will cease to exist in the blink of the universal eye. What pisses me off is religionists trying to push their opinions on me (not that anybody here has) and religionists demanding that things be banned. If you don't like it, don't watch it but never interfere with my right to do so :) We're all tribal so a greater extent ... memes infect us every waking minute and some take root in out psyches, some don't. Christianity is a very effective meme, but not as effective as Islam. What scares me is that this religion actively encourages going to war with non-islamists, from the Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom: Here's how the ayatollah himself put it: "...Moslems have no alternative... to an armed holy war against profane governments. ...Holy war means the conquest of all non-Moslem territories. ...It will ...be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other. "The leaders of the USSR and of England and the president of the United States are ...infidels.... ...Every part of the body of a non-Moslem individual is impure, even the hair on his head and his body hair, his nails, and all the secretions of his body. Any man or woman who denies the existence of God, or believes in His partners [the Christian Trinity], or else does not believe in His Prophet Mohammed, is impure (in the same way as are excrement, urine, dog, and wine)[sic]." I'm not going to say any more at the moment. Take it easy everyone :)

[vintagevibe]

lovesinger, With every post you prove me correct. You can't argue with a Christian. I'll say it again. You are a believer and you're not allowed to even consider anything that differs from you belief system. You therefore never actually respond to any of my points. You just dismiss anything that doesn't fit in your small world. I'm certainly not judging you any more than I would judge a heroin addict. Some people need drugs to numb themselves, others worship a belief system. One final note. Since you are not allowed to believe in the obvious facts of evolution you'll not understand that "recreation" is the method by which creation is accomplished. Evolution is "God's" method if you need to talk in those terms but unfortunately you are not allowed to think, only believe. Again I don't judge you. Heroin may be worse although I'm not totally sure.

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by dino321: [b]lovesinger, One final note. Since you are not allowed to believe in the obvious facts of evolution you'll not understand that "recreation" is the method by which creation is accomplished.[/b][/quote] Like playing tennis or going for a beer? I think you mean procreation ... sorry, i couldn't resist :)

[MusicaL]

[quote]Originally posted by Dave Bryce: [b] Would it be too much for me to ask for you to clarify what some of these facts are on which you base your faith? Perhaps that would help me to understand...I hope that my question is not too intrusive... Thanks, Albert! :D dB[/b][/quote] Is there any doubt in your mind that God exists? Have you checked out nature, your own body, anything you've studied. That's fact. Is there any doubt in your mind that Jesus walked the earth some 2000 years ago? Is there any doubt in your mind that he said and did certain things recorded in thousands of manuscripts, and that he claimed to be a certain person? If you attack the reliability of the bible both old and new, you cannot have any confidence in any other historical writing. Is there any question that no one has ever even falsely claimed to have found his bones? Dave, there are reems of books, and papers written about these issues, and I already gave you several such resources. Did you check them out? Did you study them and reject them already? http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/faithwis.htm Albert

[lovesinger]

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: lovesinger ]

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by tuttorney:[b] But, the Bible knows nothing of a bold leap-in-the-dark faith, a hope-against-hope faith, a faith with no evidence. Rather, if the evidence doesn't correspond to the hope, then the faith is in vain, as even Paul has said. [/b][/quote] I've tried to get that across several ways to no avail. That our faith is not blind faith but IS based on evidence just flies over the heads of those who are locked into the groove of their own revelation and self-divinity. That hasn't changed in 40 years...they just think they're into something new and fresh, when all its ever done is deceived a lot of those 'believers' into feeling they can wear God's clothes and do God's deeds (I wonder how they're donig with the flu this flu season?). Albert...your entire post is wonderfully on point and evidential. I'd say I hope friend dino reads and TRIES to understand it, but the evidence says otherwise, because I've interfaced with too many "pie in the intellectual sky" new age religionists (who think 'pie in the sky' believing fits us, not them) to think they'll even begin to examine your words before next year this time, unless a real life crisis reveals the fragility and powerlessness of their anti-[Intelligent and Involved]-Creator-God beliefs and has them rethink what they've been reviling. I've shared before the observation (they show it -- I just see it, I don't create it) that FACTS/EVIDENCE don't sit well with intellecual religionists [of course they never perceive they're marching to the tune of a religion of any kind]). Not ONE god-antagonist here has gone down the road of logical reasoning with me or any Christian poster here, they'e just thrown out the word "logical". Its odd that they think they're grounded in reality when fantasy reasoning is their daily diet.

[lovesinger]

double post. sorry.