CHRISTIAN ARTIST ARRESTED
Emily Fentress
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=010302_Ne_b13chri
By NICOLE MARSHALL World Staff Writer
3/2/01
A member of the band Raze is charged with rape, sodomy and molestation.
Police arrested a member of the Christian rock band Raze on molestation
charges Thursday immediately following the group's first concert in a
planned
30-city tour.
Charged with five counts of lewd molestation, three counts of rape by
instrumentation and three counts of forcible sodomy, 25-year-old Ja'Marc
Antoine Davis was jailed in lieu of $550,000 bail.
Raze members Ja'Marc, Mizzie, Donnie and Todd, who are known professionally
by
only their first names, are the scheduled headliners for the Amazing Pop
Invasion Tour, which kicked off Thursday at Tulsa's Brady Theater and also
features other Christian artists. Detective Chris Witt said Davis was
arrested
offstage at the Brady Theater about 10 p.m.
The Tulsa band is known in its genre for its high-energy dance and pop
hip-hop
style.
The charges accuse Davis of having a sexual relationship with a former
back-up
dancer for the group starting when she was 13 years old and he was 22, an
arrest affidavit shows.
The alleged relationship reportedly lasted more than a year, Officer Lucky
Lamons said. The sexual relationship with the girl occurred during 1998 and
1999, police said.
Davis met the victim and her family through their church. The family asked
Davis to tutor the girl, her sister and her brother, who also had a
Christian-based music group, according to the affidavit.
In the spring of 1998, the victim and her sister traveled as back-up dancers
with Raze to Yuma, Ariz., San Diego, as well as to Europe for dates in
Slovakia. While in Slovakia, Davis allegedly kissed the 13-year-old, but the
sexual relationship reportedly did not start until the summer, according to
the affidavit.
The affidavit says the girl told police that she had sexual contact 15 to 20
times with Davis during their relationship. The acts reportedly occurred at
his residence, the girl's home and in his car, police records show.
The investigation revealed that in June 1999, Davis told a friend who is the
executive director of his Christian youth ministry about the consensual
sexual
contact with the girl and two other girls. The other girls were 16, police
said -- old enough by law to consent to the acts.
The ministry's board of directors met, and Davis allegedly told them about
the
relationship, according to the affidavit.
A few days later, the victim told a pastor at her church that she and Davis
had a sexual relationship, records show. In a later meeting with leaders of
that church, Davis allegedly talked about the relationships and said, "It's
unfortunate that the girls were so young," the affidavit states.
All of the people Davis re portedly talked to about the relationship are
listed on court records as potential witnesses.
During an interview with detectives, Davis reportedly told police that he
had
an "intimate" relationship with the victim, according to the affidavit.
Lamons said the case was stalled for more than a year but that charges were
filed after new evidence became available and additional interviews were
conducted.
Due to the late hour of the arrest, it was not immediately clear what would
become of the group's tour.
Raze's debut release, "Power," sold more than 150,000 copies and garnered
Raze
the Dove Award in the category of Dance/Rap/Hip-Hop.
Raze released its second album, "The Plan," nationwide on Nov. 7 and won a
Spot Music Award that same month.
Group members have promoted the "Get With It" campaign in the nation's
schools
in an attempt to teach positive alternatives to sex, drugs, violence and
peer
pressure.
Nicole Marshall, World staff writer, can be reached at 581-8459 or via e-
mail
at nicole....@tulsaworld.com.
Emily Fentress
donot...@interbulletin.bogus
>In a later meeting with leaders of that church, Davis allegedly
>talked about the relationships and said, "It's unfortunate that
>the girls were so young," the affidavit states.
To Eddie DeGarmo and John Styll:
Can we talk?
Sincerely,
Kurt Evans
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
the nonconformist
Emily Fentress <ala_...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3AA2...@MailAndNews.com...
<snipped>
Ouch...one of my new faves. too.
Taking this up in prayer...
--
==== Josh Marihugh ==== NP:
"I often wonder if religion is the enemy of God.
It's almost like religion is what happens when the Spirit
has left the building." -- Bono (U2)
Jason Steiner
> From Tulsa World:
>
> http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=010302_Ne_b13chri
>
> By NICOLE MARSHALL World Staff Writer
> 3/2/01
>
> A member of the band Raze is charged with rape, sodomy and
> molestation. Police arrested a member of the Christian rock band
> Raze on molestation charges Thursday immediately following the
> group's first concert in a planned
> 30-city tour.
>
> Charged with five counts of lewd molestation, three counts of rape
> by instrumentation and three counts of forcible sodomy, 25-year-old
> Ja'Marc Antoine Davis was jailed in lieu of $550,000 bail.
BAHAHA!
> Davis met the victim and her family through their church. The
> family asked Davis to tutor the girl, her sister and her brother,
> who also had a Christian-based music group, according to the
> affidavit.
Oh, that is too good. Sorta' like the Focus on the Family guy who
was recently convicted for molesting a boy he was "mentoring". Why?
Because his mother heard on Focus that boys raised without fathers
had a high incidence of homosexuality...
jason
--
"As we all know, the devil has the best tunes." - Michael York
Bob Weigel
Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
>Emily Fentress <ala_...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
>> From Tulsa World:
>>
>> http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=010302_Ne_b13chri
>>
>> By NICOLE MARSHALL World Staff Writer
>> 3/2/01
>>
>> A member of the band Raze is charged with rape, sodomy and
>> molestation. Police arrested a member of the Christian rock band
>> Raze on molestation charges Thursday immediately following the
>> group's first concert in a planned
>> 30-city tour.
>>
>> Charged with five counts of lewd molestation, three counts of rape
>> by instrumentation and three counts of forcible sodomy, 25-year-old
>> Ja'Marc Antoine Davis was jailed in lieu of $550,000 bail.
>
>BAHAHA!
It's nice to see confused people can laugh at each other. Since all
your standards come from a rather arbitrary place Jason, I wonder
what crime you'll be found in when you think nobody is looking? Hmm,
Jason gets his standards from:
1) Law books, which take a lifetime to study, and were written by other
men who made them up based on something possibly arbitrary or perverse?
2) His own perfect nature?
3) His dog?
4) Reading the newsgroups?
I dunno. Fill us in there Jason. I've asked this question many
times over the years and I'm still a little fuzzy. Hehehe.
>
>> Davis met the victim and her family through their church. The
>> family asked Davis to tutor the girl, her sister and her brother,
>> who also had a Christian-based music group, according to the
>> affidavit.
>
>Oh, that is too good. Sorta' like the Focus on the Family guy who
>was recently convicted for molesting a boy he was "mentoring". Why?
>Because his mother heard on Focus that boys raised without fathers
>had a high incidence of homosexuality...
Your point? It's all "sorta' like" the fact that man is sinful
and hopelessly lost with something BETTER than they options you
afford yourself without the life of the creator living in you.
-Bob
Peter T. Chattaway
: Emily Fentress <ala_...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
: > Charged with five counts of lewd molestation, three counts of rape by
: > instrumentation and three counts of forcible sodomy, 25-year-old
: > Ja'Marc Antoine Davis was jailed in lieu of $550,000 bail.
What, dare I ask, is "rape by instrumentation"? Is this something only
musicians can be charged with?
: > Davis met the victim and her family through their church. The family
: > asked Davis to tutor the girl, her sister and her brother, who also
: > had a Christian-based music group, according to the affidavit.
:
: Oh, that is too good. Sorta' like the Focus on the Family guy who was
: recently convicted for molesting a boy he was "mentoring". Why? Because
: his mother heard on Focus that boys raised without fathers had a high
: incidence of homosexuality...
Hadn't heard that one yet. Got a source?
--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------------------ pet...@interchg.ubc.ca ---
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Unveiled face
What Ja'Marc did was wrong... there's no question about that... but if he
repents... God will forgive him. So let's lift him up in prayer!
-DAVID-
David Murray (SG Fan)
news:3AA2...@MailAndNews.com...
>
> http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=010302_Ne_b13chri
>
> By NICOLE MARSHALL World Staff Writer
> 3/2/01
>
> A member of the band Raze is charged with rape, sodomy and molestation.
> Police arrested a member of the Christian rock band Raze on molestation
> charges Thursday immediately following the group's first concert in a
> planned
> 30-city tour.
>
> Charged with five counts of lewd molestation, three counts of rape by
> instrumentation and three counts of forcible sodomy, 25-year-old Ja'Marc
> Antoine Davis was jailed in lieu of $550,000 bail.
I was just wondering if there would be those who would be offended if
someone now referred to Davis as a "nigger" (provisionally assuming there is
guilt, of course, which he appears to have admitted). If he had been a
member of a NC mountain bluegrass group, "redneck" would be used pretty
freely in describing him (in the stereotypical sense of _Deliverance_). I
wouldn't complain about that usage, although I happen to be a southern white
male with a thick accent of my own and jokingly refer to myself and friends
as "rednecks."
Or is the word "nigger" so offensive that it can't be applied to a forcible
sodomizing, lewd molesting rapist (by instrumentation) who happens to be
black?
I have no idea what provoked that thought. It just popped into my mind. I
guess the dichotomy of what's "PC" offends me sometimes.
--
David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@deletethisrfci.net
http://rfci.net/dbmurray/
http://www.musicscribe.com/
Making hay while the sun shines!
OrificeMonster
Bob Weigel
article that should make us sick into a thread that causes
one to double over in laughter.... I guess we can pray
the girl has learned to choose her friends with the spirit's
help and won't hold bitterness against God for something that
had she been listening to his voice I'm sure would have been
avoided, and that the person perpetrating it will truly repent.
Meanwhile, David, your mere mention of the word has probably
turned off more people to the gospel than the very act itself!
People who, had you not said the "n" word would be eagerly
wanting to hear the truth....oh but you HAD to sa the "n" word
didn't you? Hehehe. There's this really hot keyboard player
here I got to spend some time talking with the other day. Every
time he comes into the music store (he's mexican) he says hi
to everyone with "Yo, my nigger!" then gives a gang like bang
your fists on top of each other handshake substitute. I never
talked to him about how it might be taken, and instead talked
to him about more relevant things because I know none of it is
a personal agenda, but rather a joke to him. Sunday we went
right on to talk about things that he received and I believe the
Lord is really working on his life. Different strokes for
different ....folks.... or whatever. -Bob
In article <I1ao6.5089$lj4.1...@news6.giganews.com>,
aufan-deux
Warnke....
--
aufan-deux
Emily Fentress <ala_...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3AA2...@MailAndNews.com...
David Murray (SG Fan)
news:97s0hm$8ro$1...@iac5.navix.net...
> I wonder if we Christians will be quicker to forgive him than we were Mike
> Warnke....
Davis has committed no sin against me, nor against the fans of Raze, nor
against Christian in general. I can't be "quicker" at forgiving someone who
hasn't sinned against me. If I say I forgive someone who never sinned
against me in the first place, what's the point of that?
I'd like to see him get a nice long sentence if the facts turn out to match
the allegations. Perhaps then, the actual victims of his sins will be able
to forgive him and get on with their lives.
aufan-deux
David Murray (SG Fan) <dbmurrayd...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:rqgo6.2930$E57.1...@news4.aus1.giganews.com...
> aufan-deux <au...@xpipeline.com> wrote in message
> news:97s0hm$8ro$1...@iac5.navix.net...
> > I wonder if we Christians will be quicker to forgive him than we were
Mike
> > Warnke....
>
> Davis has committed no sin against me, nor against the fans of Raze, nor
> against Christian in general. I can't be "quicker" at forgiving someone
who
> hasn't sinned against me. If I say I forgive someone who never sinned
> against me in the first place, what's the point of that?
er...yeah. *That* was my point...
--
aufan-deux
Peter T. Chattaway
: I wonder if we Christians will be quicker to forgive him than we were
: Mike Warnke....
Only if he's quicker to repent than Mike Warnke has been, I guess.
BTW, wasn't one of the original members of Whiteheart charged with child
molestation or pedophilia or some such thing, way back when? ISTR reading
about this in the back issues of some magazine or other while attending
Bible school in '87-'88. Oh, wait, here's what Google turned up:
http://www.whiteheart.com/whfaq.txt
Okay, so Scott Douglas wasn't an *original* member -- he took over vocals
after Steve Green left, and sang only on _Vital Signs_ and _Hotline_.
Peter T. Chattaway
: Davis has committed no sin against me, nor against the fans of
: Raze . . .
Well, that second part is debatable.
the nonconformist
Peter T. Chattaway <pet...@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010303...@inch.interchange.ubc.ca...
> BTW, wasn't one of the original members of Whiteheart charged with child
> molestation or pedophilia or some such thing, way back when? ISTR reading
> about this in the back issues of some magazine or other while attending
> Bible school in '87-'88. Oh, wait, here's what Google turned up:
>
> http://www.whiteheart.com/whfaq.txt
>
> Okay, so Scott Douglas wasn't an *original* member -- he took over vocals
> after Steve Green left, and sang only on _Vital Signs_ and _Hotline_.
>
And if you only believed what Dial-the-Truth wrote
(http://www.av1611.org/crock.html) you'd think he was still a member.
--
==== Josh Marihugh ==== NP: Third Day _Offerings_
Audio111
>repents... God will forgive him. So let's lift him up in prayer!
Let us us lift up his victim in prayer as well.
Steve
www.glasshammer.com
Bruce Carter
perveted beyond words?! Placing "instruments" into the reproductive
system of a girl? This is apalling, almost as potentially harmful as
the forced female circumcision in Arab countries! To save the
reproductive health of women he will contact in the future - see to
that his sick lusts are completely eliminated!
Bob Weigel
aufan-deux <au...@xpipeline.com> wrote:
>I wonder if we Christians will be quicker to forgive him than we were Mike
>Warnke....
>
>--
Mike threatened to sue before his exposure. Did he really repent? I
hope so. But he pretty much just picked up business as usual with
the same crew. Did they all repent too? Or do they need to be confronted
and threaten to sue too before they finally buckle and go "Ok, I'LLL repnt
or repent if you insist!". The heart is deceptive and wicked above all
things, and who can know it? Not I. On the other hand I must wonder
how this phenomena happens. If I'd been Mike and had really repented
I'd have blown up my organization that was founded on corruption and
moved on.
