Christian musicians - interesting link

[Synthguy]

Never cast your pearls before Pigs. :D I had to toss a little something in after that most uneloquent one. If this line was used earlier, my haste. ;)

[Dave Bryce]

[b]Is there any doubt in your mind that God exists?[/b] Well, I do believe that it's probable that there are bigger things than us. However, an anthropomorphic deity who is aware of us, consciously created us and this existence and participates in our lives? While I am open to the possibility that something like that exists, by and large I do not believe in that. [b]Have you checked out nature, your own body, anything you've studied. [/b] Yes. I do not see the connection. Something created all of this, I will agree with you. However, I have yet to see or hear anything that looks to me to factually prove that there's a single sentient being responsible for that. Sorry, Albert. [b]That's fact.[/b] If I may be so bold, you are basing calling this a fact on the predication that you cannot conceive of man and the Universe coming into being any other way. This is exactly my point. You are limited by your own intelligence and perspective, and by the information that your human senses feed you. Just because you cannot conceive of something does not mean that it is not so. Do you not allow for the possiility that there are things greater than your comprehension? [b]Is there any doubt in your mind that Jesus walked the earth some 2000 years ago?[/b] I do believe that a man called Jesus lived a few thousand years ago. I believe that he was an extremely enlightened and wise man. I also believe that he is one of the first documentable victims of PR. I believe that whatever message that he had, it has been greatly distorted and manipulated over the years,and that it is not possible to know what he said or what he meant. I do not think that he is anywhere near as responsible for Christianity as the people who spun stories about him are. [b]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?[/b] Yes, there is in fact doubt in my mind about that. I believe that most of those manuscripts showed up well after his death, and that he didn't write any of them himself. As soon as someone else writes something, it becomes open to their interpretation. Have you seen the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian"? While I realize (obviously) that this is a comedy film, I do believe that it is possible that there is a bit of wisdom in it. I know, I know - that will probably really upset you that I equate the prattlings of a British comedy troupe with the teachings of the Bible. Sorry - what can I say? The events portrayed in the movie (no matter how comedically rendered) paint for me a very telling picture of man's nature - something I do not believe has changed over the centuries. While I do not in any way mean to say that I believe that it is a historically accurate account of what happened back then, there are parts of it that I do think illustrate very well how we as a species are capable of distorting information. [b]If you attack the reliability of the bible both old and new, you cannot have any confidence in any other historical writing.[/b] I am not attacking, I am questioning. There's a difference, my friend. Also, I think that your postulation here does not make any sense. I believe that there is a great deal of difference between a book that says that people were created out of dust and/or other people's bones, lived for 900 years, parted seas, etc. and an account of, say, the Hundred Years war, or the Chinese dynasties, or any of a number of other historical accounts. Even those are subject to some questioning...it has been my experience that time tends to distort things... [b]Is there any question that no one has ever even falsely claimed to have found his bones?[/b] I have no idea. I am not sure that it matters. [b]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?[/b] I looked at the web site that you posted. It is full of the same sort of arguments that I have been hearing since I started asking these questions years ago. I have read quite a few books on the subject, and talked to many, many people about it. There are plenty of books and papers written on the other side of the coin as well. Not only do I remain unconvinced, I become more so pretty much every time I look into it. I am not saying that I absolutely do not believe in God, I am just saying that I question the accounts that Man has related about the possibility of the existence of one. The bottom line for me is that I do not believe. I do not see the Bible as a factual account, because there are what I perceive (with my limited human intelligence) to be a plethora of exaggerations and inconsistencies. Since it appears that you are one of the people who believe that the accounts in the Bible are factual, I would be extremely interested to have you go back and address the points and questions in my first post. Thanks for taking the time, Albert. I really do actually appreciate it. I am truly sorry if my beliefs (or lack thereof) make you feel bad. dB [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Dave Bryce ]

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by Tusker: [b] 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.[/b][/quote] You must be Aristotlian. (I hope that's the correct term!) One good question deserves.. an answer that inspires 2 or 3 more questions. :D It's easy to feel comfortable listening to and discussing ethnic music, when the ethnic group has little or no power, and relatively no influence in our society. Not many Americans are going to be threatened by Native American music, because they are rarely a threat to us, in the first place. Christianity, on the other hand, carries vast power and influence, and actively recruits new believers. That is threatening to non-believers, and perhaps it should be. Depends on your POV. Christians use their collective power in the interests of Christians, and imply it's for the good of all. That's just politics. Every group wants that power, and they want to limit the power of their adversaries. We all know that music can be very powerful, and the celebrity it can provide can be used to influence many people, in an otherwise non-threatening way. Good for you. Playing at church [i]should be rewarding[/i], and you shouldn't concern yourself with anyone's opinion of your playing in the confines of your own house of worship. It's nobody's business but your church's. Come to think of it, I'm amused at the fact that so much worship music, termed Christian music for retail, is frowned upon by non-believers, yet Black Gospel music has been accepted, as an ethnic music, by American society for a long time without that stigma. Look at the use of Black Gospel music in movies (The Blues Brothers) and TV (In The Heat Of The Night, Good Times). It seems to touch us musically, although non-believers pay little attention to the message in the words. The music, including the vocal style, is inspiring in Black Gospel. It's like a shot of adrenaline to brighten your spirit, regardless of your religeous beliefs. Of course, YMMV [quote]Originally posted by Tusker: [b]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.[/b][/quote] Nashville would definately be considered the center of power in Christian music. My statement were based on my personal experience, and I'd like to hear someone in the industry relate their experience. I'm not sure what the last line of this quote means? :confused: [quote]Originally posted by Tusker: [b]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.[/b][/quote] Is there's a difference between contemporary Christian music for believers vs. for the purpose of conversion. I'm not aware there [i]is[/i] music aimed solely for conversion, with the exception of some songs aimed at indoctrinating kids. Many songs about Torah stories we sang, growing up Jewish, are the same ones Christian children sing, because the stories are the same in both religeons. You say Handel's Messiah has, "an evangelistic tone." I don't doubt you, but I've never heard that. Most great symphonic works from the Baroque, Classical, and other periods of classical music, until this century, were written in praise of the Christ. It seems we don't identify classical music as Christian music, even when it is. It's just classical music. Mostly instrumental, anyway. Hard to feel you're being actively converted by instrumental music. ;) Of course, to Bach this might amount to an insult to god and church, but we're so far removed from his society that we don't recognize the religeous aspect unless it's pointed out to us. (Most americans barely speak Spanish or French. Imagine how few pay attention to the lyrics in Messiah, unless they're at church, with a translation.) I appreciate many great works of art, created for the church, or made in praise of Christ. I'm not threatened by a picture of Christ and his disciples. (The Last Supper.) I don't know. Maybe we're just sensitive to some forms of evangelistic art. [quote]Originally posted by Tusker: [b]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)?[/b][/quote] Could be. Look at the hatred of commercial music by many, "artists." God forbid (Maybe that's not the best exclamation here. :D ) your music be designed for a purpose, outside of art. Ironically, this ties in with the 4 Him CD. The album is called, The Message. The title song, as well as several others, are wonderful pop songs. I enjoy listening to them for the music, instrumentation and production quality. But I don't know that I would listen with my Jewish friends. Why? From, The Message: [quote]To live a faith that never dies... to be crucified with.. Christ.[/quote] Can you see why that might be weird to non-believers, even though the music and production are fantastic? I'd love to share the music, but I don't [i]want[/i] to repeat their message. That's just how I feel. Oddly enough, this is of little concern to me, personally, when singing James Taylor's, Fire & Rain. The second verse begins, "Won't you look down upon me Jesus? You gotta help me make a stand..." I could say, "God." That would sound... stupid. Maybe it's because JT never tried passing himself off as a Christian musician. Just a musician. (Who happened to be Christian and decided to write a line asking Christ for strength.) I'd take the secular path any day over pidgeon-holing myself as a religeous musician. For one thing, being a Christian musician limits you. You've just exclaimed to the world that you're going to play/write songs about Christ, hope, moral issues, but you can't ever examine life from another POV. Christian musicians can't release a song like Aerosmith's, Janie's Got A Gun. That song is takes a hard look at incest, without being crude about the issue. The songwriter didn't write it so some hard rock band could say they have a song about incest. It was written as one possible example of how things can turn out for abused and abuser. Very well, IMO. The same could be said for Martina McBride's Independence Day. Martina would never have gotten away with that song had she been signed as a Christian artist. (Which for you non-country folks, is not related, in anyway to 9/11. Pretty sad that they latched onto a great song about [i]spousal abuse[/i] as a memorial for 9/11, just because the words, "independence day," are in the chorus and title. Yeesh! Oops! I digress again..) On the flip side, Joan Osborne released One Of Us, about the possibility of the messiah returning as a downtrodden member of modern society. How would we treat him? Would we even know we'd interacted with a messiah. She's not a Christian musician, yet somehow she managed to release a pro-god song. (Even if she did get flack from the church for the imagery.) Imagine that. :)

