Three Crosses and alcoholism
Coyote Art
with the lead singer of 3Xs about the song "Come In To My Life?" I it
think adds more insight into why he did the anti-alcoholism rap at
C-stone's Main Stage. He speaks of meeting a fan 3 times in 3 yrs. Her
alcoholic husband came the 3rd time and was in recovery, inspired to a
relationship with Jesus Christ (that he said gave him the strength) by
the song "Come Into My Life." 3Xs' lead singer said they had been
praying for the man for 3 yrs.
NP- Vigilantes Of Love- Killing Floor
"It feels good to be forgiven"
-Eddie DeGarmo
COYOTEARTvisit the COYOTEART website under construction
<www.angelfire.com/nm/COYOTEART>
Larry Seiler
> think adds more insight into why he did the anti-alcoholism rap at
> C-stone's Main Stage.
Since I walked around with Steve for nearly 2 hours prior to his leaving
the night after.....and since we've seen Three Crosses live two other times
this year.....the insight I will share is that Steve having been a teen
that got heavily into drinking and drugs has a major burden for other teens
that are now doing the same or because of peer pressure or cultural lies
are about to begin. His comments were not directed at "responsible" adults
that might be Christians AND have ocassional drinks, but was his personal
testimony of years in bondage to the effects of alcohol and drugs that
began as a teen AND a testimony ALSO of the power of the salvation of Jesus
Christ that coming into a person's life can free them from such bondage.
His advice, based upon his own experiences was to teens of whom he was
directing his testimony that if they were thinking or feeling pressure to
start drinking.....that it was better not to.
Since teenagers have no legal grounds to even consider drinking as an
option anyway.....his testimony and sharing had nothing to do about the
liberty a Christian may or may not have. Thus...."drinking in moderation",
(a thing said publically that would affirm the emotions of many Christians
easily winning their approval frustrated from having to drink in secret or
be scorned) is irrelevant... ..since teens "legally" do not have the option
to consider moderation.
The reference later made to Steve's comments as "baggage" is
understandable for those sensitive to not wishing to see "grace"
obscurred.....however, though we may have liberties that many do not
understand, the scriptures are very clear not to platform our liberties if
they cause others to stumble. A stage which draws tens of thousands from
widespread denominations is not a place to air anything that is a
controversial personal disdain about where or what some immature or ultra
conservative Christians may rightly or wrongly believe concerning
liberties. Such a festival is a time to focus on the power of Jesus Christ
to save....a name above all names, a name to be lifted up and worshipped,
and honored.
Steve's comments didn't rip Christians (those old enough) that have chosen
to drink, but targeted minors with brotherly advice and insight concerning
the enemy of our souls' schemes...insight based upon his experience. That
is a testimony.....and is a witness.
Larry
Jerry B. Ray
Larry Seiler <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>Since teenagers have no legal grounds to even consider drinking as an
>option anyway.....his testimony and sharing had nothing to do about the
>liberty a Christian may or may not have. Thus...."drinking in moderation",
>(a thing said publically that would affirm the emotions of many Christians
>easily winning their approval frustrated from having to drink in secret or
>be scorned) is irrelevant... ..since teens "legally" do not have the option
>to consider moderation.
I'm not sure I follow your parenthetical comment above, but it sounds
a bit negative. Could you clarify?
In any event, in Bill Mallonee's on-stage "response" to Three Crosses,
he went out of his way to state that all drinking was subject to
"the laws of the land," so illegal drugs are out of the question, and
drinking if you're underage is out of the question, among other caveats.
So the allegations that VoL was supporting drug use and encouraging
teenagers to drink were complete and utter bull$#!+ fabricated by somebody
with poor listening skills and an agenda to push.
>The reference later made to Steve's comments as "baggage" is
>understandable for those sensitive to not wishing to see "grace"
>obscurred.....however, though we may have liberties that many do not
>understand, the scriptures are very clear not to platform our liberties if
>they cause others to stumble.
An issue that Bill addressed at some length in subsequent "press conference"
type things. The question that I extrapolate from that whole discussion
is this: if a particular behavior, say "driving a red car," is not Biblically
unsound, should I then be hesitant about driving my red car for fear that
somebody with some extraBiblical convictions might "stumble"? Obviously
the issue of alcohol isn't QUITE so cut-and-dried, but nobody seems able
to produce a verse that says "don't drink," so maybe it's cut-and-dried
after all...