This world offers security to us. The Christian bookstores, in
order to preserve their image, had to sacrifice Mike. It had nothing
to do with whether he had repented or not. It was the business thing
to do. A major publication had turned him into a scandal. His name
was a black mark on their shelves. Meanwhile, others comitted sins
that affected their product less; Amy, Sandi, Michael English and they
were dealt with as good business sense would dictate. Any idiot can
see that. Are they going to pull Amy? Not too likely. Maybe move
her to a less exposed place, but they will not forfeight sales of
that volume as long as they can think of a loophole to argue that
it might all be justifiable. I hear Gary did have drug problems ya know?
Anyway, I don't care what they pull and what they don't. I hope
all those that wonder what they should do keep the rapists on the
shelves so that people can get a perspective, and know that just
because it says "christian" doens't mean they sell products that
are necessarily made by people who immitate Christ. And it's all
just a phony show for the most part. And that's what people
want. That's what the snobby insecure people of this planet are
willing to pay for. A show. A phony. (*Not saying ALL people
are, just saying there ARE those who are and this is what they
are willing to pay for. :-) )
Great article Kurt. maybe they'll listen to the spirit now
as I believe they did many years ago before the fame game. I
wrote a song and produced it in a van at about zero degrees many
years ago that was on a tape I gave a friend back here before I
moved to Montana. (One of General McCullogh's ancestors you
history buffs. :-) There's a song by someone making reference
to him in curses a guy plays at work now and then.) Anyway,
my song expressed a lot of things that came in my one and only
interaction with Dana. I never saw Eddie though our old band
tried to sign on forfront back in the early 90's and Sutton
the lead vox talked to him some. But after a concert here, I felt
led to wait until the lines started to die down to talk to Dana
and just try to encourage him and thank him for the way he'd
been used to minister to me. It was so strange. Right as I
walked up and our eyes made contact (starting to sound like
a Kurt story, I know... :-) ) he got this look of fear on
his face and whirled around and left what he was doing. He
was content to sit there signing autographs for these kids
who knew nothing about the whole thing, but something in me
seemed to cause him to bolt out of there. I had sensed strongly
the whole show that it had all become just that. A show. There
is a security that one can want to preserve even in so called
ministry. I didn't want to judge him. I just wanted to talk
to him as a friend. So that if there is a problem, a friend
can maybe "wound" us in the right direction anyway. I really
believe that has been Kurt's heart as well in this whole thing
and regardless of what any of the rest of you might think, I
believe you will see that God will use this whole episode to
stir some people back to their first love, and to get unstuck
from their ways. (And maybe even start making decent music
again...that's always a side benefit. :-) ) -Bob
Bob Weigel
we are all part of. Therefore, if one part of the body hurts I hurt.
If I hurt, then that's a sin against me. -Bob
In article <Pine.GSO.4.21.010303...@inch.interchange.ubc.ca>,
Bob Weigel
So, these people ARE still poking around eh? FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD>
1) I received unsolicited mail from Terry about a year ago.
2) I attempted to ask them why they were spamming me and got ignored.
Again and again.
3) I wrote in their guesbook finally, not believing what i was
when I went to their web page. I think they removed the guestbook
after that or at least I couldn't find it.
4) I attempted to get the webmaster to tell me what association
this spammer was to them, and to reason about their un biblical
stands. (And internal conflict. On one hand they claim Christian
Rock is of the devil..on the other hand they quote Steve Camp. :-) )
Anyway, just FYI. These people spam and then put you on ignore.
Go figure. Treat them as heathen. I can produce the mail if anyone
wants to witness the initial spam which confused me greatly. (telling
me I NEEDED to read this bullshit article by Oswald Crinklpot [head].)
PERHAPS if these people would ANSWER their mail and reason with
people IN KEEPING WITH THE COMMAND TO BE IMMITATORS OF GOD ( who says
"come, let us reason") they wouldn't be exposed in their folly on this
day. Do ya think? Bad examples. Don't do as the pharisees do. -Bob
In article <97sv5m$3ahk$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
donot...@interbulletin.bogus
>of rape by instrumentation and three counts of forcible
>sodomy, 25-year-old Ja'Marc Antoine Davis was jailed in
>
>The charges accuse Davis of having a sexual relationship
>with a former back-up dancer for the group starting when
>
>The investigation revealed that in June 1999, Davis told
>a friend who is the executive director of his Christian
>youth ministry about the consensual sexual contact with
>the girl and two other girls. The other girls were 16,
>
>In a later meeting with leaders of that church, Davis
>allegedly talked about the relationships and said, "It's
"Ja'Marc came forward two years ago and made us aware
of a need for restoration... Raze will go on and the tour
will go on." --Teresa Davis, president of Paradigm Management
(Ja'Marc's sister-in-law)
"Don't bet on it." --Kurt Evans
"I'm at a place in my life that I'm ready to find
a wife, and I have no restrictions on age." --Ja'Marc,
(to the *police*)
While you're looking, Ja'Marc, maybe it would
be best to hold off on the lewd molestation, rape by
instrumentation, and forcible sodomy. Stuff like that
will probably just fog up your good judgment.
Speaking of good judgment, how are Eddie DeGarmo
and Stacie Orrico's father doing these days?
Pimps.
Somehow realizing my instincts were right all along
isn't producing the joy one might expect.
At Jesus' mercy,
Kurt Evans
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:evans...@hotmail.com&filter=0
&num=100
Jason Steiner
'Cause y'know you want to have more child molesters in heaven!
Bruce Carter
So far they have ignored me - which tells me they either think I am
not worth spamming or they are scared stiff because I have their
arguments answered. Either way, I am glad I am not hearing from them.
David Murray (SG Fan)
Peter T. Chattaway <pet...@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010303...@inch.interchange.ubc.ca...
> : Davis has committed no sin against me, nor against the fans of
> : Raze . . .
>
> Well, that second part is debatable.
OK, maybe a few certain (likely "former") fans.
Unveiled face
>Steve
Yes!!! Most definitly!
-DAVID-
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Peter T. Chattaway <pet...@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>> Charged with five counts of lewd molestation, three counts of rape by
>>> instrumentation and three counts of forcible sodomy, 25-year-old
>>> Ja'Marc Antoine Davis was jailed in lieu of $550,000 bail.
>What, dare I ask, is "rape by instrumentation"? Is this something only
>musicians can be charged with?
I dunno, but it brings to mind lots of old stories I heard about Led
Zeppelin...
JRjr
--
%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%% www.prism.gatech.edu/~vapspwi %%%%%%%%%%%
"Some will shake off the sloth of faithlessness
While others simply languish in their sleep
Me, I just fight to stay awake..." -- VOL, "Black Cloud O'er Me"
Mr Gumboot
Yeah, I was in the process of putting together a Christian Rock
Apologetics site last summer. I e-mailed both DTTM and John Beardsley, and
told them I intended to use their articles unless they told me otherwise.
At least Mr Beardsley replied, although it was mostly to spout off at me,
and he never actually told me I couldn't use his articles (he did tell me
never to speak to him again, which was very Christlike, I thought).
Now DTTM, on the other hand, have had nearly 7 months to reply. I haven't
had my mail bounce back, so it definitely arrived. And until they tell me
I can't use their article...
Graham
--
"Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana." - Groucho Marx
McGovern
>
> the allegations. Perhaps then, the actual victims of his sins will be able
> to forgive him and get on with their lives.
>
So, forgiveness should occur once he receives punishment? I know
that's prolly not what you meant, but it sounded weird.
McGovern
>
> To Eddie DeGarmo and John Styll:
>
> Can we talk?
>
So Kurt, are you insinuating that Styll and DeGarmo *knew* about
Davis' deplorable deeds? I would bet they didn't. DeGarmo isn't even
with ForeFront anymore, and what responsibility does John Styll have
in this matter, other than to report the news after the fact?
McGovern
>
> Now DTTM, on the other hand, have had nearly 7 months to reply. I haven't
> had my mail bounce back, so it definitely arrived. And until they tell me
> I can't use their article...
Gumboot, I wouldn't hesitate to quote their site w/o permission. They
freely use the articles of other magazines. I asked ol' Terry about
his copyright infringement and misquoting artists (from articles *I*
had written in HM). He didn't answer that question, but told me I
should be ashamed of myself, working for a Christian rock magazine.
Later, when I went back to the site, there was a disclaimer that said
artist quotes fell under the "fair use" clause. I guess "fair use"
means "inaccurate & out of context."
This is a little off topic, but you might wanna try: www.itraceyou.com
If you want to verify that a recipient has indeed read an email you
sent them, you can send an email through this company's server, which
embeds a very small, invisible GIF file (whose IMG SRC tag calls back
to their server). When the message is read, the GIF is loaded from
their server, alerting them that the message has been read, and an
email is sent to you, letting you know when the email was read.
Unfortunately, it only works if the recipient's email client can
handle html...
Susan Laxton
news:3aa43cac...@news.mindspring.com...
> Castrate him!!! Does anybody care that his sexual fetishes are
> perveted beyond words?! Placing "instruments" into the reproductive
> system of a girl? This is apalling, almost as potentially harmful as
> the forced female circumcision in Arab countries! To save the
> reproductive health of women he will contact in the future - see to
> that his sick lusts are completely eliminated!
Removing a man's testicles and penis DO NOT prevent that person from having
"sick lusts." This may come as a surprise, but rape and sexual abuse are
crimes of violence, and very rarely crimes of lust.
Sexual crimes can (and very often are) committed with all manner of objects
besides penises.
If we take away a man's penis, he'll be even MORE angry than he was before
he committed the crime. Without removing him from society, we run a huge
risk of him committing the same crime, but with a different object.
Also, what should we do with female sex offenders? There's plenty out
there.
java...@mac.com
"evans...@hotmail.com" <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote:
> Somehow realizing my instincts were right all along
> isn't producing the joy one might expect.
That's perhaps because your "instincts" appear to come from
self-centeredness, self-aggrandizement, and more than likely, self-loathing.
I guess you missed this part of I Corinthinas 13:
5. [Love] is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it
keeps no record of wrongs. 6. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices
with the truth.
the nonconformist
McGovern <mai...@mugoven.com> wrote in message
news:3AA3C0F9...@mugoven.com...
> Mr Gumboot wrote:
> >
> > Now DTTM, on the other hand, have had nearly 7 months to reply. I
haven't
> > had my mail bounce back, so it definitely arrived. And until they tell
me
> > I can't use their article...
>
> Gumboot, I wouldn't hesitate to quote their site w/o permission. They
> freely use the articles of other magazines. I asked ol' Terry about
> his copyright infringement and misquoting artists (from articles *I*
> had written in HM). He didn't answer that question, but told me I
> should be ashamed of myself, working for a Christian rock magazine.
> Later, when I went back to the site, there was a disclaimer that said
> artist quotes fell under the "fair use" clause. I guess "fair use"
> means "inaccurate & out of context."
Yeah, and they stole my CCM covers list to augment their own, without
credit. I wouldn't have cared, but I woulda at least liked a link.
--
==== Josh Marihugh ==== NP: Last nights 20 countdown...taped it to get a
coupla acoustic radio versions I never could find on Napster
the nonconformist
evans...@hotmail.com <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote in message
news:3AA2C3A2...@interbulletin.com...
> Speaking of good judgment, how are Eddie DeGarmo
> and Stacie Orrico's father doing these days?
>
> Pimps.
>
> Somehow realizing my instincts were right all along
> isn't producing the joy one might expect.
OK, Kurt, you've just produced a first for me. Seems maybe I shoulda done
what rose and others did ages ago.
*plonk*
--
==== Josh Marihugh ==== NP:
"I often wonder if religion is the enemy of God.
donot...@interbulletin.bogus
>>To Eddie DeGarmo and John Styll: Can we talk?
"McGovern" <mai...@mugoven.com> replied:
>So Kurt, are you insinuating that Styll and DeGarmo
>*knew* about Davis' deplorable deeds?
No, I really wanted to talk to them.
>DeGarmo isn't even with ForeFront anymore ...
He was Executive Vice President of A&R when
Raze was signed.
>and what responsibility does John Styll have in this
>matter, other than to report the news after the fact?
For starters, he has a responsibility to explain
the accountability mechanisms of *CCM*, apologize to
his readers, and take steps to reduce the likelihood
of something like this happening again.
Sincerely,
Kurt
java...@mac.com
"evans...@hotmail.com" <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote:
> I'd written:
>>> To Eddie DeGarmo and John Styll: Can we talk?
>
> "McGovern" <mai...@mugoven.com> replied:
>> So Kurt, are you insinuating that Styll and DeGarmo
>> *knew* about Davis' deplorable deeds?
>
> No, I really wanted to talk to them.
>
>> DeGarmo isn't even with ForeFront anymore ...
>
> He was Executive Vice President of A&R when
> Raze was signed.
Even at that, your statement presumes that he either (a) made no attempt to
verify the moral state of the group, or, (b) ascertained that Ja'Marc was a
rapist and decided to cover it up.
If you think *neither* of those things, than whatever DeGarmo feels about
Raze at present is irrelevant.
>> and what responsibility does John Styll have in this
>> matter, other than to report the news after the fact?
>
> For starters, he has a responsibility to explain
> the accountability mechanisms of *CCM*, apologize to
> his readers, and take steps to reduce the likelihood
> of something like this happening again.
John Styll has no responsibility to do any such things, any more than the
publisher of Rolling Stoll has any responsibility to explain the
"accountability mechanisms" of pop music.
I would say that those around the band--Ja'Marc's management, band members,
pastor, fellow church members, SHOULD have a little better access to
whatever his particular accountability system is.
WHY do you persist on trying to make high profile members of the Christian
music community responsible for the sins of the community?
Peter T. Chattaway
: Let us us lift up his victim in prayer as well.
Perhaps that should be victims, plural. There were reportedly at least
three teenaged girls involved, but two of them were 16 -- thus no
statutory rape charges. Even if they consented to have sex with him,
they're still arguably "victims" of his, in some sense.
Bruce Carter
it.
Peter T. Chattaway
: Does anybody care that his sexual fetishes are perveted beyond words?!
: Placing "instruments" into the reproductive system of a girl?
Sheesh, here we go, back to the Bill-and-Monica cigar thing. I'm not at
all convinced that it's "perverted" to use props in bed. What two
consenting adults do in the privacy of their own room is no business of
mine. The key problem here is that, technically, one of the girls this
guy slept with was not an "adult" when their relationship began.