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by dino321: [b]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.[/b][/quote]dino, you're struggling, but at least you're staying afloat. Now stop flapping those arms, there are no straws or ropes to grasp....don't drown...just relax...and reason, if you can....and try not to be so "i'm definitely sure this is what your problem is" super-right ....... that's better...easy, brother...you just may give yourself a chance to OBSERVE something outside your little world. I've been into your belief system. It was one of the emptiest, weirdest times of my life, but i was hustling like you trying to make it solid and impactful and get results from it. All "I and it" did was doped my mind for a time where I felt I was really rockin' ahead of those lame-brained mainline religious believers like I USED to be. Shall we one thing at a time try and dispel your obvious confusion? First, you are FLAT INCORRECT that I or any believer is not "allowed to" do anything. [i]Where in the world do you get these diatribes??[/i] I don't really expect an answer, friend. You haven't answered much directly at all so far__just keep chanting your "you're a believer" and "you're not allowed" chants. In case you'll consider ANY evidence other than your own, here's the proof from MY BIBLE that you say is so restrictive: (yes, it's a "written text" you hate so much...so flog me) [quote]"Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything. [1 Corinthians 6:12 NIV] need to see "allowed" in it? You may say, "I am allowed to do anything." But I reply, "Not everything is good for you." And even though "I am allowed to do anything," I must not become a slave to anything. [1 Corinthians 6:12 Living Bible] "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"--but not everything is constructive. [1 Corinthians 10, verse 23][/quote] These may be in one ear and out the other because i've learned it true (see, I haven't just believed evrything up front _ I had to learn this from experience with lots of friends like you) that [quote]The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. --1 Corinthians 2:14, NIV OR But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means. --1 Corinthians 2:14[/quote]So why does this accused "scripture worshipper" [which I am NOT, BTW. I try to worship God "in spirit and in truth" which Christ said the Father is looking for. He's got enough word-waggers emptily spouting scripture who have no relationship with him and don't know him. But the scriptures point to and dynamically portray him, keeping awareness of His ways fresh. It's like listening to favorite music over and over. Never gets tiresome, does it? We just take a break from it while working on other things in life, and even then we hum a few bars now and then.] 'waste time' including these 'scriptures' (uggh, right dino?) which you pre-hate and urk you nerves? Because YOU SAY my faith says things it doesn't say, and I want you to have the facts, since you show in the inaccurate things you mis-state that you're only a "believer" of them. (You ARE interested in being a "knower" of the facts, right dino?) I'm not thinking I can convert you, my man. God and you sign the coversion agreement if ever you become willing to see past your own righteousness (sorry...too religious sounding...'rightness' substituted). I'd just hoped you'd get off your high horse up in the air and reason on the ground with the rest of us. Well, whenever if ever is ok. You sound like a new convert to your religion, with all the "young in the faith" zealousnes that goes with it. All I encourage you to do as you take your journey is take off the blinders, keep your eyes and ears open, keep your mind turned on and in gear, and ask whatever Creator you say you believe in to help you understand what you see and hear. Be surprised what you can learn that you don't already know.

[Synthguy]

Dave, if you can explain how a vapor finer than any vacuum we can make on Earth can spontaneously mash into a mass much denser than Jupiter, clue us in sometime. The usual "science may yet explain this" sounds like a cop-out to me. It takes a LOT more faith to believe the universe blew up and made everything than it does to think that God did it, because the former isn't scientific or rational at all. It's just as much a matter of faith, because there is no way you can have a Big Bang and end up with anything but a puff of hydrogen, heat and radiation spreading out at light speed. This has been reasoned out by a lot of scientists such as Sir Fred Hoyle, who was knighted for his pioneering work in astronomy. Guys, this is fruitless for the most part. Most people have their minds made up on the subject of God or God-not, no matter what kinds of facts or reason you use, since both sides boil down to a system of belief and to one extent or another, a leap thereof. There is plenty of evidence to support a position, but we do depend on people telling us what is true for a lot of our concepts of the world. Whether such is true or not is another matter. I do note that a lot of commonly held "scientific" views are based on nothing more than their own concepts, such as the Big Bang. I'd add that it is amusing that I haven't heard yet of anyone going out into a field and yelling, "Okay gamma rays, prove you exist! Well??" :D

[Rog]

"dino, you're struggling, but at least you're staying afloat. Now stop flapping those arms, there are no straws or ropes to grasp....don't drown...just relax...and reason, if you can....and try not to be so "i'm definitely sure this is what your problem is" super-right ....... that's better...easy, brother...you just may give yourself a chance to OBSERVE something outside your little world. I've been into your belief system. It was one of the emptiest, weirdest times of my life, but i was hustling like you trying to make it solid and impactful and get results from it. All "I and it" did was doped my mind for a time where I felt I was really rockin' ahead of those lame-brained mainline religious believers like I USED to be." Thank you for re-inforcing the opinion that religious people number amongst the most partonising bastards on this planet.

[MusicaL]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Bryce: [QB][b] Something created all of this, I will agree with you. However, I have yet to see or hear anything that looks to me to factually prove that there's a single sentient being responsible for that. Sorry, Albert.[/b] That sounds like a contradiction to me Dave. Either something sentient created this universe or not. You can't have it both ways. It's either an intelligent being or not. [b] If I may be so bold, you are basing calling this a fact on the predication that you cannot conceive of man and the Universe coming into being any other way. This is exactly my point. You are limited by your own intelligence and perspective, and by the information that your human senses feed you. Just because you cannot conceive of something does not mean that it is not so. Do you not allow for the possibility that there are things greater than your comprehension? [/b] Well, let's address that issue, because it is IMO an easy one. Actually, I can conceive of many fantastic ways this universe could have come into being. I do not call those fact because I have no evidence whatsover for their existence. There evidence of a single designer is clear because there is a single and common theme to creation. Check it out. It is very diverse in some ways, but it is all very similar in many ways. Look at the animal kingdom. I will concede that whether or not I can conceive of something has nothing to do with reality. Here's the problem with this. The fact that there may be alternative explanations does not make them reality either, unless there is evidence for it. I have not heard of any alternative theories you may believe in that are backed up by any facts. [b] I do believe that a man called Jesus lived a few thousand years ago. I believe that he was an extremely enlightened and wise man. I also believe that he is one of the first documentable victims of PR. I believe that whatever message that he had, it has been greatly distorted and manipulated over the years,and that it is not possible to know what he said or what he meant. I do not think that he is anywhere near as responsible for Christianity as the people who spun stories about him are. [b] Again, where's the evidence for your beliefs? [b] Yes, there is in fact doubt in my mind about that. I believe that most of those manuscripts showed up well after his death, and that he didn't write any of them himself. As soon as someone else writes something, it becomes open to their interpretation. [/b] Again, where's the evidence? [b] Have you seen the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian"? While I realize (obviously) that this is a comedy film, I do believe that it is possible that there is a bit of wisdom in it. [/b] I did see it. I find little if any "wisdom" in it. [b] I know, I know - that will probably really upset you that I equate the prattlings of a British comedy troupe with the teachings of the Bible. Sorry - what can I say? The events portrayed in the movie (no matter how comedically rendered) paint for me a very telling picture of man's nature - something I do not believe has changed over the centuries. While I do not in any way mean to say that I believe that it is a historically accurate account of what happened back then, there are parts of it that I do think illustrate very well how we as a species are capable of distorting information. [/b] I'll grant you that we are fallible, weak and self-centered beings. [b] I believe that there is a great deal of difference between a book that says that people were created out of dust and/or other people's bones, lived for 900 years, parted seas, etc. and an account of, say, the Hundred Years war, or the Chinese dynasties, or any of a number of other historical accounts. Even those are subject to some questioning...it has been my experience that time tends to distort things... [/b] For what it's worth, the bible is more than a history book. It's mostly God's revelation of who he is. It is progressive in the sence God reveals more of himself over time. With that said, I think you are attacking, er no, questioning the bible based on faulty assumptions. There is a prior post that detailed the manner books were written back then. That's how you read the bible. [b] Is there any question that no one has ever even falsely claimed to have found his bones? I have no idea. I am not sure that it matters. [/b] Sure it does. It's all about who Jesus said he is. You said you believed he was a wise man. I take it you do not believe or agree with everything he says. Why? Is it because you think his statements were altered. Study manuscript criticisms and historicity. [b]I looked at the web site that you posted. It is full of the same sort of arguments that I have been hearing since I started asking these questions years ago. I have read quite a few books on the subject, and talked to many, many people about it. There are plenty of books and papers written on the other side of the coin as well. Not only do I remain unconvinced, I become more so pretty much every time I look into it. [b]The bottom line for me is that I do not believe. [/b] That is the bottom line!!! You've made up your mind, and I suppose that settles the matter for you!! [b] Thanks for taking the time, Albert. I really do actually appreciate it. I am truly sorry if my beliefs (or lack thereof) make you feel bad. [/b] Your beliefs do not make me feel anything actually. Each of us must be honest with him/herself and choose the belief system that represents reality. There are many belief systems in this world. They cannot all be true because they contradict each other on many points. I happen to believe (after study and life circumstances) that Christianity is true. As lovesinger put it, "unless a real life crisis reveals the fragility and powerlessness of . . . anti-[Intelligent and Involved]-Creator-God beliefs and has them rethink what they've been reviling." Gotta get some work done. Albert

[rold]

[quote]Originally posted by synthguy: [b]Dave, if you can explain how a vapor finer than any vacuum we can make on Earth can spontaneously mash into a mass much denser than Jupiter, clue us in sometime. [/b][/quote] Synthguy, EVERYTHING, no matter how large or small, has gravity. If it can be considered matter, it has a certain amount of gravity and that gravity attracts things to it. Hook up a few trillion dust partciles in the same frictionless space and they WILL pull together. It won't be spontaneous, but it will happen over time. Of course, the more it grows, the stronger its gravity, the more it will attract. That's scientific FACT.

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by Rog: [QBThank you for re-inforcing the opinion that religious people number amongst the most partonising bastards on this planet.[/QB][/quote]Rog, if you meant patronizing, i wasn't doing that. But I feel your disdain and I feel where you're coming from. Those who feel as you express will TOLERATE AND HIGHLY PRAISE Ozzy O. or any other Satan-praising artists for their patronizing, insulting, cajoling and suicide-encouraging proclamations and curses -- that's "all good". But let confident and intelligent Christian statements be said and you're all up-in-arms about it, like Satan and demons in Carman's video "Revival" screaming and scrambling indignantly because Christians had the audacity to pray against his murderous schemes and shake his kingdom of darkness. As eminent case in point, I notice you had NOTHING to say about dino's patronizing posts to me (which came first). But it's all right. I'm tough-skinned vet. It goes with the battle.

[RobT]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b] I'd take the secular path any day over pidgeon-holing myself as a religeous musician. [/b][/quote] I think that you are overlooking many musicians out there who are spiritually centered but may play all styles of music. I can think of quite a few who profess a spirituality, some even Christianity who could not be called pigeon-holed. Bassist John Pattitucci comes to mind (and I know there are others) who played with Scientologist Chick Corea. [quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b] For one thing, being a Christian musician limits you. You've just exclaimed to the world that you're going to play/write songs about Christ, hope, moral issues, but you can't ever examine life from another POV. [/b][/quote] I disagree. I think it may color your point of view but I don't think that it is limiting. There are many Christian songs written about all sorts of topics. Much like today genres in popular music there is Christian Rap, Hip Hop, Funk, Jazz, Blues and R n B styles. A lot of it may not make Christian top 40 or popular Christian radio but it is out there. RobT

[Dave Bryce]