Bruce Carter
>Removing a man's testicles and penis DO NOT prevent that person from having
>"sick lusts."
Then why did generations of Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans remove male
slave's testicles to create Eunochs, who tended women without
desiring them?
> This may come as a surprise, but rape and sexual abuse are
>crimes of violence, and very rarely crimes of lust.
I wish that was true. Many of these sick people do commit unspeakable
acts of violence against women. But you are quoting propaganda,
promoted by the radical feminists who would think every sexual thought
a man has is a crime of violence. It also serves the interests of the
pornography industry very well, because if it is true, they can
continue to debase women by the pictures and articles they publish. I
prefer to be outraged against them, because men feeding off of those
sick pictures and articles then want to go try out that stuff with
real women.
There is another aspect to this that I hesitated to include. Josh
McDowell would back me up, however. Men are turned on by sight. It
is very smart for women to dress conservatively and not feed a man's
lust of the eyes. By advertising her sexuality, she makes herself a
target for these creeps.
>Sexual crimes can (and very often are) committed with all manner of objects
>besides penises.
I submit that any object, other than a man's penis or fingers, is
stupid and potentially damaging. A sick fetish that needs to be
stopped before it damages a woman.
>If we take away a man's penis, he'll be even MORE angry than he was before
>he committed the crime.
Not the penis, just the testicles. It served the Romans well to have
male slaves who did not experience lust.
> Without removing him from society, we run a huge
>risk of him committing the same crime, but with a different object.
I would probably be so mad if it was my daughter, that he would not
have to worry about the penis. He would be DEAD.
>Also, what should we do with female sex offenders? There's plenty out
>there.
I have no idea, but I doubt there are as many as you think. More
radical feminist propaganda. They would have us believe that women
are exactly the same as men in every respect, in spite of the obvious
physical and emotional differences that fit the role God intended men
and women to fill. That doesn't mean that either gender is limited in
any way from reaching the goodness and fullness of life in whatever
endeavor they wish. It just means that they will continue to have
physical and emotional differences that will make their human
experience different from someone of the other gender. Not better,
not worse, not unequal - just different.
Peter T. Chattaway
: I submit that any object, other than a man's penis or fingers, is stupid
: and potentially damaging.
You would permit fingers? How big of you. (But why do you assume that
penises and fingers are not "potentially damaging"? Doesn't it depend, to
some degree, on the reproductive organs of the couple in question?)
: > Also, what should we do with female sex offenders? There's plenty out
: > there.
:
: I have no idea, but I doubt there are as many as you think. More
: radical feminist propaganda. They would have us believe that women are
: exactly the same as men in every respect, in spite of the obvious
: physical and emotional differences that fit the role God intended men
: and women to fill.
Good Lord, what "radical feminists" have *you* been talking to lately?
Most of the ones *I* hear about are committed to the notion that women are
the victims of men, and that men are always the abusers and women are
always the abused, despite the fact that the statistics suggest the levels
of abuse between men and women are pretty much on par with each other.
Whenever *anybody* tries to suggest that women are statistically as likely
to be abusive as men, the feminist response is, invariably, "You're just
trying to let men off the hook!" You need to do your homework.
http://www.topica.com/lists/dadl-ot/read/message.html?mid=2000990040
[ snip ]
The most significant data to uncover male victims originally came from
a survey published in 1980 by three highly respected family-violence
scholars in New Hampshire: Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne
Steinmetz. Their random survey of 2,143 American homes uncovered that
severe abuse was committed equally by men and women. Minor, but
recurring, violence was also on a par, with 11.6 per cent of women and
twelve per cent of men reporting that they hit, slapped, or kicked
their partners. People working on the subject of family violence now
had a choice: they could expand the field to include male victims --
establishing that abused men were not the same men who were abusing,
and vice versa for women -- or they could do what they did: devote an
extraordinary amount of energy to shouting the data down. For
feminists, the idea that men could be victimized was nonsensical. It
didn't square with their fundamental analysis of wife assault -- that
it was an extension of male political, economic, and ideological
dominance over women. If women were so clearly subjugated in the public
domain, how could there be a different reality behind closed doors?
Activists anticipated, moreover, that the New Hampshire data might be
used to devalue female victims, in the manner of male lawyers, judges,
and politicians saying, "See? She does it too"; case dismissed.
As a result, critics rushed to accuse Straus and Gelles, who were the
primary authors, of shoddy research. Put on the defensive, Straus and
Gelles reworked their survey questions and sampled several thousand
households again. Their findings, published in 1985, were virtually
identical, with the additional discovery that women initiated the
aggression as often as men. About a quarter of the relationships had an
exclusively violent male, another quarter had an exclusively violent
female, and the rest were mutually aggressive.
Once again, there was a flurry of protest and scrutiny. Scholars set
out to prove that male self-esteem was less damaged by abuse, that men
took their wives' violence less seriously, and that injury had to be
measured in terms of harm rather than intention. A woman with a broken
jaw could not be compared to a man like Peter Swann, who only got an
ashtray to the head. In truth, both sides were guilty of using a
male-centred measure of harm, in that neither was looking at the damage
women could cause through indirect aggression. Moreover, Straus and
Gelles, as well as subsequent scholars, have found that men often do,
in fact, sustain comparable levels of injury. A 1995 study of young
American military couples, arguably the most patriarchal of all, found
that forty-seven per cent of the husbands and wives had bruised,
battered, and wounded each other to exactly the same degree.
[ snip ]
Granted, this data is not tied to sexual assault per se, but the notion
that women are somehow less likely to offend is not as sturdy as you might
think it is. It certainly isn't an anti-feminist position!
Susan Laxton
>
> >Removing a man's testicles and penis DO NOT prevent that person from
having
> >"sick lusts."
>
> Then why did generations of Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans remove male
> slave's testicles to create Eunochs, who tended women without
> desiring them?
> > This may come as a surprise, but rape and sexual abuse are
> >crimes of violence, and very rarely crimes of lust.
>
> I wish that was true. Many of these sick people do commit unspeakable
> acts of violence against women.
Of course they do. That was the point.
But you are quoting propaganda,
> promoted by the radical feminists who would think every sexual thought
> a man has is a crime of violence.
Huh? Um, no, I'm quoting from my own experience as a person that was raped
at knife-point.
(snipping male chauvinistic spoutings)
I said:
> >Also, what should we do with female sex offenders? There's plenty out
> >there.
He said:
> I have no idea, but I doubt there are as many as you think. More
> radical feminist propaganda.
Sigh. No, I was speaking for someone very close to me (a man), who was
repeatedly sexually abused by a female babysitter when he was 3-4 years old.
Susan Laxton
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.010305...@inch.interchange.ubc.ca...
> On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Bruce Carter wrote:
> : Does anybody care that his sexual fetishes are perveted beyond words?!
> : Placing "instruments" into the reproductive system of a girl?
>
> Sheesh, here we go, back to the Bill-and-Monica cigar thing. I'm not at
> all convinced that it's "perverted" to use props in bed. What two
> consenting adults do in the privacy of their own room is no business of
> mine.
In the Song of Solomon, when the woman tries to answer the door because her
beloved is knocking, she can't even turn the handle because her hands are,
um, moist/wet. I suppose Bruce thinks THAT was perverted.
Mr Gumboot
>Hey - let me know when you post your site - I would love to link to
>it.
Well, you've already signed my guestbook :)
It's at http://www.crmd.org.uk
BTW, your CRA page seems to be an empty file, Bruce (or at least it was a
week or so ago).
G
Bob Weigel
"'ol Terry" has a serious spiritual problem here. There are a lot
of people I can put my finger right on the nature of the beast. But
this clown puzzles me. Unless he's just raking in donations or
something. It could be purely financial. Hard to believe. But to
make a sham of the gospel, be unwilling to reason with anyone about
it.... I mean he either knows he's going to burn in the hell he so
vividly describes and just doesn't care, in comparison to the strokes
he gets here from equally screwed up people, or it's all a money making
joke to him.. Which is it Terry? Why don't you come forth and
satisfy our curiousity?? -Bob
In article <9816k9$5n16$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
Bob Weigel
Peter T. Chattaway <pet...@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Bruce Carter wrote:
>: Does anybody care that his sexual fetishes are perveted beyond words?!
>: Placing "instruments" into the reproductive system of a girl?
>
>Sheesh, here we go, back to the Bill-and-Monica cigar thing. I'm not at
>all convinced that it's "perverted" to use props in bed. What two
>consenting adults do in the privacy of their own room is no business of
>mine. The key problem here is that, technically, one of the girls this
This is certainly true. However there are things which definitely don't
glorify God, and symbolize a mockery of his creative intent. Props, for
example. Include in that other devices which attempt to take reproductive
control out of God's hands. Sex should be approach with the holy spirit.
IF NOT, then it's definitely something that should be kept private between
two consenting adults and I don't want to hear about it or the problems
the introduce into their lives as a result of it.
>guy slept with was not an "adult" when their relationship began.
>
ALL women who submit to having sex with someone who isn't their
true husband are being taken advantage of and they usually don't
know it I'd guess...making them IN THE HEART of the law, not "adult".
They are being ripped off after being lied to by the media, and the
man taking advantage of their ignornace. They will have to deal with
being a person who hasn't saved themself for their husband now. And
people like me will say "no thanks, go on being a slut if that's what
you are. I'm only into sex trek....going where no man has gone
before..." :-) -Bob
Bob Weigel
OH PLLLEASE! Takes a perverted mind to think that's perverted I
suppose. I nor any of the jewish culture had thought of it in that
light before I'm sure. Thanks. READ the CONTEXT of Chapter 5...
in something other than the npv (New perverted version) please.
NKJV says the person was asleep but their heart was awake, hearing
the beloved's voice. He says "open the door". Then taking it from v 3
(OH and in verse 2 he also mentions his head is covered with dew)
"I have taken off my robe; how can I put it on again?
I have washed my feet; how can I defile them?
My beloved put his hand by the latch of the door and my heart yearned for him.
I arose to open for my beloved and my hands dripped with myrrh, my
fingers with liquid myrrh, on the handles of the lock.
I opened for my beloved, But my beloved had turned away and was gone..."
So, first of all myrhh is an aromatc substance used in perfumes.
Why would someone's hands have perfume all over them in this scene?
Many spiritual metphors....and no logical physical ones. Most people
don't sleep with their hands dripping wet with perfume. On the other
hand it could, along with the feet, symbolize a preparedness to meet
the lover which as the jewish culture recognized was God. GET A LIFE
SUSAN. Garf. If that's the meaning you want to get from it, go
read dirty magazines instead of the bible. That's what they are
designed for. -Bob
>
>
Bob Weigel
>On 3/4/01 4:37 PM, in article 3AA2C3A2...@interbulletin.com,
>"evans...@hotmail.com" <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote:
>
>> Somehow realizing my instincts were right all along
>> isn't producing the joy one might expect.
>
>That's perhaps because your "instincts" appear to come from
>self-centeredness, self-aggrandizement, and more than likely, self-loathing.
Huh...that's funny, I was speculating more towards a genuine concern
and recognition that some problems do exist....boy, sure glad an ass
came along to straighten me out. I love the "aggrandizement". That
is the ultimate funny. Because a true minister of God wouldn't consider
Kurt or anyone else as INFERIOR. Therefore, for Kurt to think he should
have a platform of communication with the people would not be that at
all....UNLESS....Kurt is right. :-) Hehehhe. Glad you put that one
in there. Kind of sums it all up doesn't it? -Bob
McGovern
>
> I guess you missed this part of I Corinthinas 13:
>
> 5. [Love] is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it
> keeps no record of wrongs. 6. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices
> with the truth.
No record of wrongs? Kurt, it looks like your years of torment are
over! Yippee! Now you can burn that record of wrongs you've been
holding onto.
McGovern
>
> >and what responsibility does John Styll have in this
> >matter, other than to report the news after the fact?
>
> For starters, he has a responsibility to explain
> the accountability mechanisms of *CCM*, apologize to
> his readers, and take steps to reduce the likelihood
> of something like this happening again.
>
Wrong. CCM is a magazine, not a church. If they were a church, then
yes, they should have "accountability mechanisms" ... but they are
simply a media entity. The medium on which they report is, for the
most part, Christian, but so what. Why on earth should John Styll
apologize to his readers? He's not the one who raped the girl! All he
did was operate the magazine, which may have included content about
the band and/or its members. Should CNN apologize for Bill Clinton's
escapades? Should HM apologize if one of the bands they cover cusses
on stage or sleeps w/ his girlfriend?
Susan Anderson
: In article <3aa4f...@newsa.ev1.net>, Susan Laxton <so...@ev1.net> wrote:
:>
:>In the Song of Solomon, when the woman tries to answer the door because her
:>beloved is knocking, she can't even turn the handle because her hands are,
:>um, moist/wet. I suppose Bruce thinks THAT was perverted.
I hadn't thought of it in that context before...but after reading it... I
makes a lot of sense.
[snip]
: "I have taken off my robe; how can I put it on again?
: I have washed my feet; how can I defile them?
: My beloved put his hand by the latch of the door and my heart yearned for him.
: I arose to open for my beloved and my hands dripped with myrrh, my
: fingers with liquid myrrh, on the handles of the lock.
: I opened for my beloved, But my beloved had turned away and was gone..."
: So, first of all myrhh is an aromatc substance used in perfumes.
: Why would someone's hands have perfume all over them in this scene?
: Many spiritual metphors....and no logical physical ones.
Care to be educated, Bob? Being the celibate guy that you are, you
most likely don't have much experience with the way a woman smells. Now,
granted, it depends on the diet and bathing habits of the woman in
question, but I can assure you, that it can indeed be compared to
perfume.
: Most people
: don't sleep with their hands dripping wet with perfume.
Ever have a wet dream Bob? (I'm guessing probably not...) The body
is asleep, the heart is aching for the one you love and desire and the
mind takes you in your dreams to the place where the two of you are together.
It's very possible to wake up with your hand dripping wet...