[b]Dave, if you can explain how a vapor finer than any vacuum we can make on Earth can spontaneously mash into a mass much denser than Jupiter, clue us in sometime.[/b] I can't. I don't feel a need to have to come up with an explanation for things that are beyond my comprehension. I am okay with knowing that there are things that I don't understand. [b]It takes a LOT more faith to believe the universe blew up and made everything than it does to think that God did it, because the former isn't scientific or rational at all.[/b] Perhaps that is the case. Mind you, I'm not sold on the Big Bang theory, either. However, this doesn't change the fact that the God theory just doesn't make sense to me on way too many levels. Is it possible that there is an as-yet undiscovered set of explanations? Surely you're not prepared to say that we as a species now know all there is to know...or are even close, for that matter...that's all I'm saying. [b]It's just as much a matter of faith, because there is no way you can have a Big Bang and end up with anything but a puff of hydrogen, heat and radiation spreading out at light speed. This has been reasoned out by a lot of scientists such as Sir Fred Hoyle, who was knighted for his pioneering work in astronomy.[/b] I am glad that you are comfortable enough with your knowledge of physics and astronomy to discuss this. I am not. Any scientific knowledge that is utilized at this point is based on the information and evidence that are available to us right now. I suggest that it is possible that there may be more for us to learn. If you had postulated that a man could walk on the moon 500 years ago, you might have been met with a bit of skepticism... [b]Guys, this is fruitless for the most part. Most people have their minds made up on the subject of God or God-not, no matter what kinds of facts or reason you use, since both sides boil down to a system of belief and to one extent or another, a leap thereof.[/b] Fully agreed. [b] There is plenty of evidence to support a position, but we do depend on people telling us what is true for a lot of our concepts of the world. Whether such is true or not is another matter.[/b] Also fully agreed. [b] I do note that a lot of commonly held "scientific" views are based on nothing more than their own concepts, such as the Big Bang. I'd add that it is amusing that I haven't heard yet of anyone going out into a field and yelling, "Okay gamma rays, prove you exist! Well??" :D [/b] Pretty funny. I'll bet there's someone somewhere who has, though... ;) dB

[Dave Bryce]

[i]Originally posted by tuttorney:[/i] [b] Either something sentient created this universe or not. You can't have it both ways. It's either an intelligent being or not. [/b] Well, obviously....I do not understand how that makes my statement contradictory? [b] I have not heard of any alternative theories you may believe in that are backed up by any facts.[/b] ...and I have not heard any of your theories to be backed up by what I consider to be facts, either. [b] Again, where's the evidence for your beliefs?[/b] My beliefs are based upon the evidence that I have gathered from the information available to me - the same as yours, Albert. [b] [i]As soon as someone else writes something, it becomes open to their interpretation. [/i] Again, where's the evidence?[/b] The evidence of what? Of my statement that someone writing about someone else is their interpretation of that person? You're joking, right? Are you now saying that people are capable of complete objectivity? [b] I did see it. I find little if any "wisdom" in it.[/b] I'm not surprised. ;) [b] I'll grant you that we are fallible, weak and self-centered beings.[/b] Thank you. [b]For what it's worth, the bible is more than a history book. It's mostly God's revelation of who he is. It is progressive in the sence God reveals more of himself over time.[/b] This is not a fact. This is your belief, and your interpretation. Admittedly, it is shared by others, but so is my perception. [b] With that said, I think you are attacking, er no, questioning the bible based on faulty assumptions. There is a prior post that detailed the manner books were written back then. That's how you read the bible.[/b] SFOracle's post basically seemed to me to say that the Bible was not to be taken literally. Do you agree with that? [b] Sure it does. It's all about who Jesus said he is.[/b] How do you know what Jesus said? All you know is what it is told that Jesus said. [b] You said you believed he was a wise man. I take it you do not believe or agree with everything he says. [/b] I don't know what he said. Neither do you. All you know is what the accounts of what he said tell. [b]Is it because you think his statements were altered. Study manuscript criticisms and historicity. [/b] You mean study other people's accounts of history, right? Why are you so convinced that they are infallible? [b]You've made up your mind, and I suppose that settles the matter for you!![/b] If that were the case, I would not be involved in this discussion, would I? I believe that I am always open to new possibilities. I believe that as a species we still have an awful lot to learn. I am confused as to why more people do not believe this. That is, in fact, the crux of my argument and my confusion - that people are not more open to other possibilities. It seems to me that you are the one who has made up his mind... [b]Your beliefs do not make me feel anything actually. Each of us must be honest with him/herself and choose the belief system that represents reality. There are many belief systems in this world. They cannot all be true because they contradict each other on many points.[/b] YES! We agree! :D [b] I happen to believe (after study and life circumstances) that Christianity is true. [/b] I, on the other hand, am not sure what I believe. I do think that the evidence that I have gathered so far indicates that certain aspects of Christianity may have some flaws... [b]Gotta get some work done.[/b] Me, too. See you in keyboard land, my brother! dB [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Dave Bryce ]

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound:[b]There is no such thing as a "Jew for Jesus." These are Christians, plain and simple. I don't care how they profess to live, believe, or pray. There is one fundamental difference between Jews and Christians. [b][i]Christians believe in Jesus as Savior, and Jews don't.[/b][/i] Therefore, a "Jew for Jesus," is by definition, a Christian. That said, Jews for Jesus has made it their mission to convert every Jew to Christianity. They have made deliberate attempts to evangelize to Jews using code words which don't sound like they're attempting to convert. Please do not use JFJ as an example of good Christians who are tolerant and respectful of other religeons. They're not. It's simply easier to convert Jews to Christianity when your church has the word Jew in it. Here is a link to a story in the Nashville Scene, involving Rev. Don Finto and the former rabbi of our temple, Rabbi Fuchs. It addresses some important points on attempts to convert non-believers, specifically, Jews. It also illustrates the arrogance that puts off so many of the agnostic and athiest posters here, as well as the non-affiliated spiritual people among us. I'm glad to say that Jews are supposed to live as an example, not actively convert non-Jews. It's a recognition that people will either, "get it,", or they won't. We must still live by the teachings of the Torah.[/b][/quote] fantasticsound, I have awesome respect for your heritage, which I consider to have birthed mine, and I'm not going to try to change your views, but despite your apparent abhorrence of the concept and the terminology, there is such a thing as a "Jew for Jesus", I know of none that use secret agent code word tactics, and they didn't arrive there by a christian conspiracy, but by divine personal revelation by the true and living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. [ By the way it's not any perceived arrogance that "puts off so many of the agnostic and athiest posters here"__what irks them is that we (WHOEVER we are that has faith in somthing that's not man-based as theirs is. THEY can be as arrogant as all git-out, but when they perceive our CONFIDENCE in our beliefs, well there can't be two 'stars' on this platform can there?, so they instinctively try to knock us off with the 'arrogance' tack...unfortunately some of us who value them more than our faith buy it.) won't bow at the feet of them or their human-imagination-generated ideologies and become "enlightened" above our "stupid faith" and the "God we've invented". ] Your words "I'm glad to say that Jews are supposed to live as an example, not actively convert non-Jews. It's a recognition that people will either, "get it,", or they won't. We must still live by the teachings of the Torah." is an excellent thought. Will you then hear the Torah? One thing you may be unaware of is "HaShem's program has changed" -- HaSHEM (G_d) DIDN'T, but the way he chose to continue his plan of revelation and administration DID. Even in the business world, it's a poor executive who can't change with new economic conditions. But HaShem is unmeasurable light-years above the best executives. Prophets of the Torah Shebiksav say: [quote] Isaiah 43 18 "Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past. 19 See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?... Isaiah 48 6 You have heard these things; look at them all. Will you not admit them? "From now on I will tell you of new things, of hidden things unknown to you. 7 They are created now, and not long ago; you have not heard of them before today. So you cannot say, `Yes, I knew of them.' Ezekiel 18 1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: "`The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. [/quote] I digested on Lazer's Jewish site: "Conversion is much more complicated. Judaism does not actively encourage conversion, in fact, to a large degree it actually discourages it. This is the reason Jews have never had missionaries trying to convert non-Jews. This does not mean, however, that Judaism doesn't want the convert. Judaism does want the convert but he must be 100% committed. Discouraging conversion helps to filter out those lacking the proper degree of commitment." While that is an excellently designed policy it simply differs from the Christian "soul-winning" way because the two have opposite goals. The former as stated wants only those 100% committed -- the latter will take anybody committed at the time, recognizing that due to the spiritual fragility of human nature believers may stray and revert to old appetities but God's loving comitment will remain. that's what HaShem was teaching Israel when he had Hoshaia marry Gomer the prostitute [in the Trey Asar of the Nevi'im]. If a pimp, thief or murderer repents inside the privacy of his soul and desires a new start and chooses Christianity to start in, HaShem says in The Prophets of the Torah "a broken and contrite siprit I will not despise" and "if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life" which Yeshua says with "...those the Father (HaShem) has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them." If I read the Shulchan Aruch page of Torah.org correctly, it states "The Shulchan Aruch("Set Table") is a compendium of those areas of the halachah -- Jewish religious law -- that are applicable today.", implying some law is recognized as being not applicable and some is. This view Christians share, where law that transcends time and place applies today, and law that was specifically given for and pertinent to specific times, places or conditions is recognized for its historical-need value. *** Please believe me when I say there's no arrogance here, just joyful love for the love shown to us by HaShem and Yeshua the Messiah. *** May I conclude with The Aish Rabbi rabbi Shraga Simmons' answer to the question "If a Jew who believes in Jesus is he still a Jew?" ( -- He's at Aish HaTorah, One Western Wall Plaza, POB 14149, Old City, Jerusalem 91141 Israel [url=http://www.aish.com]www.aish.com[/url] ) His reply: [quote]*Jewishness is passed on via the mother. If the mother is Jewish, the child is 100% Jewish. This is true regardless of who the father is, and weather or not, and irregardless of weather the Jewish mother practiced another religion. That is the unwavering rule. At the same time, if someone's father is Jewish (but not the mother), then the child is 100% NOT Jewish. *Jewish identity passed on through the mother has been universally accepted by Jews for 3,000 years, and was decided by G-d. The rabbis and the people of Israel simply passed on the information from generation to generation. This is recorded in the Five Books of Moses in Deut. 7:3-4. The Talmud (Tractate Kiddushin, end of chapter 3) explains how this law is evident from those passages. The source and reason for why this is so , is due to the fact that the father's involvement in the embryo development and birth is minimal compared to the mother's - Deuteronomy 7:4: Talmud Kidushin 68b. *According to Jewish law, this will remain the person's status forever. There is no way one can lose his status as a Jew even if he thinks he has gone so far as to convert to another religion! If a person was born Jewish (i.e. born to a Jewish mother) or converted according to the Code of Jewish Law (i.e. acceptance of God, Torah, and to perform the mitzvot, Milah for males, and Mikvah) then the person will remain Jewish his entire life. There is absolutely nothing he can do to remove his status as a Jew, even if he forsakes Judaism and were to practice other religions. *The concept that a Jew can never loose his status as a Jew is found in the book of Joshua. There God declares that "Israel has sinned" (Joshua 7;11) due to a severe transgression done by the nation. The Talmud commenting on this verse writes, "Even though God says that Israel has sinned, he still calls them by the name "Israel." Thus the common expression- Even though a myrtle stands amongst a bunch of reeds - it is still called a myrtle!" (Talmud - Sanhedrin 44a) Similarly, even though a Jew would stand amongst a bunch of other idol worshippers, he still remains Jewish. *That's not to say that a Jew can't act like a non-Jew. Obviously if a Jew worships idols he is not acting "Jewish." He is, however, unquestionably himself a Jew.[/quote][b]Shalom, and Shaalu Shalom Yerushalayim[/b] [ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: lovesinger ]

[Danny M]

[quote]Originally posted by lovesinger: [b] Those who feel as you express will TOLERATE AND HIGHLY PRAISE Ozzy O. or any other Satan-praising artists for their patronizing, insulting, cajoling and suicide-encouraging proclamations and curses[/b][/quote] I have to yank this aside for a moment, and everyone will have to excuse my taking this out of context. First, if one wanted to concisely express my religious views, you would call me a Roman Catholic. There are points of contention that I have with the Church, but to keep this below several thousand words we'll leave further details out. Second, Ozzy Osbourne is not a Satan praiser, nor does he encourage suicide. These misconceptions stem from the dark music he is associated with, his bandmates and his own dabblings in the occult (which appear to have stopped), and a highly publicized and misinterpreted passage in "Suicide Solution." My proof: Ozzy repeatedly cries "God bless you all" to his fans on the live discs I have of both his own career ("Live and Loud") and the Black Sabbath reunion. If he's a Satan praiser, he isn't doing a very good job of it; he's enjoining the opposite side to do quite a bit of good. In most of the songs that I've heard, the devil is a thing to get away from as fast as possible. The lyrics in "Black Sabbath" include "No, no, please God help me!" This doesn't sound to me to be very pro-Satan at all. On Black Sabbath's "Master of Reality," Ozzy sings a song called "After Forever." Read the lyrics, and you'll find that the whole song seems to be sneering at those who've rejected God. (Not religion necessarily, just God.) This is on A BLACK SABBATH RECORD. Again, he's doing a really awful job of glorifying Satan by putting out material like this on a mass produced album. "Hand Of Doom" from Paranoid is practically a "Don't do heroin" campaign. Ozzy repeatedly denies that the alleged "hidden lyrics" on "Suicide Solution" are what his opponents claim them to be. He repeatedly claims that he was just "playing with the computer." I can, however, understand that some people might hear "Get the gun, get the gun, shoot, shoot, shoot..." during the passage in question. There's enough sonic information for a person who desperately wants to fabricate damning evidence to do so. As much as I hate to see Christianity and Catholicism bashed unfairly, I hate to see anything bashed unfairly. I've listened to a fair amount of Ozzy, and my family is still alive, I'm still here, all the birds outside the house have their heads intact, and I pray to the guy upstairs. Back on topic though, I agree with Lovesinger's contextual argument. A lot of hatred towards Christianity does seem to be simple anti-establishment feeling. If Satanism were the establishment, it would be getting railed against. -Danny

[MusicaL]

Hey Dave In short, you're correct: I have made up my mind a long time ago, but that doesn't mean that I am closed minded about other people's points of view since I have much to learn from you as well as others. I am not infallible and nowhere close to being perfect, or even knowledgeable and I continue to make many mistakes (hopefully in decreasing frequency, however.) I am on this forum discussing this thread for the same reasons you are, to learn through other thoughtful people... I did say that you "made up your mind" not because that was some sort of a put down, but rather because you said that the bottom line was that you did not believe... I suppose you are also saying that may be subject to change. Anyway, I do appreciate your comments and thoughts, and as I said earlier, you have legitimate questions. In fact I have questions too... I do not claim that everything about christianity can be grasped with the mind since we clearly are not able to grasp much with our limited abilities. There are things about christianity and GOD I do not understand and cannot explain in human terms... But, as you mentioned, there is nothing particularly difficult about that. No one knows everything about christianity. In fact, that is the same issue as the man tightroping over Niagra Falls: You may see and believe he can do it, but that doesn't mean you know everything about him. You have to (based upon his track record for telling the truth and his actions) accept certain other things he says about himself. As far as what other people said about what Jesus said, we're back to the issue of the accuracy of the historical record, and I guess we can agree to disagree on that issue. As far as taking the bible literally. It depends on the text. When Jesus uses allegory, I should take it as allegory but get the point of his message. When he says to love our God with all our hearts, mind and strength, I do take that literally. It's like any sort of speech or writing: context, context, context. However, my bottom line is that there is a knowable objective truth. If there isn't then let's stop talking about anything since no one will ever know that they're even talking!! See you on the Keyboard Forum :cool: ! Albert

[vintagevibe]

lovesinger, You are indeed a patronizing, narrow minded misguided soul who sadly may never know God. I truly feel sorry for you in your small dark world. Your eyes and heart are truly closed. Learn to think for yourself. Open your eyes, heart and mind to God's creation and you may stumble across some level of truth. If you wish to use Satan as a metaphore for evil then in your own terms you are truly Satan's tool although you may never realize it. I wish you luck.