: On the other
: hand it could, along with the feet, symbolize a preparedness to meet
: the lover which as the jewish culture recognized was God. GET A LIFE
: SUSAN. Garf. If that's the meaning you want to get from it, go
: read dirty magazines instead of the bible. That's what they are
: designed for. -Bob
GET A CLUE BOB. Garf. Song of Solomon is one of the most erotic
things ever written.
Susan (stirring things up a bit...)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Susan Anderson kee...@visi.com http://www.visi.com/~keepon/
http://www.visi.com/~keepon/mb.html (The Margaret Becker Page)
"I'd pay $150 just to listen to
Margaret Becker gargle." - Rick Baldwin
McGovern
>
> ALL women who submit to having sex with someone who isn't their
> true husband are being taken advantage of and they usually don't
> know it I'd guess...making them IN THE HEART of the law, not "adult".
That's an interesting interpretation, Bob... or rather, an interesting
addition. Women can take advantage of men just as men can take
advantage of women. When two consensual adults have sex, who's really
to say who's taking advantage of whom? Perhaps they're taking
advantage of each other. It's not always the man doing the deed.
> They are being ripped off after being lied to by the media, and the
> man taking advantage of their ignornace. They will have to deal with
> being a person who hasn't saved themself for their husband now. And
> people like me will say "no thanks, go on being a slut if that's what
> you are. I'm only into sex trek....going where no man has gone
> before..." :-) -Bob
So, you wouldn't consider marrying a woman who isn't a virgin? How
righteous of you. Meanwhile, I'll be married to an imperfect woman who
is God's perfect match for me. Being a non virgin doesn't mean a woman
is a slut. Is *this* why you aren't married yet, Bob? You find out
your girlfriend isn't a virgin, so you call her a slut & send her on
her way? No wonder.
I'm sure glad God loves virgins & non-virgins the same. Even more
important, I'm glad God's grace isn't limited to Bob's standards.
the nonconformist
Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:X8cp6.1078$y6.1...@ruti.visi.com...
> : "I have taken off my robe; how can I put it on again?
> : I have washed my feet; how can I defile them?
I've seen this as an _un_-willingness on the woman's part to open her door.
Literally, "Why are you bothering me in the middle of the night?" By the
time her heart argues with her head, and wins, it is too late...and the
writer continues...
> : My beloved put his hand by the latch of the door and my heart yearned
for him.
> : I arose to open for my beloved and my hands dripped with myrrh, my
> : fingers with liquid myrrh, on the handles of the lock.
> : I opened for my beloved, But my beloved had turned away and was gone..."
<snip>
> GET A CLUE BOB. Garf. Song of Solomon is one of the most erotic
> things ever written.
Exactly...and when taken as a metaphor for Christ and His church it gets
_really_ steamy. Anyone who thinks otherwise should hear the series my
pastor just finished on that topic.
--
==== Josh Marihugh ==== NP: The Messenger (Joan of Arc)
CDS
or not, but the local Christian Radio Station hasn't played one of her
songs since. But they still play RAZE one bazillion times a day and I
am getting sick of them. I think I will forward this article on to
them and maybe they will stop playing them. That would make my day.
On 03 Mar 2001 16:28:13 GMT, unveil...@aol.com (Unveiled face)
wrote:
>>A member of the band Raze is charged with rape, sodomy and molestation.
>
>What Ja'Marc did was wrong... there's no question about that... but if he
>repents... God will forgive him. So let's lift him up in prayer!
>
>-DAVID-
>
Bob Weigel
For years ccm has allowed a variety of things which set them
apart from a business which holds to christian priciples.
They are just a magazine and should have a disclaimer inside
the cover given that "Christian" appears in the header...and
when one USES Chrsts name (without his permission)....hehehehe..
a publisher SHOULD know better now shouldn't they?
Well, they don't. Kurt is simply putting out the usual
challenge many have put out after such an incident. The lack
of discernment, the unbiblical spreading of rumors and such
and the absolute lack of sorrow for such past deeds definitely
give us all the information we need to conclude that there
is no bottom line Christ over business going on here. I still
see nothing wrong with putting out the challenge and calling
these people to either take the Lord's name off their mag,
or start living under his principles of operation. -Bob
In article <3AA5424F...@mugoven.com>,
Bob Weigel
entitled to. Wet dreams aren't something God desires us to have.
It RESULTS from allowing our mind to think lustful thoughts about
someone we aren't married to...and foolish dissipation is the result.
WHY would God compare something good and compare it to something evil?
Oh gee, that makes a ton of sense.. Ehhhhh! Next. I gave a viable
unperverted interpreation. Yours is a stretch, except for a
pervert which most people are. So that one probably will win
the popularity vote. -Bob
In article <X8cp6.1078$y6.1...@ruti.visi.com>,
Bob Weigel
the nonconformist <christ...@EATMYBUBBLESyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote in message
>news:X8cp6.1078$y6.1...@ruti.visi.com...
>
>> : "I have taken off my robe; how can I put it on again?
>> : I have washed my feet; how can I defile them?
>
>I've seen this as an _un_-willingness on the woman's part to open her door.
>Literally, "Why are you bothering me in the middle of the night?" By the
>time her heart argues with her head, and wins, it is too late...and the
>writer continues...
Very possibly. That's another unperverted interpreation. Glad to
have some company here. Maybe those dedicated to perverted ones
can learn something from someone who isn't calling them what they
are. :-)
>
>> : My beloved put his hand by the latch of the door and my heart yearned
>for him.
>> : I arose to open for my beloved and my hands dripped with myrrh, my
>> : fingers with liquid myrrh, on the handles of the lock.
>> : I opened for my beloved, But my beloved had turned away and was gone..."
>
><snip>
>
>> GET A CLUE BOB. Garf. Song of Solomon is one of the most erotic
>> things ever written.
Thanks for highlighting that. I didn't find the previous article
worth reading. I can't believe how silly that sounds. Song is
the most erotically interpretable portion of the bible...however
it also and has been historically interpreted, by those closest
to the source, as a pure metaphor of our relationship with God.
There is nothing erotic in that. Eros refers to fleshly lust.
God is spirit. You loose. Care to choose another topic?
-Bob
Bob Weigel
and you still might be confused, but at least not about what I'm
saying. :-)
In article <3AA550B5...@mugoven.com>,
McGovern <mai...@mugoven.com> wrote:
>Bob Weigel wrote:
>>
>> ALL women who submit to having sex with someone who isn't their
>> true husband are being taken advantage of and they usually don't
>> know it I'd guess...making them IN THE HEART of the law, not "adult".
>
>That's an interesting interpretation, Bob... or rather, an interesting
>addition. Women can take advantage of men just as men can take
>advantage of women. When two consensual adults have sex, who's really
Yes I'm well aware. However men can also as I've had to, pray for
women who are trying to entice them into sexual activity. It makes
them feel...really good. :-)
>to say who's taking advantage of whom?
Back at ya, I don't believe there is an age of accountability. Man
made that up. My point was simply that many people, regardless of
age, are not prepared to make responsible choices in this area. I've
had to turn off women ranging from 9 to 25. On the other hand I've
known a few who've come to Christ and he's instilled a firm standard
in their heart so that they haven't gotten into perverse lines of
action. IN SUMMARY, we take advantage of ourselves. We always have
the option to cry out to an almight God who will deliver us, even in
rape situations, IF IT IS NOT HIS WILL THAT WE BE RAPED. Is it ever?
I dont' know. We had this discussion long ago here. I just know God
is in control and he loves us and doesn't want bad things to happen
just for the hell of it. I know he's allowed all kinds of torture
to saints who willingly went through it to be a testimony for him.
So I wouldn't discount the possibility. On the other hand, as I
said before, it's hard for me to understand the allowance of a rape.
It always seems to me somebody grabbing the guy before he does it
and beating him senseless, tying him up and talking to him when he
recovers would have a lot more impact. I just don't know. See, I
don't know everything. But I know enough to know that we're either
in his will and all that happens to us is part of it, or we aren't.
If we aren't we'll get burned for nothing.
Perhaps they're taking
>advantage of each other. It's not always the man doing the deed.
>
Well aware. I was speaking of an isolated example.
>> They are being ripped off after being lied to by the media, and the
>> man taking advantage of their ignornace. They will have to deal with
>> being a person who hasn't saved themself for their husband now. And
>> people like me will say "no thanks, go on being a slut if that's what
>> you are. I'm only into sex trek....going where no man has gone
>> before..." :-) -Bob
>
>So, you wouldn't consider marrying a woman who isn't a virgin? How
God can truly cleanse anyone, and I most certainly would.
>righteous of you.
How presumptuous of you, as usual.
Meanwhile, I'll be married to an imperfect woman who
>is God's perfect match for me. Being a non virgin doesn't mean a woman
>is a slut. Is *this* why you aren't married yet, Bob?
No. It's because people like you make hateful presumptions instead
of helping me find a decent woman. :-)
You find out
>your girlfriend isn't a virgin, so you call her a slut & send her on
>her way? No wonder.
Never done that. The girl I prayed for in previous example I knew
wasn't a virgin. I believed the best, but found out she was
continuing in the sin that had led her down that road before.
Even then I simply prayed a prayer of encouragement. She said
"Oh brother". She was embarrased because I hadn't fallen for
her ploy and things changed real fast. She was engaged to
another guy within a week. Kinda...not quite what you were
painting me out as. Do you ever get anything right about a
feller? :-)
>
>I'm sure glad God loves virgins & non-virgins the same. Even more
>important, I'm glad God's grace isn't limited to Bob's standards.
? Try not presuming things like this, and I'm sure your marriage
will last a long long time. God bless, -Bob
Susan Anderson
: If you want to take a perverted version of it, you're certainly
: entitled to. Wet dreams aren't something God desires us to have.
Oh really?
: It RESULTS from allowing our mind to think lustful thoughts about
: someone we aren't married to...and foolish dissipation is the result.
So, married people can't have wet dreams? Married people can't dream
about their spouse when they are away from them (or even sleeping
right next to them)? Wow. Interesting. That's a new one.
: WHY would God compare something good and compare it to something evil?
You are the one assuming that wet dreams are evil... God didn't
say they were.
Susan
McGovern
>
> Back at ya, I don't believe there is an age of accountability. Man
> made that up. My point was simply that many people, regardless of
> age, are not prepared to make responsible choices in this area. I've
> had to turn off women ranging from 9 to 25.
You've got me beat there. I've never been hit on by a nine-year-old.
> On the other hand I've
> known a few who've come to Christ and he's instilled a firm standard
> in their heart so that they haven't gotten into perverse lines of
> action. IN SUMMARY, we take advantage of ourselves. We always have
> the option to cry out to an almight God who will deliver us, even in
> rape situations, IF IT IS NOT HIS WILL THAT WE BE RAPED. Is it ever?
> I dont' know. We had this discussion long ago here.
Along the same lines as... Was it God's will that two high school
students in Southern California were shot & killed Monday? We'll never
know. He *allowed* it, obviously, but why? This is one cool thing
about my pastor: He's not afraid to tackle the tough questions. Next
Sunday's message is titled "How could God allow suffering and evil?"
> >> people like me will say "no thanks, go on being a slut if that's what
> >> you are. I'm only into sex trek....going where no man has gone
> >> before..." :-) -Bob
> >
> >So, you wouldn't consider marrying a woman who isn't a virgin?
>
> God can truly cleanse anyone, and I most certainly would.
>
> How presumptuous of you, as usual.
Just calling it like I read it. (See my statement @ the bottom.)
>
> Meanwhile, I'll be married to an imperfect woman who
> >is God's perfect match for me. Being a non virgin doesn't mean a woman
> >is a slut. Is *this* why you aren't married yet, Bob?
>
> No. It's because people like you make hateful presumptions instead
> of helping me find a decent woman. :-)
You want me to help? :) I don't think I could find the right one. Only
God can do that, as he did with me. And I'm sure I'll never hear the
*complete* story of why your past relationships haven't worked out.
Maybe you could get these ladies to post their side of it here, so I
can be a little better equipped for finding you one without their
flaws. :-)
>
> She was embarrased because I hadn't fallen for
> her ploy and things changed real fast. She was engaged to
> another guy within a week.
Yikes... been there. I even met one online who, before I even met her
in person, told me that "God told her" we should get married. Anytime
someone says that "God told them" anything (besides, of course,
something obviously from scripture), I get very cautious. I was outta
that situation quick, and sure enough, she was engaged within a month.
> Kinda...not quite what you were
> painting me out as. Do you ever get anything right about a
> feller? :-)
So, based on the fact that you *would* marry a non-virgin, what's with
the following statement?
> They will have to deal with
> being a person who hasn't saved themself for their husband now. And
> people like me will say "no thanks, go on being a slut if that's what
> you are. I'm only into sex trek....going where no man has gone
> before..."
Saying that you're only "only into going where no man has gone before"
sounded to me like you only wanted to marry a virgin. Sorry if I
misunderstood this.
java...@mac.com
<b...@efn.org> wrote:
> For years ccm has allowed a variety of things which set them
> apart from a business which holds to christian priciples.
(If you don't mind hearing from an "ass" again, as you so kindly called me
in another post...)
If you are referring to "ccm" as the contemporary Christian music industry,
then I would agree that the accountability level of the artists--to their
audience, to a local church and ultimately to the Lord--definitely needs to
be more finely tuned. BUT, once again, when such an incident occurs,
everyone wants to blame some ONE or some THING, to say "how could this have
happened?" There really is no ONE to blame except Ja'Marc and those closest
to him, who had actually KNOWLEDGE of FACTS in the case. To blame the
Gospel Music Association or a magazine who reports on the industry really
makes no more sense to than to blame Kurt or yourself because Ja'Marc
sinned. I grieve when a brother close to me confesses a sin and asks me to
pray for him. And I pray that maybe next time he or she might come to me
before the fact and ask me to help them in this area in which they are
struggling. But I don't blame myself for their sin.
> The lack
> of discernment, the unbiblical spreading of rumors and such
> and the absolute lack of sorrow for such past deeds definitely
> give us all the information we need to conclude that there
> is no bottom line Christ over business going on here.
Again, if you're speaking about the industry when you say "here," I would
agree.
> I still
> see nothing wrong with putting out the challenge and calling
> these people to either take the Lord's name off their mag,
> or start living under his principles of operation. -Bob
BUT again, you are wrongly assuming that this magazine has some sort of
authority over the people about which it writes. You criticize them about
the "unbiblical spreading of rumors" and yet if they would have reported
anything about this incident before the FACTS came to light (which, by the
way, these are still *allegations*), you would now be calling them rumor
mongers.
However, I have noticed that you continue to support Kurt in his Rebecca
bashing tirades, which appear to also be based on unproven allegations. I
suppose since you and Kurt believe these things to be true, that makes them
so?
I suppose they could call the magazine "Contemporary music made by people
who are saved by the grace of God but sometimes unfortunately succumb to
their sin nature." But that would take a rather large portion of the cover,
wouldn't it?
McGovern
>
> For years ccm has allowed a variety of things which set them
> apart from a business which holds to christian priciples.
> They are just a magazine and should have a disclaimer inside
> the cover given that "Christian" appears in the header...and
> when one USES Chrsts name (without his permission)....hehehehe..
> a publisher SHOULD know better now shouldn't they?
Sure, compare a mere entertainment magazine to the Crusades or the
Spanish Inquisition. The magazine doesn't need a disclaimer. The real
purpose of disclaimers are to keep from being sued when people
stupidly misuse your product. In this case, it would be someone
saying, "Wow, the guy in Raze was arrested for molestation? But they
were covered in CCM! I guess this means that artists covered in CCM
are child molesters." See how ridiculous that becomes?
> Well, they don't. Kurt is simply putting out the usual
> challenge many have put out after such an incident. The lack
> of discernment, the unbiblical spreading of rumors and such
> and the absolute lack of sorrow for such past deeds definitely
> give us all the information we need to conclude that there
> is no bottom line Christ over business going on here.
When did they spread rumors? If anything, they refrained from
spreading rumors. From my experience in the Christian magazine biz,
printing rumors often makes you print retractions in subsequent
issues. CCM knows better. And "lack of sorrow for past deeds?" How do
you know that reporting on the separation of Amy & Gary wasn't
agonizing for the CCM staff? How do you know that they were sitting
there smiling, doing business as usual? Were you there in the office?
If you were, then pardon me...
As for it being a business, I would agree that this is what they are.
Businesses exist to make a profit, otherwise we wouldn't call them
businesses; we'd call 'em volunteer clubs. Should they attach the name
of Christ to it? Well, in most cases I'd say no. BUT, the business
they're in is media coverage of artists who attach the name of Christ
to *their* bands, businesses, organizations, ministries, etc. Should
CCM have to examine every last person they interview, to discern
whether or not that individual is right with God, leading by example,
and isn't having sex with little girls? No. They simply report the
facts. Don't shoot the messenger - or demand apologies from them.
Taken to the extreme, CCM would have to apologize for every time an
artist utters a cuss word, gets a speeding ticket, argues w/ their
spouse, or has a sinful thought.
Susan Laxton
> Bob Weigel wrote:
>
> > On the other hand I've
> > known a few who've come to Christ and he's instilled a firm standard
> > in their heart so that they haven't gotten into perverse lines of
> > action. IN SUMMARY, we take advantage of ourselves. We always have
> > the option to cry out to an almight God who will deliver us, even in
> > rape situations, IF IT IS NOT HIS WILL THAT WE BE RAPED. Is it ever?
> > I dont' know. We had this discussion long ago here.
>
> Along the same lines as... Was it God's will that two high school
> students in Southern California were shot & killed Monday? We'll never
> know. He *allowed* it, obviously, but why? This is one cool thing
> about my pastor: He's not afraid to tackle the tough questions. Next
> Sunday's message is titled "How could God allow suffering and evil?"
Ooo! When I asked my 14 year old son "If you could ask God one question,
what would it be?" he didn't hesitate for a second. He said "Why does he
let people suffer?" Maybe we should hang out at your church Sunday, McG.
Matt Wilkie
> who are saved by the grace of God but sometimes unfortunately succumb to
> their sin nature." But that would take a rather large portion of the
cover,
> wouldn't it?
Except, when you think about it, you wouldn't have to use the full
words...you could just make it an abbreviation and then it would only be
"CMMBPWASBTGOGBSUSTTSN" and that's not so wrong. A kid in my youth group is
afraid people won't know which "Jesus" is referred to in the W.W.J.D.
bracelets, so he's wanting to start his own line of "WWJTCFND?" (What would
Jesus the Christ From Nazareth Do?" bracelets...that way people wouldn't get
confused. What do you guys think???
Matt
Bob Weigel
>On 3/7/01 1:56 AM, in article 984pim$g...@garcia.efn.org, "Bob Weigel"
><b...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>> For years ccm has allowed a variety of things which set them
>> apart from a business which holds to christian priciples.
>
>(If you don't mind hearing from an "ass" again, as you so kindly called me
>in another post...)
>
be perceived as one hun. :-)
>If you are referring to "ccm" as the contemporary Christian music industry,
No I'm talking about ccm magazine as per the topic. I've never seen
any kind of apology for the "Troubled Troubador" thing, which was a
classic piece of work. Entirely gossip/inuendo based. And that
beaut of a followup to Larry's interview, where Pamela was given
platform to lash out without providing biblically acceptable framework
to the whole thing. If I see a formal retraction/apology for those
allowed proceedures then I'll believe that maybe some Christians are
in charge there.
>then I would agree that the accountability level of the artists--to their
>audience, to a local church and ultimately to the Lord--definitely needs to
>be more finely tuned. BUT, once again, when such an incident occurs,
>everyone wants to blame some ONE or some THING, to say "how could this have
>happened?" There really is no ONE to blame except Ja'Marc and those closest
>to him, who had actually KNOWLEDGE of FACTS in the case. To blame the
>Gospel Music Association or a magazine who reports on the industry really
>makes no more sense to than to blame Kurt or yourself because Ja'Marc
>sinned. I grieve when a brother close to me confesses a sin and asks me to
>pray for him. And I pray that maybe next time he or she might come to me
>before the fact and ask me to help them in this area in which they are
>struggling. But I don't blame myself for their sin.
Yeah, great. Well not my concern as I've said. Anyway, when I interact
with anyone I'm responsible to take advantage of the situation for Christ
to plant good see in their life and discern things I might minister in.
From what I'm seeing of the Ja' mess there WERE perhaps some signs
that a true minister (as opposed to a gossip columnist) could have
exploited towards these ends. -Bob
McGovern
> A kid in my youth group is
> afraid people won't know which "Jesus" is referred to in the W.W.J.D.
> bracelets, so he's wanting to start his own line of "WWJTCFND?" (What would
> Jesus the Christ From Nazareth Do?" bracelets...that way people wouldn't get
> confused. What do you guys think???
>
Tee-hee... our city manager is Jesus Garza (pronounced Hay-ZOOSE).
[www.ci.austin.tx.us/citymgr]
One question might be, "Will Jesus be for or against another Mardi
Gras celebration in Austin next year?"
[www.cnn.com/2001/US/02/25/mardi.gras.melee/index.html] Answer?
Probably not.
And then there's Jesus Jones... [www.jesusjones.com]
What would this Jesus do? Judging from the site, they're working on a
new album. (Jesus Jones is the name of the band, not the
people/person.)
And what about www.jesus.com ? What would he do? Just trying to find a
date, it appears.
And finally, apparently the "real" Jesus has His own website:
[http://members.aol.com/jesus316]
Now, accepting Him as your Savior is as easy as clicking a GIF.
Bob Weigel
Matt Wilkie <mwi...@ipa.net> wrote:
>> I suppose they could call the magazine "Contemporary music made by people
>> who are saved by the grace of God but sometimes unfortunately succumb to
>> their sin nature." But that would take a rather large portion of the
>cover,
>> wouldn't it?
>
How about "Reports of Christian Music's Secular Owned Contemporary Magazine"?
Roc'm soc'm....how's that for an abbreviation? :-) -Bob
Bob Weigel
McGovern <mai...@mugoven.com> wrote:
>Bob Weigel wrote:
>>
>> For years ccm has allowed a variety of things which set them
>> apart from a business which holds to christian priciples.
>> They are just a magazine and should have a disclaimer inside
>> the cover given that "Christian" appears in the header...and
>> when one USES Chrsts name (without his permission)....hehehehe..
>> a publisher SHOULD know better now shouldn't they?
>
Obviously YOU don't see what I was saying here. I'm kind of making
a joke, hence the laughter. On the other hand, as usual, it is laced
with a point....a very powerful one in this case. The name of Christ
gets tossed around and associated with things that aren't of him. The
people responsible for this will get more than sued some day. They
will be separated because they never allowed Christ to get to know
them...and convict them of their misuse of his name. I'd call that
very sad.
>Sure, compare a mere entertainment magazine to the Crusades or the
>Spanish Inquisition. The magazine doesn't need a disclaimer. The real
Deception is deception. Just because a person doesn't have the platform
for mass destruction these idiots had, doesn't make them any sweeter.
>purpose of disclaimers are to keep from being sued when people
>stupidly misuse your product. In this case, it would be someone
>saying, "Wow, the guy in Raze was arrested for molestation? But they
>were covered in CCM! I guess this means that artists covered in CCM
>are child molesters." See how ridiculous that becomes?
No. I don't even know what you are talking about. I don't waste
time thinking of such stuff too often. I usually have apoint nested
somewhere in my rants. :-)
>
>> Well, they don't. Kurt is simply putting out the usual
>> challenge many have put out after such an incident. The lack
>> of discernment, the unbiblical spreading of rumors and such
>> and the absolute lack of sorrow for such past deeds definitely
>> give us all the information we need to conclude that there
>> is no bottom line Christ over business going on here.
>
>When did they spread rumors? If anything, they refrained from
Troubled Troubador was referenced before. I don't read the magazine
anymore. I'm waiting to hear that they pulled their heads out. I'll
hear when it happens, believe me.
>spreading rumors. From my experience in the Christian magazine biz,
No, you are incorrect. Historically they have spread them. That
was just one example of their unethical approach I was using to
examplify why I don't consider them to be acting in Christ's interest.
THEREFORE I dont' expect them to come out with any accurate report
to the body of Christ that a SO CALLED CHRISTIAN BAND MEMBER is
not Christian. That would be bad for business, so I don't expect
it from them. Follow me now? -Bob
Susan Anderson
:>Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote in message
:>news:X8cp6.1078$y6.1...@ruti.visi.com...
:>
:>> GET A CLUE BOB. Garf. Song of Solomon is one of the most erotic
:>> things ever written.
: I can't believe how silly that sounds. Song is
: the most erotically interpretable portion of the bible...however
: it also and has been historically interpreted, by those closest
: to the source, as a pure metaphor of our relationship with God.
Life is filled with passion. I for one sure as heck want my
relationship with God to be filled with passion as well.
: There is nothing erotic in that. Eros refers to fleshly lust.
: God is spirit. You loose. Care to choose another topic?
Erotic != Bad. I hope that married couples have lust for one
another. I hope they have passion and some eroticism in
their lives with one another. If they don't, they are missing
things. God, as spirit doesn't have the same physical passion, but
I hope and pray that there is a spiritual passion for God. A
spiritual passion for God that is even more intense then the
passion between a bride and bridegroom. The metaphor in all
it's erroticism is absolutely perfect.
You loose.
Susan
Bob Weigel
thinkin' for yourself! Here, this is not hard to extend.
I didn't cover all the bases in my writing on purpose...yet
you could have easily just taken the logic and extended it like this:
In article <i7rp6.1237$y6.2...@ruti.visi.com>,
Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote:
>Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>: If you want to take a perverted version of it, you're certainly
>: entitled to. Wet dreams aren't something God desires us to have.
>
>Oh really?
>
>: It RESULTS from allowing our mind to think lustful thoughts about
>: someone we aren't married to...and foolish dissipation is the result.
>
>So, married people can't have wet dreams? Married people can't dream
Here's the reality on the matter. A wet dream (in general this time,
for those who can't think for themselves) is when the imagination
LITERALLY LIES to the body, and convinces it that it is actually
having sex. The result? Wet pants. Oh that's cool....NOT! TRY
having the fruit of self-control, even in your dreams! ALLOW the
spirit to have all your life, even your imagination so that it
doesn't become a tool of wickedness. THAT WAY your little imagination
won't lie to your body. The imagination can be a tool of righteousness.
It can spontaneously come up with new solutions for things that have
real applications, and help people.
God designed us in a wonderful way, and when we take control out
of his spirit things get tweaked real quick. Many married people are
in legalized fornication. So I'm not even going to sit around yakkin
about what is and isn't ethical to them. Christ made his purposes
clear. What does what YOU are doing in bed have to do with those?
Are you TRULY a minister serving in the house of God day and night?
Or just a person who thinks they have fire insurance? Tough
questions we all should ask ourselves. If it's the former, you won't
have to have me telling you that masturbation, wet dreams, fornication,
and the like are to glorify god. -Bob
Mr Gumboot
> referred to in the W.W.J.D. bracelets, so he's wanting to start his
> own line of "WWJTCFND?" (What would Jesus the Christ From Nazareth
> Do?" bracelets...that way people wouldn't get confused.
Oh, *that's* what WWJD stands for then? And I always thought it was "We
want Jack Daniels" ;)
I'd have thought you'd need a pretty big wrist to get all those letters on
- has he thought of making belts instead?
Seriously, though, I've never come across confusion over which Jesus the J
means. I have frequently had conversations along the lines of "would he
kick the tables over, would he let him who has no sin throw stones, would
he quietly have a word...".
Although I *can* see where you're coming from...
G
--
"Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana." - Groucho Marx
bob_m...@agilent.com
: Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
: : There is nothing erotic in that. Eros refers to fleshly lust.
: : God is spirit. You loose. Care to choose another topic?
: Erotic != Bad...
And those who say "spirit" is good, "physical" is bad would do
well to recall and ponder the truth that He who is seated at
the right hand of the Father has a *body*.
The tomb was empty.
One day ours will be, too.
The implications are staggering.
Bob("I believe in the resurrection of the body")Miller
bob_m...@agilent.com
Susan Anderson
: I knew I'd wake up to this. C'mon people, do SOME of the
: thinkin' for yourself! Here, this is not hard to extend.
: I didn't cover all the bases in my writing on purpose...yet
: you could have easily just taken the logic and extended it like this:
C'mon Bob, as it has been stated by quite a few folks aroudn
here, most people just don't get your brand of logic. And even
more I would imagine just doen't agree with it.