[Magical Pig]

Blah, blah blah...everybody shut the fuck up (I mean that in the best possible way) and give each other a (virtual) hug. :p

[SFOracle]

I just want to correct an impression. I did not say that none of the Bible should be interpreted literally. I just said that you need to consider the historical and cultural context of the writers and apply an interpretation that give primary consideration to its application to the inital audience. Where the bible instructs on spiritual concepts it is both clear and authoritative, but it is not so reliable as a modern history or physics text book - it was never intended to be used as such in any age.

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by Danny M: [b]I have to yank this aside for a moment, and everyone will have to excuse my taking this out of context. First, if one wanted to concisely express my religious views, you would call me a Roman Catholic. There are points of contention that I have with the Church, but to keep this below several thousand words we'll leave further details out. Second, Ozzy Osbourne is not a Satan praiser, nor does he encourage suicide. These misconceptions stem from the dark music he is associated with, his bandmates and his own dabblings in the occult (which appear to have stopped), and a highly publicized and misinterpreted passage in "Suicide Solution." My proof: Ozzy repeatedly cries "God bless you all" to his fans on the live discs I have of both his own career ("Live and Loud") and the Black Sabbath reunion. If he's a Satan praiser, he isn't doing a very good job of it; he's enjoining the opposite side to do quite a bit of good. In most of the songs that I've heard, the devil is a thing to get away from as fast as possible. The lyrics in "Black Sabbath" include "No, no, please God help me!" This doesn't sound to me to be very pro-Satan at all. On Black Sabbath's "Master of Reality," Ozzy sings a song called "After Forever." Read the lyrics, and you'll find that the whole song seems to be sneering at those who've rejected God. (Not religion necessarily, just God.) This is on A BLACK SABBATH RECORD. Again, he's doing a really awful job of glorifying Satan by putting out material like this on a mass produced album. "Hand Of Doom" from Paranoid is practically a "Don't do heroin" campaign. Ozzy repeatedly denies that the alleged "hidden lyrics" on "Suicide Solution" are what his opponents claim them to be. He repeatedly claims that he was just "playing with the computer." I can, however, understand that some people might hear "Get the gun, get the gun, shoot, shoot, shoot..." during the passage in question. There's enough sonic information for a person who desperately wants to fabricate damning evidence to do so. As much as I hate to see Christianity and Catholicism bashed unfairly, I hate to see anything bashed unfairly. I've listened to a fair amount of Ozzy, and my family is still alive, I'm still here, all the birds outside the house have their heads intact, and I pray to the guy upstairs. Back on topic though, I agree with Lovesinger's contextual argument. A lot of hatred towards Christianity does seem to be simple anti-establishment feeling. If Satanism were the establishment, it would be getting railed against. -Danny[/b][/quote] Thanks for the partial empathic-support(?), Danny. On the other hand, no matter how much whitewashing of Ozzy's life, legacy and ministry (oh yeah, he's preachin !! believ dat! ) is attempted, there ain't enough bleach at Clorox to white that up. This'll be short _ and maybe my last on this thread. I've posted enough and shared facts and links the threads detractors weren't interested in investigating, though they demanded logic and evidence (uh huh, seen and heard that before lots). You don't seem to be naive, Danny. Do you REALLY think Ozzy is gonna TELL YOU what his true agenda is? C'mon. And if I were a wife-beater which would you believe, my saying "I love my wife and never hurt her", or my wife's bloodied face, broken ribs and multiple bruises? From t-shirt to stage tantrums, Oz has acknowledged the Satan he serves and encourages others to. Ozzy's "Mr. Crowley" was a lovestruck dedication to the ultra-Satan worshiper Aleister Crowley, whom Zeppelin's Jimmy Page likewise adored, bought his Crowley's house, and enshrines his memory. If I'm a death metal rocker and i want to lure your children to ONE damnable message, I'd be a strategic genius to use 10 other innocent-sounding, even Heaven-praise-sounding ones among them to do it. These things are recorded history now, decades old. It's hard to believe some are still buying the smokescreen party line of Ozzy and company. I don't try to have a high-profile forum presence here -- I just add in when a topic I need help on or am involved with comes up. But it has seemed (to my surprise) that one reason my posts on some threads have gotten more negative reply than many believers' from agnostics and various anti-religioners is that I often talk facts and data, and they don't want to deal with facts those because those are too likely to disprove their imagined man-made truths. They say they want logic and evidence, but they're satisfied arguing aimlessly into the air, attacking what has basically produced free civilizations and scientific advances galore, but offering nothing substantive in its place, and they don't realize the bottom line to our philosophies either kills people or saves people, helps people or hurts people, frees people or enslaves people. It doesn't take a tidal wave of Satan-born music to wreck a generation, just some key stars (and the one that grew up on death-and-satan-music is just starting adulthood by and large). Remember they did.t have to hit but one floor of the great WTC buildings to bring them down, and those weren't even down near the foundation. I'll leave this post, and this thread I guess, with this..from an archive of dozens of such incidents... [quote]In July 1995, three teenagers in California, who were members of a Death Metal band called Hatred and who were "fanatical Slayer fans," murdered 15-year-old Elyse Pahler as a Satanic sacrifice. The three were Royce Casey, Jacob Delashmutt, and Joseph Fiorella. As Pahler prayed to God and called out for her mother, they stabbed her at least 12 times and left her to bleed to death. They chose Pahler because "her blond hair and blue eyes and virginity made her a perfect sacrifice to the devil" (Scripps-McClatchy Western Service, San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, Feb. 21, 1997). When the chief investigator asked one of the teens why they committed such a deed, he replied that "it was to receive power from the devil to help them play the guitar better" so they could be able to "play crazier and harder" and "go professional." Two other teens associated with these three were convicted of murdering a 75-year-old woman. The murder of Elyse Pahler was unsolved for months until Casey came forward to the police and guided them to the body. He said he had "new found religious beliefs" and that he was afraid that the others would kill him if he distanced himself from them. Casey told the police that a lyric from the band Slayer warned, "If you're not with us, you may no longer exist."[/quote] I've been to some Ozzy fans' sites. A Google search will get you there. Seems THEY get the satan message. God Bless You All !!!