: In article <i7rp6.1237$y6.2...@ruti.visi.com>,
: Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote:
:>Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
:>
:>: If you want to take a perverted version of it, you're certainly
:>: entitled to. Wet dreams aren't something God desires us to have.
:>
:>Oh really?
:>
:>: It RESULTS from allowing our mind to think lustful thoughts about
:>: someone we aren't married to...and foolish dissipation is the result.
:>
:>So, married people can't have wet dreams? Married people can't dream
: Here's the reality on the matter. A wet dream (in general this time,
: for those who can't think for themselves)
You can't just go and make it general. I talked about a specific thing
here. Not some 14 year old kid, not some horny single 45 year old.
I was specifically talking about a married couple. Since the story
in question (SofS) is about a Bride and Bridegroom, doesn't it logically
follow that it is *that* instance that we should talk about?
: is when the imagination
: LITERALLY LIES to the body, and convinces it that it is actually
: having sex. The result? Wet pants. Oh that's cool....NOT! TRY
: having the fruit of self-control, even in your dreams!
And exactly how is dreaming about having sex with your spouse that
you haven't seen for two weeks because you are out of town a sin?
It is your spouse!!!!!! There is no loss of self-control here.
A loss of self-control could be picking up a hooker, or jerking off
to a magazine and thinking about the model, but thinking about
your spouse in a sexual manner is a good and right thing. I'm
sorry to break it to you Bob, but sex != bad.
Susan (how knows she is wasting her time here, because Bob will
never agree with her...I am (in Bob's eyes anyway) a heathen,
gossip and pottymouth....)
Bob Weigel
>>
>> God can truly cleanse anyone, and I most certainly would.
>>
>> How presumptuous of you, as usual.
>
>Just calling it like I read it. (See my statement @ the bottom.)
>
Well you read "into" it. The text for those conclusions wasn't there.
>>
>> Meanwhile, I'll be married to an imperfect woman who
>> >is God's perfect match for me. Being a non virgin doesn't mean a woman
>> >is a slut. Is *this* why you aren't married yet, Bob?
>>
>> No. It's because people like you make hateful presumptions instead
>> of helping me find a decent woman. :-)
>
>You want me to help? :) I don't think I could find the right one. Only
>God can do that, as he did with me. And I'm sure I'll never hear the
>*complete* story of why your past relationships haven't worked out.
Probably I won't either. That's because nobody has cared enough
to tell me. However mounting one sin on another doesn't make me
any more prone to want to marry the person I guess...so I'm glad
I didn't get involved any deeper. What could I tell you that would
make it more complete? I remember every detail. Let's see, that
one started when we met at a church. I noticed she was looking me
over pretty good. I noticed her with...her big hair, long nails,
california wear....I dont' think she had spandex on at church but
that was a fave. :-) Girl had a great voice but drove me nuts
trying to show me what she wanted on the keys with those fingernails.
Very fun girl to be around, and we'd talk about things having to do
with the Lord quite a bit. She was off on the tongues thing and I
tried to explain my perspective and why I don't believe God has given
everyone the verbal gift....who received the spirit as her fellowship
believed pretty heavily. (That's why I decided to go there for a while
actually. I set up a confrontation with the heads to help them
understand how their indoctrination process was actually alienating
people with different gifts.....like me. Without the gift of tongues
I could have never been more than a pew sitter there.)
She never really received that, and hoped somehow I'd lie to
myself for her sake and get the gift :-). That way I would fit
into the environment she was a social climber in, and since I
physically was a heck of a lot more attractive to her than the guy
she wound up marrying who fit the other bill, she thought that might
be good. Then she tried the physical ploy and it was all over.
Did I leave things out? Her attempt at suggestive humor a time
or two... all I was doing was trying to be her friend, so I didn't
do anything like that. I wasn't rude to her. I fixed her truck
for her...let's see what else. I can't think of anything I did that
would be offensive, and she never told me, except she did make a
comment about my eye, hinting that i should get cosmetic surgery
and pour money into covering up my injury which God could heal if
he desires, and I fell led to leave alone. But had I jumped through
the other hoops that would have been a triviality.
>Maybe you could get these ladies to post their side of it here, so I
>can be a little better equipped for finding you one without their
>flaws. :-)
Oh yeah she also told me she'd recommend me to other women. :-) hehehee.
After she'd decided to dump me. Of course that never amounted to anything.
Flaw one: Lying without regret
Flaw two: Rejecting me because I won't enter into pre marital intimacy.
Flaw three: Rejecting me because of my left eye being a bit smaller.
Flaw four: Rejecting me because of any miscellaneous unforseen trivialities.
There's your list. I don't think you'll find her anywhere either. I
know it's a tough call. Of course then I have to be attracted to her.
>
>>
>> She was embarrased because I hadn't fallen for
>> her ploy and things changed real fast. She was engaged to
>> another guy within a week.
>
>Yikes... been there. I even met one online who, before I even met her
>in person, told me that "God told her" we should get married. Anytime
>someone says that "God told them" anything (besides, of course,
>something obviously from scripture), I get very cautious. I was outta
>that situation quick, and sure enough, she was engaged within a month.
>
>> Kinda...not quite what you were
>> painting me out as. Do you ever get anything right about a
>> feller? :-)
>
>So, based on the fact that you *would* marry a non-virgin, what's with
>the following statement?
>
>> They will have to deal with
>> being a person who hasn't saved themself for their husband now. And
>> people like me will say "no thanks, go on being a slut if that's what
>> you are. I'm only into sex trek....going where no man has gone
>> before..."
Once someone makes a choice to give their body away to whoever, it's
very difficult to truly repent. Some people do. And if they do like
I say God can make them in their spirit new and even heal their body
of anything that is a result of the perverse nature of their action.
(Our physiology is tied into all this. When we violate spiritual
principles it does affect our body in more ways than the obvious.)
NOTE MY CAREFUL WORDING ABOVE. "no thanks, go on being a slut IF THAT'S
WHAT YOU ARE"....hmmmm. I left an out there didn't I? Clever swine I
am...yesss... :-) If the person chooses not to be a slut, God can
cleanse them and they WILL have dealt with their sin. Voila. But
like I say this is very hard because most women tend to justify
their action and not truly repent. I went out with a girl about
the same time as the girl above who'd been in a relationship that
went that way and she was struggling with the whole process at
that time. The song "And Cry" on my web page was written about
her (along with one called "Laugh" and a few others), while the
song "The girl you are" was written about the former one along
with "Love never learns" which was probably the first song I did
in that series except for one that I never really use about a
kid from a shelter home I worked at. Boy there's a heck of a
story. Girl faked being unconscious after Todd (this big clown
guy...dang I miss him) and I were emulating wwf action on the
living room carpet. She went all the way with it. Emergency
room determined there was nothing wrong with her and she just
came out of it. A girl with so many awesome features....but
that manipulative spirit that just led her into all the wrong
places. Self abuse victim #999. I'd have married her gladly
if she'd have just repented of that nature. In the spirit realm
I could see it like a thief that would just steal the good things
that wanted to come out of her. If nothing else, I've learned
how the Lord looks at us through so many of these experiences.
He sees such awesome potential. But he will not co-habitate with
our sin. And if we choose it over him, all he can do is turn
his head away and weep. -Bob
McGovern
>
> >purpose of disclaimers are to keep from being sued when people
> >stupidly misuse your product. In this case, it would be someone
> >saying, "Wow, the guy in Raze was arrested for molestation? But they
> >were covered in CCM! I guess this means that artists covered in CCM
> >are child molesters." See how ridiculous that becomes?
>
> No. I don't even know what you are talking about. I don't waste
> time thinking of such stuff too often. I usually have apoint nested
> somewhere in my rants. :-)
Try and keep up, Bob, okay? A) You said that CCM should have a
disclaimer. B) I informed you what the real-life purpose of a
disclaimer is, and asserted that such a disclaimer in CCM would be
silly, giving a possible scenario of the outcome. Please try to
remember what you post & what you're posting to, in that order.
> >
> >> Well, they don't. Kurt is simply putting out the usual
> >> challenge many have put out after such an incident. The lack
> >> of discernment, the unbiblical spreading of rumors and such
> >> and the absolute lack of sorrow for such past deeds definitely
> >> give us all the information we need to conclude that there
> >> is no bottom line Christ over business going on here.
> >
> >When did they spread rumors? If anything, they refrained from
>
> Troubled Troubador was referenced before. I don't read the magazine
> anymore. I'm waiting to hear that they pulled their heads out. I'll
> hear when it happens, believe me.
>
> >spreading rumors. From my experience in the Christian magazine biz,
>
> No, you are incorrect. Historically they have spread them. That
> was just one example of their unethical approach I was using to
> examplify why I don't consider them to be acting in Christ's interest.
Historically? You mentioned you don't read CCM, but you hint that you
know what's being written nowadays, AND that you know the motives of
those writing it.
However (and this could be applied to most of what you've posted) --
you didn't write Jeremiah 29:11. You don't know the plans the Lord has
for them. You views are limited by your human eyes, just like the rest
of us. Some things that may look questionable to you, may be perfectly
fine between other folks and their Creator. So back off.
Most of the time, based on the tone of your comments, I don't consider
YOU to be acting in Christ's interest. I've lost count of how many
times have I sat here reading your posts, and thought, "Wow, there's
something Jesus wouldn't do (or say)."
And I'm sure you could say the same thing about me. I get snippy, I
get arrogant, but at least I have the balls to admit it, repent, and
apologize. You can't. It's always someone else's fault, and they're
always the ones going to Hell because of it.
> THEREFORE I dont' expect them to come out with any accurate report
> to the body of Christ that a SO CALLED CHRISTIAN BAND MEMBER is
> not Christian. That would be bad for business, so I don't expect
> it from them. Follow me now? -Bob
Why would they come out and state that any given person who plays in a
Christian band is not a Christian. I'd prefer to hear it from the lips
of the individual over some magazine any day. But really, how would
anyone know whether or not Ja'Marc is a Christian. Maybe he wasn't in
the first place. Maybe he is, but is really messed up doctrinally.
Maybe he is, but simply made a huge mistake. Either way, his salvation
is/was determined between his heart & God's.
java...@mac.com
<b...@efn.org> wrote:
> In article <B6CB9C94.36A9%java...@mac.com>, <java...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On 3/7/01 1:56 AM, in article 984pim$g...@garcia.efn.org, "Bob Weigel"
>> <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>>
>>> For years ccm has allowed a variety of things which set them
>>> apart from a business which holds to christian priciples.
>>
>> (If you don't mind hearing from an "ass" again, as you so kindly called me
>> in another post...)
>>
> In reply to???? Gee...just try talking nice to people and you won't
> be perceived as one hun. :-)
Bob, I have this image of you as someone who just sits around and
intentionally thinks of ways to piss people off. Because I can't imagine
that if you truly *were* walking in the Spirit 24/7, that you would
purposely push people's buttons to get a rise out of them, then
condescendingly chastise them for not "getting" you.
>> If you are referring to "ccm" as the contemporary Christian music industry,
>
>
> No I'm talking about ccm magazine as per the topic. I've never seen
> any kind of apology for the "Troubled Troubador" thing, which was a
> classic piece of work. Entirely gossip/inuendo based.
And your source for proving this would be?
> And that
> beaut of a followup to Larry's interview, where Pamela was given
> platform to lash out without providing biblically acceptable framework
> to the whole thing. If I see a formal retraction/apology for those
> allowed proceedures then I'll believe that maybe some Christians are
> in charge there.
Well, now at least one thing is clear. You are no more able to be objective
and unbiased about anything having to do with the Christian music industry
than Kurt. Has has his Rebecca axe to grind; you apparently still have your
Norman fetish.
>> then I would agree that the accountability level of the artists--to their
>> audience, to a local church and ultimately to the Lord--definitely needs to
>> be more finely tuned. BUT, once again, when such an incident occurs,
>> everyone wants to blame some ONE or some THING, to say "how could this have
>> happened?" There really is no ONE to blame except Ja'Marc and those closest
>> to him, who had actually KNOWLEDGE of FACTS in the case. To blame the
>> Gospel Music Association or a magazine who reports on the industry really
>> makes no more sense to than to blame Kurt or yourself because Ja'Marc
>> sinned. I grieve when a brother close to me confesses a sin and asks me to
>> pray for him. And I pray that maybe next time he or she might come to me
>> before the fact and ask me to help them in this area in which they are
>> struggling. But I don't blame myself for their sin.
> Yeah, great. Well not my concern as I've said. Anyway, when I interact
> with anyone I'm responsible to take advantage of the situation for Christ
> to plant good see in their life and discern things I might minister in.
As I said above...
> From what I'm seeing of the Ja' mess there WERE perhaps some signs
> that a true minister (as opposed to a gossip columnist) could have
> exploited towards these ends.
And exactly what would those signs have been Bob? What have you seen that
no one else has?
Have you read or received more information than has been published? How do
you know that the main story from which these accounts have been drawn is
even accurate?
You need to put up (or preferably) shut up, pal.
McGovern
>
> Here's the reality on the matter. A wet dream (in general this time,
> for those who can't think for themselves) is when the imagination
> LITERALLY LIES to the body, and convinces it that it is actually
> having sex. The result? Wet pants. Oh that's cool....NOT! TRY
> having the fruit of self-control, even in your dreams! ALLOW the
> spirit to have all your life, even your imagination so that it
> doesn't become a tool of wickedness. THAT WAY your little imagination
> won't lie to your body. The imagination can be a tool of righteousness.
> It can spontaneously come up with new solutions for things that have
> real applications, and help people.
Wow, that's a new one. We can essentially control our dreams? You
might want to bring that up in Psychology class, and see if there's
anyone who doesn't laugh in your face. But as we all know, you're not
afraid of being laughed at. But seriously, please post the name of the
reputable source from the field of psychology from which you heard
that we can control our dreams.
How is a wet dream wicked when you're married to the person you're
dreaming about? Please use specific scriptures. And please try to omit
your opinions of what you might think is "icky."
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
McGovern <mai...@mugoven.com> wrote:
>Wow, that's a new one. We can essentially control our dreams?
Haven't you ever heard "Silent Lucidity" by Queensryche? :-)
JRjr
--
%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%% www.prism.gatech.edu/~vapspwi %%%%%%%%%%%
"Some will shake off the sloth of faithlessness
While others simply languish in their sleep
Me, I just fight to stay awake..." -- VOL, "Black Cloud O'er Me"
McGovern
>
> >Wow, that's a new one. We can essentially control our dreams?
>
> Haven't you ever heard "Silent Lucidity" by Queensryche? :-)
Nope... never got into them.
AvidLust68
miffed...which, I guess, was Bob's intention, but so be it. I happen to know
one of the employees of CCM magazine and what I know about her is this: a) she
is a Godly woman who is constantly seeking the Lord for His will in her life,
therefore her desire is that her work would reflect what the Lord would have
her write. Believe me, there have been many times when she has been tempted to
lash out at an obsessed fan and direct them to www.getalife.com but she's held
back. b) she's a JOURNALIST. She just takes press releases and/or interviews
and puts them into an interesting form to read. Nothing more...nothing less.
c) she will be the first to admit that she has enough trouble keeping her own
walk in line, so she doesn't have time to be judge and jury over Ja'marc or
anyone else. I can't speak for the rest of the employees of CCM (and probably
shouldn't speak for my friend) but I get the feeling that they have far too
much to do to belabor this or any story. Report the facts, go on to the next
thing.
Oh, and by the way, Bob, if you keep insinuating that women are mere children
without the guidance of a man, you'll be alone forever. The only man *I* need
to guide me is on the Throne...neither you nor any other man roaming this
bloody mudball is.
Hugs! (sarcastic factor 9+)
Denise
the nonconformist
CDS <csho...@REMOVE.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3aa58212...@news.fulton-net.com...
> What Amy Grant did was wrong too, and I don't know if she has repented
> or not, but the local Christian Radio Station hasn't played one of her
> songs since. But they still play RAZE one bazillion times a day and I
> am getting sick of them. I think I will forward this article on to
> them and maybe they will stop playing them. That would make my day.
This attitude bothers me. If your station has a request policy, request
things you like more. But to forward this article to the station so "maybe
they will stop playing them", is unChristian and wrong, sir.
Local CRS hasn't shelved Amy at all, shelved Michael English only for a
month, at his request, but, while they haven't mentioned the news at all
(and we're right in the epicenter of this whole thing, being Tulsa radio),
both major radio stations quietly shelved Raze.
And if that doesn't upset people, it should. Why should the entire group be
chastised for the (alleged) sins of one member?
--
==== Josh Marihugh ==== NP: Third Day _Offerings_
"I often wonder if religion is the enemy of God.
It's almost like religion is what happens when the Spirit
has left the building." -- Bono (U2)
the nonconformist
Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:njup6.1296$y6.2...@ruti.visi.com...
> Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>
> :>Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote in message
> :>news:X8cp6.1078$y6.1...@ruti.visi.com...
> :>
> :>> GET A CLUE BOB. Garf. Song of Solomon is one of the most erotic
> :>> things ever written.
>
> : I can't believe how silly that sounds. Song is
> : the most erotically interpretable portion of the bible...however
> : it also and has been historically interpreted, by those closest
> : to the source, as a pure metaphor of our relationship with God.
>
> Life is filled with passion. I for one sure as heck want my
> relationship with God to be filled with passion as well.
>
> : There is nothing erotic in that. Eros refers to fleshly lust.
> : God is spirit. You loose. Care to choose another topic?
>
> Erotic != Bad. I hope that married couples have lust for one
> another. I hope they have passion and some eroticism in
> their lives with one another. If they don't, they are missing
> things. God, as spirit doesn't have the same physical passion, but
> I hope and pray that there is a spiritual passion for God. A
> spiritual passion for God that is even more intense then the
> passion between a bride and bridegroom. The metaphor in all
> it's erroticism is absolutely perfect.
Abso-fraggin-lutely. There is a historical context for the Song of Solomon,
but the only reason it was allowed into the canon of Scripture is that there
is a very real point to it. I want my relationship with God to be that
intense...that passion that would send me out into the middle of the night
(without getting dressed, if i read it correctly) to follow after Him.
>
> You loose.
Unless you were copying him to make a point, you both _lose_ on this one.
--
==== Josh Marihugh ==== NP: nothing
donot...@interbulletin.bogus
>>>>To Eddie DeGarmo and John Styll: Can we talk?
Bruce A. Brown <java...@mac.com> had written:
>>>DeGarmo isn't even with ForeFront anymore ...
I'd written:
>>He was Executive Vice President of A&R when Raze
>>was signed.
Bruce replied:
>Even at that, your statement presumes that he either
>(a) made no attempt to verify the moral state of the
>group, or, (b) ascertained that Ja'Marc was a rapist
>and decided to cover it up.
My statement? You're lying again.
Bruce:
>>>and what responsibility does John Styll have in this
>>>matter, other than to report the news after the fact?
Me:
>>For starters, he has a responsibility to explain the
>>accountability mechanisms of *CCM*, apologize to his
>>readers, and take steps to reduce the likelihood of
>>something like this happening again.
Bruce:
>John Styll has no responsibility to do any such things,
>any more than the publisher of Rolling Stoll has any
>responsibility to explain the "accountability mechanisms"
>of pop music.
Is this what *he* believes?
>I would say that those around the band--Ja'Marc's management,
>band members, pastor, fellow church members, SHOULD have
>a little better access to whatever his particular accountability
>system is.
Many of them were part of the coverup.
>WHY do you persist on trying to make high profile members
>of the Christian music community responsible for the sins
>of the community?
By their failure to hold other high-profile members
of the Christian music community accountable, they're
sinning themselves.
Sincerely,
Kurt
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
tony
>Song of Songs is
> the most erotically interpretable portion of the bible...however
> it also and has been historically interpreted, by those closest
> to the source, as a pure metaphor of our relationship with God.
> God is spirit. You loose. Care to choose another topic?
>
those closest to the source? who? the metaphor for it being between man
and God didn't arise until sometime around 100 AD. It was accepted as
canon by the Jewish people as a sex poem. people feel the need to make it
more because they cannot see the see the spiritual worth of sex, they make
it too simple. . . too carnal. The church seems to accept the world's
ideas about sex, and just add a bunch of rules to them (no sex before
marriage, no sex to non-virgins, to divorced women, and by golly. . . no
sex toys!) instead of viewing sex in a sacred manner. What more do we come
to when we explore seeing God through sex. . . If anyone reads the Bible.
. . well, there's a lot of sex in it. And most of it does not fit into our
nice Christian thoughts on sex. There's only one thing which hasn't
changed since the garden. . . we still have sex. That means something.
As Rabbi Akiva said around 130 BC "The whole world is not woth the day on
which the Song of Songs was to Israel, for all the writings are holy, but
the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies."
If i ever do anything with my life. . . I want to understand this text the
way that he understood it. . .
donot...@interbulletin.bogus
>>For starters, he has a responsibility to explain the
>>accountability mechanisms of *CCM*, apologize to his
>>readers, and take steps to reduce the likelihood of
>>something like this happening again.
"McGovern" <mai...@mugoven.com> replied:
>Wrong. CCM is a magazine, not a church. If they were
>a church, then yes, they should have "accountability
>mechanisms" ... but they are simply a media entity.
>The medium on which they report is, for the most part,
>Christian, but so what.
*CCM* explicitly identifies itself as a Christian
media entity, complete with a statement of doctrine.
>Why on earth should John Styll apologize to his readers?
Because his magazine led many of them to assume
the members of Raze were reasonably mature Christians.
>All he did was operate the magazine, which may have
>included content about the band and/or its members.
"May have"?
>Should CNN apologize for Bill Clinton's escapades?
No, it should apologize for its failure to investigate
his character when he began his first presidential campaign,
and for its failure to fully report evidence of his extreme
moral corruption when it was exposed, as in the case of his
brutal rape of Juanita Broadderick.
>Should HM apologize if one of the bands they cover cusses
>on stage ...
Repeatedly over a period of more than a year? Yes,
unless it was covered in the "So & So Sez" section.
>or sleeps w/ his girlfriend?
And covers it up? Um, yes.
java...@mac.com
"evans...@hotmail.com" <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> wrote:
> I'd written:
>>>>> To Eddie DeGarmo and John Styll: Can we talk?
>
> Bruce A. Brown <java...@mac.com> had written:
>>>> DeGarmo isn't even with ForeFront anymore ...
Actually, McGovern wrote that....
> Bruce replied:
>> Even at that, your statement presumes that he either
>> (a) made no attempt to verify the moral state of the
>> group, or, (b) ascertained that Ja'Marc was a rapist
>> and decided to cover it up.
> My statement? You're lying again.
About? You say you want to talk to Eddie DeGarmo. Since the subject is
Raze, the logical conclusion is that you feel Eddie has (a) something for
which to answer (b) is somehow responsible for covering something up. I'd
call that a valid line of reasoning on my part, based on this thread and
others to which you contribute.
> Bruce:
>>>> and what responsibility does John Styll have in this
>>>> matter, other than to report the news after the fact?
Actually, McGovern wrote that too...
> Me:
>>> For starters, he has a responsibility to explain the
>>> accountability mechanisms of *CCM*, apologize to his
>>> readers, and take steps to reduce the likelihood of
>>> something like this happening again.
>
> Bruce:
>> John Styll has no responsibility to do any such things,
>> any more than the publisher of Rolling Stoll has any
>> responsibility to explain the "accountability mechanisms"
>> of pop music.
>
> Is this what *he* believes?
Why don't you *ask* him? (615) 386-3011. Believe me, he knows who *you*
are. Could be that's why he hasn't wasted his time replying to any of these
ludicrous posts.
Bob Weigel
>On 3/7/01 10:58 AM, in article 985pb7$9...@garcia.efn.org, "Bob Weigel"
><b...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <B6CB9C94.36A9%java...@mac.com>, <java...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/7/01 1:56 AM, in article 984pim$g...@garcia.efn.org, "Bob Weigel"
>>> <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>> In reply to???? Gee...just try talking nice to people and you won't
>> be perceived as one hun. :-)
>
>Bob, I have this image of you as someone who just sits around and
>intentionally thinks of ways to piss people off. Because I can't imagine
Well that's another false image. When I read something here, I often
write something (this is honestly usually how "it" happens), and I think
as I'm follwing myself (I mentally proofread as I'm writing with
this multi-processing brain.... I can do that but don't ask me to
remember a meeting. :-) ) and I'll have a thought like "hmm, someone
is probably going to misinterpret that. Why? Cuz they want to. If
I take the time to fix it so they have no excuse, will it help them
understand any better? Nope. If I just leave it out there and let
them react, and expose their spirit which assumes the WORST instead of
the best, then correct them, is that going to stand a better chance
of helping them understand that there is a problem? Yup." So I
hit write/quit and move on.
EVERYONE has a choice as to whether to read into things, or
just assume the best of someone until proven otherwise. The
reason I'm perceived so off character from what, as I continually
say, I can provide a database with hundreds of names and numbers
you can call and get witness that your perceptions are off, IS
that people in these groups tend to make judgements (long term) on
others from just a little bit of text they see...in a most derogatory
way at times. Many of those people may feel I've hurt them by
allowing them to push their own buttons and then exposing their
error. But really I'm just letting them know that there are
areas we all need to work on and a common one here seems to be
hoping the best for each other. I've been guilty of it a time or
two myself...usually thinking someone is someone else and then
seeing the error and correcting it quickly. But, you know the
bottom line is I love you guys. Look at McGovern here. I could
easily have said "well here's a guy who seems to just want to assume
the worst in me, might as well file him". But rather, the instant someone
makes any effort to listen and understand, I just go PRAISE GOD we've
been reconciled and the angels rejoice and we can move on as friends
in Christ. Don't you think if we all did that it would be a really
good thing? Time doesn't heal alone. We need to take steps like
the bible says. If we know we've offended someone, we need to
go to them and really reconcile things. Think how we would feel if
someone just called us things we didn't see that we were and didn't
explain why they called us that.... and then go act to them as we'd
want someone to act to us if that were the case. Or whatever.
That's the evidence that the spirit is really working in our lives.
We have to love each other more than some agenda. We all reason to
one degree or another about things. If we assume things and come
to conclusions it will create conflict with those who assume a
different set of things. But shouldn't our objective be to assume
nothing? About each other. About the way things are/should be? To
be open to reasoning together and learning? Isn't that the purpose
of reasoning together? To hear what the other is saying and respond
in a way that isn't colored by our prejudices, assumptions and the like?
Anyway just a few thoughts. No I don't sit around thinking of
ways to push buttons, and sometimes as I look back I go...."Boy I
couldn't have pushed THAT person's if I WERE trying"....so maybe
it's God orchestrating some of it to challenge those people. I
told him it was ok to help on my posts quite a few times. Think
maybe he's taking me up on it? :-) Historically, God seems to be
into pushing people's buttons. He does it to help them understand
that they are sinful broken people like me who need him in all
that they do. Seemaz we beez a little thick in the head and awl. -Bob
Bob Weigel
McGovern <mai...@mugoven.com> wrote:
>Bob Weigel wrote:
>>
>> >purpose of disclaimers are to keep from being sued when people
>> >stupidly misuse your product. In this case, it would be someone
>> >saying, "Wow, the guy in Raze was arrested for molestation? But they
>> >were covered in CCM! I guess this means that artists covered in CCM
>> >are child molesters." See how ridiculous that becomes?
>>
>> No. I don't even know what you are talking about. I don't waste
>> time thinking of such stuff too often. I usually have apoint nested
>> somewhere in my rants. :-)
>
>Try and keep up, Bob, okay? A) You said that CCM should have a
>disclaimer. B) I informed you what the real-life purpose of a
I wasn't interested in "keeping up". I didn't sense the question
was going anywhere I was interested in going. I'm not concerned
about the actual legal aspects of the whole who can sue who thing.
I WAS JOKING about the disclaimer again as I explained. I think
they should get the name of Chist out of what they do, but if they
want to leave it tagged on there it's their business. In general,
there seems to be an aspect of greed associated with the use of
his name in certain places....however I understand that it
conveniently goes hand in hand with the fact that this is the
general category of the products they report on. The name really
isn't very descriptive, and it WOULD have been thoughtful to save
it for a magazine which actually is run by people who specialize in
1) Verifying that the product is Christian. Are the artists PART
of what is being sold here? Make an intellectual evaluation and if
they ARE, find out if they are christians too. If they aren't dump
their product in the bin for another magazine to evaluate. (like
the roc'm soc'm one I suggested. )
2) Emphasizing reporting on the ministry that is actually happening.