[Synthguy]

Quoting 'rold, "everything, no matter how large or small, has gravity. If it can be considered matter, it has a certain amount of gravity and that gravity attracts things to it. Hook up a few trillion dust partciles in the same frictionless space and they WILL pull together. It won't be spontaneous, but it will happen over time. Of course, the more it grows, the stronger its gravity, the more it will attract. That's scientific FACT." No, that isn't true. Solid particles at a low energy state will do that, liquid non-gasses might, but gasses in a vacuum will expand to fill the vacuum evenly. THAT is a scientific fact. A Big Bang would have produced almost nothing but hydrogen and radiation rushing out to fill all of space and time, that's a scientific fact too. Besides, Jupiter should have erupted into starhood billions of years ago, because the solar system environ is much denser than the primordial universe that supposedly birthed stars, and therefore it should have swept up more than enough matter to ignite. As for Dave, you're still talking in circles. Saying that there's no scientific principles to support the formation of stars now, but that's simply because we don't know enough of scientific principles to explain it is... like this. "I don't know what I'm talking about now, but in a few years I'll undoubtedly know more, so rest assured for all intents and purposes, I know what I'm talking about." We certainly know enough about the behavior of matter and the principles of gravity, otherwise we wouldn't have satellite networks or not long from now, Mars landings. As for the person who cried for a revelation of radiation, the only way I can see that is with the inclusion of more than a few intoxicants... Actually, none of this makes a lick of sense. You guys who disagreed with Christianity should have just ignored the thread rather than running in here to argue, when the thread had nothing at all to do with the subject, "Christians are right, everyone else is wrong." I think you guys need to go back and re-read the title of the thread. I swear, people, go figger. :D

[ViLo]

To Whom It May Concern: If you have doubts about the creation and other Christian Issues, ask GOD, HE ANSWERS!! if you ask, you will receive, forget about all the arguments, if you are sincere, HE WILL ANSWER. My 2 Pesos.

[Danny M]

[quote]Originally posted by lovesinger: [b] I've been to some Ozzy fans' sites. A Google search will get you there. Seems THEY get the satan message. God Bless You All !!![/b][/quote] Well, in my opinion, they're just latching on to key incidents and amplifying them. Just like the folks who accused Ozzy of putting those "hidden" lyrics into his songs, all they need is a few similar "sounds" and "words" to construct a massive wall of untruth and half-truth. Some of God's fan sites are quite the same way. As far as Ozzy's T-shirts and tantrums go, I have to admit that some of it is pretty strange and wild. However, my fellow Catholics and I do some pretty strange and wild things too. It all depends on your point of view, and whether you have all the facts. (I don't have all the facts on Ozzy, but I think he's pretty harmless to folks who understand that a lot of acting goes on in the heavy metal world. I'm not commenting on your intelligence, Lovesinger, just your understanding of a genre which you probably don't like anyway.) Hidden agendas... I have to disagree with you. Hiding your agenda doesn't work when using mass media. The whole point is to communicate something directly to people, which Ozzy isn't doing. Another thing to realize is that Ozzy was on hard drugs for a long period. You cannot think intelligently when on those substances. I'm willing to bet that a whole lot of the really off-the-wall occurrences with Ozzy have had more to do with substance abuse than conscious decisions. As to the Slayer-related (supposedly) incident... It's horrific. Unfortunately, you can't necessarily hold Slayer responsible for what those kids did. Their own consciences failed, and they are responsible, not Slayer. (I don't listen to Slayer, by the way. They DO make me uncomfortable.) I've heard several religion haters say that believing in Satan is an excuse for not being responsible for your actions. My belief (and the Catholic Church's) is that YOU are responsible for your actions. The man DOWNSTAIRS can only make suggestions, tempt you, and the like. He can't MAKE you do anything. Those kids chose their own path, which is blasted tragic and saddening. I'll end by saying that you can call me naive if you like. It won't change the fact that I think Ozzy is a relatively harmless actor who delves into dark subject matter quite a bit. (I always felt that "Mr. Crowley" was more of a song about curiosity than adulation.) It's all in the interpretation. (Just like the Bible!) -Danny

[Chip McDonald]

The only agenda Ozzy has is to act silly and have a good time. If Ozzy is a tool of Satan I don't think there is much to fear... ON THE OTHER HAND... There's this guy Joe, who writes all of this music you sometimes hear in churches.... real spooky music, spookier than Ozzy, used in horror movies all the time. This guy Joe used to go around and have sex with practically every woman in town, some as young as 15... sometimes even in a church. Had something like 13 kids I think it was. Despite that, his music is revered as an incarnation of God by some people. What was *his* agenda?

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by RobT: [b]I think that you are overlooking many musicians out there who are spiritually centered but may play all styles of music. I can think of quite a few who profess a spirituality, some even Christianity who could not be called pigeon-holed. Bassist John Pattitucci comes to mind (and I know there are others) who played with Scientologist Chick Corea.[/b][/quote] Actually, you're confused, RobT. You restated the most important point of my post. You don't have to sign with a Christian record company, and let them label you a Christian musician, to be spiritual and moral in your music. The second you DO allow that label to apply, you cut out many potential topics of songs because they wouldn't be considered Christian. I mixed sound for a pivotal sales meeting, when Brentwood Music bought Benson (1996?), and the two companies came together to determine how to continue. They had indie Christian label acts, as well as the distributor labels' acts that represented gospel, Christian R&B, Christian Rap, Christian Alternative, etc. The genre is no longer at issue. But don't tell me that a Christian Rap group can expect the label to release a product that is as raw and edgy as a secular label, on a potentially controversial topic. [quote]Originally posted by RobT: [b]I disagree. I think it may color your point of view but I don't think that it is limiting. There are many Christian songs written about all sorts of topics. Much like today genres in popular music there is Christian Rap, Hip Hop, Funk, Jazz, Blues and R n B styles. A lot of it may not make Christian top 40 or popular Christian radio but it is out there. RobT[/b][/quote] By definition it IS limiting. Once you're labeled, "Christian," no writing about sex, drugs, violence, regardless of the outcome. Now that seems pretty upstanding, until you realize that life throws some mean curves to many people, and the road to a good life isn't always pretty. Art of all kind has portrayed this side of life, sometimes in the name of changing things for the better. A song like, No Son Of Mine by Genesis, or The Thunder Rolls by Garth Brooks, would never be acceptable for a Christian artist. Hell, Garth received a LOT of flak for TTR, because the implication is that the scorned wife kills her husband in a fit of rage. It's a wonderful artistic representation of a possible consequence of the husband's infidelity. It's also unavailable to a Christian artist. But how about an artist who is Christian/spiritual? I believe that describes Garth Brooks.

[Uh Clem]

[quote]Originally posted by lovesinger: [b] quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by stevepow: 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.... blah, blah, blah... just ignore out the wackos (they're in everything, not just religion) in the faith they criticise and check out the proof.[/b][/quote] Now you are just rambling, or spewing. Pretty funny stuff though. Who said that anyway and how [i]did[/i] they compute those odds? I see you did brush up on your logic - "After a few hours with Venn diagrams and their validation principles, categorical syllogisms, truth tables, fallacious arguments in their multitudinous variations, truth trees" - sounds fun. And the Latin was impressive - at any rate, I'm not assuming that your conclusion is false even though it proceeds from an invalid argument - I'm just saying that your arguments are not well constructed, and the premises are typically conjecture. If you want to explain that aspect in Latin, that is fine. What does [b]'rold[/b] say?...Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. (Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.) And possibly you are patronizing as some have posited - what's with the "sir" thing? That's not necessary - has your love been diminished thru these tedious ramblings. "Just ignore [sic]out the wackos..." - right, I'll get right on that.