Lives that have been changed. What it was in the music or witness
of the ministers that lead them in that direction. Etc.
3) maybe an online prayer request database or that kind of thing.
4) absolute interaccountability to the body of Christ with the
editing staff. If funny stuff gets printed, there is an explanation
and apology as needed within an issue or two.
These are normal expectations of a magazine which is trying to
purely report on Christian music. NOTE my careful wording in 1)
those of you prone to having your buttons pushed. :-) I said
there needs to be an evaluation of what the product is. If a
group slaps their photos all over the CD with poses that suggest
"we are just a bunch of cool brothers you'd want to get to know!"
and they live like that HEY! They are part of the product to
be evaluated. If they are like me and put artsy things on
CD's and have no merchandise to promote me, then they just listen
to the music and evaluate it. If Bob Weigel is found with dead
cats in his speakers, who cares? (other than cat lovers I mean)
The music stands as a production that might really edify people
still.
I could say a lot more about this stuff but that's enough
for now I guess. I have a problem enjoying Amy Grant's product
anymore because it just grieves me the direction she's gone. And
she very much makes herself a part of the product (or allows it
anyway). Yet I wouldn't think twice about pulling out one of
her old albums and letting someone hear a song I think might edify
them where they are at. Who knows, maybe they'll hear it and
make better decisions. There were some great efforts back there
and I know Amy was in a valley of decision on some things, with
people like Brown and Michael and Gary working together on things.
Lord I wish we could all just be friends in Christ. It would
do so much more to show people the love of God than having the
biggest shows and the most expensive productions and the most
changes of wardrobe. :-) Doh. Well I went ahead and said more.
But anyway, you get my drift I hope. There are many things to
evaluate and if some matureish Christians were working as an
editorial staff in conjunction with the real body of Christ (and
not the people who....man I'm thinking of a really stupid quote
back there where they talked to some pastors in that whole Larry
mess and got some unbiblical advice...arghhh. As the stomach
turns....). Anyway, their choice. If they want to keep using
that name, they can legally. But it is confusing in some ways
to people if they don't act as Christians...and it's a cool dream
to think that THE magazine named after contemporary christian music
could....hold to such standards. -Bob
Bob Weigel
don't belong in an article having to do with instructing people
who have the spirit good/body bad heresey don't you? How's
stuff going? Write any new tunes?
-Bob
In article <98398792...@cswreg.cos.agilent.com>,
Bob Weigel
In article <njup6.1296$y6.2...@ruti.visi.com>,
Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote:
>Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>:>Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote in message
>:>news:X8cp6.1078$y6.1...@ruti.visi.com...
>:>
>:>> GET A CLUE BOB. Garf. Song of Solomon is one of the most erotic
>:>> things ever written.
>
>: I can't believe how silly that sounds. Song is
>: the most erotically interpretable portion of the bible...however
>: it also and has been historically interpreted, by those closest
>: to the source, as a pure metaphor of our relationship with God.
>
>Life is filled with passion. I for one sure as heck want my
>relationship with God to be filled with passion as well.
>
Me too, not ones tied to lustful fleshly associations. That
is WHAT EROS IS BY DEFINITION! DO YOU NOT KNOW that philos,
and agape can ALSO have INCREDIBLE PASSION??? That's what
Christ examplified onthe cross and in the garden. That's what
the saints who were sawn assunder had. I don't think anyone
who so persistently argues against such a godly line of reasoning
will every understand that you don't have to have fleshly erotic
associations to have passion.
>: There is nothing erotic in that. Eros refers to fleshly lust.
>: God is spirit. You loose. Care to choose another topic?
>
>Erotic != Bad. I hope that married couples have lust for one
>another. I hope they have passion and some eroticism in
I hope rather that they have such a passion for Christ that
their agape love leads them into WHATEVER fleshly interaction
the spirit would lead. That way they won't have to wear funny
little rubber things, and even that will develop a more pure
love for each other. WAKE UP CALLLLLLLL! The sexual revolution
is a flop. Free sex didn't make anyone happy. Just created a
whole new host of problems. IF SEX IS THE FOCUS...what does it
matter if it's in marriage? As it becomes more and more the focus,
one of the people will see someone else who looks more fun and
that'll be the end of that. Same old story. Statistics say
your version of love sucks. IF THE SPIRIT is the focus...then
we have a whole new thing don't we? A relationship where
people can truly love one another instead of having those fleshly
passions as the driving element....passions which are by nature
self seeking, careless, inconsiderate....is that what you want to promote?
>their lives with one another. If they don't, they are missing
>things. God, as spirit doesn't have the same physical passion, but
Why would God let us miss something he designed? Don't you think
he can let us experience it better than if we seek it in our
own ways?
>I hope and pray that there is a spiritual passion for God. A
Not from eros. God is spirit...said that already. That was
right before your point was nullified...a point which you
seem to think you can revive from the dead.
>spiritual passion for God that is even more intense then the
>passion between a bride and bridegroom. The metaphor in all
>it's erroticism is absolutely perfect.
>
>You loose.
In what way? I MADE the following points against you as i
recall off the top:
1) wet dreams are a sick perversion. You haven't addressed that.
You seem to have gotten your instructions from some pop psychologist.
In what way do they glorify god, and HOW do you justify the MECHANISM
at work which is a LIE WITHIN OURSELF (deceiving our body parts into
thinking they are having sex through a convincing dillusion.)
2) God would not use a sick perversion to be an analogy of a
relationship with him. There is another interpretation. Use it.
Not having masturbated doesn't detract from having a passion
for one's lover. IN FACT....it would tend to detract from the
situation's eventual fulfillment BECAUSE we didn't use self control
and keep our imagination from deceiving ourselves....something
analogous to having all the oil spent by the time the bride groom
arives I'd think. :-) Hhehhe. TThhhaaat's a keeper. Print it!
Instead of just saying "you loose" try making a point I disagree with
and blow my logic all to shreds like I did yours. Then you've earned
the right to say "you loose". Don't you see Susan? I agree that
the erotic nature which happens under control of the spirit is
the most incomparable experience we can have here and is indeed
the analogy Song is trying to make to the coming of Christ. BUT
your constructs leading up to this are all wrong. Then you try
to say the right thing in a way that is instructing I, who already
agree with that.... as you drag along the demeaning thing towards
me because I'm single/virgin and thus can't possibly understand
this stuff as well as you. Yeah. Right. Go ahead and preach
the masturbation Gospel. I'm sure you'll have a flock in no time.
-Bob
Bob Weigel
the nonconformist <christ...@EATMYBUBBLESyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> passion between a bride and bridegroom. The metaphor in all
>> it's erroticism is absolutely perfect.
>
>Abso-fraggin-lutely. There is a historical context for the Song of Solomon,
>but the only reason it was allowed into the canon of Scripture is that there
>is a very real point to it. I want my relationship with God to be that
>intense...that passion that would send me out into the middle of the night
>(without getting dressed, if i read it correctly) to follow after Him.
>>
>> You loose.
>
>Unless you were copying him to make a point, you both _lose_ on this one.
>
>--
are the only one here who wants his spiritual relationship that instense.
Yeah. Uhuh. She's saying that because she can't admit to being wrong.
Eros alone and of itself is by definition a fleshly lust. I want
my spiritual relationship to be analogized to a PROPER physical
relationship, in which the spirit interacts above the flesh and
gives it the element of self control which keeps us from the kinds
of interpreations I'm rebuking here. In what way to I loose? Because
I want a more intense relationship than one that is ruled by eros?????
One that inevitably ends in abuse, unfaithfulness, divorce???? Are
we all getting this? Take it up a level and read the book again. -Bob
Bob Weigel
tony <alue...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>
>those closest to the source? who? the metaphor for it being between man
The poem was inspired by God's spirit. There are several indications
in the book that this is more than a sex poem. Take for example the
stuff already quoted. There are some things thrown in there which
just don't make a lot of sense as a "sex poem". Have you read it?
Ya know? The stuff like about defiling feet and putting the robe
back on? Read it more carefully this time and don't get so turned
on man! Sheesh! :-) THEN tell me nobody before 100AD was smart enough
to pick up on what you missed. :-) -Bob
Peter T. Chattaway
: However there are things which definitely don't glorify God, and
: symbolize a mockery of his creative intent. Props, for example.
: Include in that other devices which attempt to take reproductive control
: out of God's hands.
So you're against condoms and other forms of birth control too, then?
: ALL women who submit to having sex with someone who isn't their true
: husband are being taken advantage of . . .
And guys who submit to having sex with women not their "true" wives
(whatever that means) are somehow *not* being taken advantage of, too?
: . . . and they usually don't know it I'd guess...making them IN THE
: HEART of the law, not "adult".
That's as wacky as Pat Robertson saying that the Rapture could happen in
2007 because it's the 400th anniversary (ten generations), "in God's
eyes," of the founding of America. A person isn't a "child" or "adult"
simply based on how sexually experienced they are. That's the whole
reason we have statutory rape laws in the first place. Age and
experience, sexual and otherwise, are two entirely different things.
: They will have to deal with being a person who hasn't saved themself for
: their husband now. And people like me will say "no thanks, go on being
: a slut if that's what you are. I'm only into sex trek....going where no
: man has gone before..." :-)
Pardon my saying so, but that's pathetic. Losing one's virginity does not
make one a slut. Methinks you need to do some serious rethinking.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/5/story_597_1.html
Sex and the Single Evangelical
The church lady vs. the 'evangelical whore'
[ snip ]
The problem isn't that Sarah made my sex life her business. It's that
her evangelical vocabulary left her with nothing to say but "whore."
--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- pe...@chattaway.com ---
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Bob Weigel
Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote:
>Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>C'mon Bob, as it has been stated by quite a few folks aroudn
>here, most people just don't get your brand of logic. And even
>more I would imagine just doen't agree with it.
adding to 2+2=4 tends to trip them up I know....
>
>: In article <i7rp6.1237$y6.2...@ruti.visi.com>,
>: Susan Anderson <kee...@visi.com> wrote:
>:>Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote:
>:>
>:>: If you want to take a perverted version of it, you're certainly
>:>: entitled to. Wet dreams aren't something God desires us to have.
>:>
>:>Oh really?
>:>
>:>: It RESULTS from allowing our mind to think lustful thoughts about
>:>: someone we aren't married to...and foolish dissipation is the result.
>:>
>:>So, married people can't have wet dreams? Married people can't dream
>
>: Here's the reality on the matter. A wet dream (in general this time,
>: for those who can't think for themselves)
>
>You can't just go and make it general. I talked about a specific thing
I did make it general. Why didn't you listen? A wet dream ALWAYS
ALWAYS ALWAYS has a coupld of common elements, regardless of who
is doing it.
1) the physiology gets deceived. God is not a god of confusion. He
doesn't promote lies from us OR in us.
2) it results in...a mess. Body fluid that was specifically designed
for reproductive purposes going to an arbitrary location that
wasn't where we thought it would go IN our deceived state.
Thus, though I was stating a specific case above and my grammar
wasn't perfect in that you could think I was meaning married
couples couldn't have wet dreams (as though I give a rip), I
then posted a crystal clear explanation of why they are all
evil and out of god's will. Here it is again. That's all
I'm going to say. Said it two ways. Work on it until
it makes sense I guess or just disbelieve that god actually
likes deception some of the time. -Bob
Peter T. Chattaway
: Wet dreams aren't something God desires us to have.
Says who? I've always assumed Jesus had them.
: It RESULTS from allowing our mind to think lustful thoughts about
: someone we aren't married to...and foolish dissipation is the result.
"Foolish dissipation"!? Well, if you aren't going to have sex, is there
any *other* way to dissipate your seed? The way I hear it, wet dreams are
a physiological necessity -- especially for guys who don't have sex.
Heck, even James Dobson (who makes the same mistake you make, telling his
readers to "Seek to marry a virgin") doesn't have a problem with
masturbation -- so I can't imagine that he'd be bothered by wet dreams.
Bob Weigel
Christians work at our garbage company. Christians work at our
light company. None of them are Chrsitian organizations. Why would
anyone say a Christian doesn't work at ccm?? That would be stupid.
I don't intend to miff anyone. Some people just can't read and
miff themselves I guess. So be it.
Furthermore, my statements were...pretty concise. I said
something of the nature of "CCM's administration can't even
get it together enough to post an apology for a 10+ year old
unbiblical release that demeaned the character of Larry Norman.
How could I expect them to actually take a personal interest
in the lives of people they functionally promote, so as to
have spiritual discernment about them?" I do not. They are
just a magazine with a commercialistic name. That's what i
said, right? There are some Christians who work there. This
doesn't surprise me...nor of the garbage and light companies.
I'm sorry the administration can't see where it is a bad idea
to, as Kurt mentioned, have ministry statements and stuff if
they aren't going to function as a biblically accountable
entity. But that's their problem. It doesn't keep real
Christians from working for them and doing a job that
is good in hopes that maybe they can witness to these lost
people....now down to the bottom....
In article <20010307164918...@ng-ct1.aol.com>,
What brought that on?? Uhhh...yeah. Whatever.
>Hugs! (sarcastic factor 9+)
>Denise
Sheesh...I think yer a little confused there denise. I pray the
lord works to build a normal friendship between us though
you seem to hate me for no reason right now. Learn to
read what i say. Don't read into it what you want to be
there. That will help I guarantee. -Bob
Peter T. Chattaway
: imagination LITERALLY LIES to the body, and convinces it that it is
: actually having sex. The result? Wet pants. Oh that's cool....NOT!
: TRY having the fruit of self-control, even in your dreams!
Gosh, half the time, I don't even remember having a dream in the first
place. On mornings like that, I feel ripped off, I do. :)
: Are you TRULY a minister serving in the house of God day and night? Or
: just a person who thinks they have fire insurance? . . . If it's the
: former, you won't have to have me telling you that masturbation, wet
: dreams, fornication, and the like are to glorify god.
You mean to tell us that ministers serving in the house of God day and
night can glorify him by fornicating? :)