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b] By definition it IS limiting. Once you're labeled, "Christian," no writing about sex, drugs, violence, regardless of the outcome. Now that seems pretty upstanding, until you realize that life throws some mean curves to many people, and the road to a good life isn't always pretty. Art of all kind has portrayed this side of life, sometimes in the name of changing things for the better. [/b][/quote] Gonnoreah on Valentine's Day (VD) and you're still looking for the perfect lay You think rock 'n roll will set you free Honey, you'll be dead before you're thirty three... - Larry Norman "Why Don't You Look Into Jesus" [img]http://www.freakygamers.com/smilies/s2/contrib/navigator/usa.gif[/img] Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://www.ssrstudio.com pokeefe777@ssrstudio.com

[Rog]

Yes, Sorry Lovesinger, I meant patronising :) I guess this thread could run until everyone got bored of trying to win an argument when no-one will give an inch (what? everyone is bored already?) :D Anyway, religion seems to me to be primarily a product of a basic human need which has evolved. Back in the mists of time one guy in a tribe, eager to gain kudos, told everyone he could manipulate the enviroment in order to make the crops grow. This scheme worked fine for a while until the crops failed one year and he got strung up by the rest of the tribe for ruining the harvest. One other guy in the tribe noticed this and came up with a neat idea: he wouldn't claim to control the crops but he could talk to the spirits who actually made them grow. This was a great idea ... no stringing up, he got gifts from the rest of the tribe and he got his hands on the best mud hut as well. When things didn't go so well he claimed that the tribe hadn't given enough offerings to the spirits. Soon this meme began to spread like wildfire to other tribes and so a belief system and a codification of the the deities began. Soon spirits became Gods and they all had a name, a backstory and they all demanded offerings. Also, all the stuff the guys (witch doctors, shamen, whatever) had invented over the years started getting written down so that new guys could get their facts right and continue the scam. This worked out quite nicely, the guys running the show called themselves priests and had the rest of the population build magnificent temples to the Gods, they got ornate robes and never did a day's hard work in the fields. However, somewhere along the line things got changed around. What started as a way of gaining kudos changed until the priests often started to believe they were the only people able to communicate to the deities, they swallowed their own cover story, so to speak. Soon after, they began to make this shit really complicated, as they had a lot of time of their hands what with being men of God. They started inventing concepts such as Hell ... which then introduced a very real stick with which to beat the population with. Everybody did as they were told, the Preists had all the money and power and everything was right with the world. Things have become a little more complicated since but not a lot more complicated. I hope this shows that religion is evolutionary ... people invented the idea and subsequently refined it into such high-flown and powerful memes as Islam and Catholicism and whilst they still exist, they will continue to evolve. I'm not saying religion is all bad, the centralised power and some of the rules inforced by the priests served the tribes well in keeping them together and on the straight and narrow. :)

[Empty Planet]

Hilarious and sad and everything in between, this thread. One comment I'll make, though, and I believe it has the virtue of being dead down the middle of both sides. Sorry if it was addressed elsewhere here, but I haven't the strength or the desire to read all these posts rehashing this ancient and tedious psychological mishmosh. It has to do with the provability of the Big Bang (a term coined, ironically enough, by a person attempting to debunk the idea). If any of you are having difficulty with this concept, you need to bone up on your reading. Seriously. Come on into the 20TH century, why don't you? Early 20th century, to be more specific. The fact that the universe is expanding is not just some bond-headed theory, it has actually been shown unequivocally to be the case through a wide variety of highly verifiable and repeatable observations -- observations that you can perform yourself if you're willing to invest in the gear. Honest. If it's expanding into a "larger" state, it must have, at one point, been "smaller." You can take it from there. Why is this down the middle? Easy. YOU get to decide who did the banging! Fun, huh?! God if you like; could also be the latest oscillation in a Hindu rebirth sort of thing; and you know it could just maybe be something well beyond the current reach of our puny and pathetic intellects. IMHO, people get trapped by metaphor. IMHO, it's the principles that religions try to teach that are important, not the parables by which those principles are communicated. Unless, of course, it's not really about love and all that. If we search for the principles being communicated, I actually believe we can actually find agreement in this hideous mishmosh. If a person learns a little bit about how to love another human being a little bit better, does it really really matter so much whether he learned it from a dude named Jesus or a weirdo named Baghwan Sree Rajneesh, or whether either of the stories used to communicate that lesson really happened in space/time? Is God some cigar-chewing Col. Parker type who's only concern is that we spell the name right? Is it about learning lessons or is it about "proving" who's right? I'm ridiculous. Why the hell am I contributing to this absurd exercise in futility? "Still a man he hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." I'm a ninny. Disprove THAT, if you will. :p

[RobT]

[quote]Originally posted by pokeefe777@msn.com: [b] Gonnoreah on Valentine's Day (VD) and you're still looking for the perfect lay You think rock 'n roll will set you free Honey, you'll be dead before you're thirty three... - Larry Norman "Why Don't You Look Into Jesus" [img]http://www.freakygamers.com/smilies/s2/contrib/navigator/usa.gif[/img] Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://www.ssrstudio.com pokeefe777@ssrstudio.com[/b][/quote] Thanks pokeefe777. I know that there are others. A1-Swift is a pretty hard hitting Christian rap group. I wish I had the lyric sheet in front of me. I still don't think the label Christian is limiting. fantasticsound may have a point with the record label/A&R staff attempting to put limits on the artist. I think the genre itself is as rich as any other. RobT

[Dave Bryce]

[quote]Originally posted by synthguy: [b]As for Dave, you're still talking in circles. [/b][/quote] [i]I'm[/i] talking in circles? Please... :rolleyes: I started my posts here by asking a series of questions in order to illustrate why I have doubt. Apart from SFOracle's informative post on how the Bible is supposed to be interpreted, pretty much all of the commentary directed at me has managed to avoid those questions. Okay, for the sake of argument, let's avoid the Adam and Eve/Cain and Abel question, and say that the Bible is vague and allegorical on these points. Fine. I'm still interested in the answer to this one: [quote]Originally posted by Dave Bryce: [b]One more...the dinosaurs - what's the deal there? One gentleman told me that dinosaur bones/ fossils were created by Satan to shake man's faith in God and the Creation. Is this a commonly held response to this question?[/b][/quote] Did y'all miss this question? Tedster didn't. He responded: [quote] [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. Of course, according to the fossil record, humans didn't appear for millions of years after the dinosaurs became extinct, but could it be possible that, just as today, fossil skeletons became apparent even then? Who knows? I sure don't. [/b][/quote] Is that the extent of the responses to this question? Some acknowledgement of huge beasts in the book of Job? C'mon guys - let me hear what you think. Science commonly holds that the dinosaurs were around for a whole bunch of time millions of years before anything even resembling a human walked this planet. Is this just plain wrong? How do you account for all them bones in the museums? Are paleontologists just misguided morons? So - where do dinosaurs fit into your belief system? dB