>A stage which draws tens of thousands from
>widespread denominations is not a place to air anything that is a
>controversial personal disdain about where or what some immature or ultra
>conservative Christians may rightly or wrongly believe concerning
>liberties. Such a festival is a time to focus on the power of Jesus Christ
>to save....a name above all names, a name to be lifted up and worshipped,
>and honored.
And I think that Bill sincerely believed that he _was_ honoring Jesus
with his comments.
>Steve's comments didn't rip Christians (those old enough) that have chosen
>to drink, but targeted minors with brotherly advice and insight concerning
>the enemy of our souls' schemes...insight based upon his experience. That
>is a testimony.....and is a witness.
I didn't hear what Three Crosses had to say, so I've tried to keep an
open mind on their end of things. I have heard some quotes from them
from a later show that I found rather disturbing, however. (Just the
sort of behind-the-back, passive-aggressive behavior that you'll find
in any given church on any given Sunday. I'm not sure if it was directed
at the VOL situation, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't.)
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Well I used to be disgusted,
But now I try to be amused."
Elvis Costello --- "Red Shoes"
Norman Leach
>An issue that Bill addressed at some length in subsequent "press
conference"
>type things. The question that I extrapolate from that whole discussion
>is this: if a particular behavior, say "driving a red car," is not
Biblically
>unsound, should I then be hesitant about driving my red car for fear that
>somebody with some extraBiblical convictions might "stumble"? Obviously
>the issue of alcohol isn't QUITE so cut-and-dried, but nobody seems able
>to produce a verse that says "don't drink," so maybe it's cut-and-dried
>after all...
i don't think anyone should refrain from drinking because someone else has
an extrabiblical conviction about it. that opens up too many things then
that people can't do. for example, the churches i was raised in believe
that musical instruments during worship services is wrong. does this mean
that none of us should musical instruments during a worship service because
it might offend this group of believers? of course not.
there is no biblical verse that says "don't drink" but there are verses
talking about drunkeness (and any addiction) as sinful, and we should not
act in anyway that could cause someone to stumble over that. if i am a
social drinker and have someone over for dinner who is a recovering
alcoholic and struggles very greatly with the alcohol issue, THEN i feel it
would be a sin for me to drink alcohol in front of that person because that
is a legitimate weakness on their part which i would only be helping to
fuel.
so even though it wouldn't be a sin for me to drink, i think it would be a
sin for me to be so callous to my brother's weakness that i presented him
with the opportunity to fall back into that sin.
norm
Geoff Horton
a fact) does Bill Mallonee. Larry may well be correct that Steve was talking
to teenagers, but he (Steve) certainly didn't make that clear, nor did he
say that you should avoid alcohol until you're old enough to make a mature,
informed decision on it.
I was a member of a group conversation at the R.M.C. bbq when Bill was
talking about this. He has teenaged kids himself, so he is not unaware of
the problems. He said something to this effect, and my apologies if I mangle
it: "I have kids, and they're wondering what it means to be a Christian. Do
I have to dress like my parents? Vote like my parents? All I was trying to
say was that we shouldn't add things to the Gospel to make it harder than it
is."
My riff on this: is it leading a weaker brother astray if I make it harder
for him to believe he's a follower of Christ by adding a standard to the
Gospel that is not clearly there already? Sorry for the syntax (can I blame
a 100 degree fever?), but I hope the point is there.
Geoff
Larry Seiler
My responses tend to ignite firestorms, so the length of my answer here is
not all intended to be thrown at you. Yours was a good response. But I am
anticipating that which is about to come.....
There are a number of things that went on behind the scenes that I know
about that without Bill and Steve both here to discuss, would be improper
for me to bring up. I too was at the rmc deal with Bill there...heard his
comments about the youth pastor contingency, his "deal" at the
trailer.....yada yada yada.
Aren't we just a little all sick and tired of the church being immature?
Wouldn't we just all rather be able to enjoy our liberties as we see fit
without fear of judgement? Yet didn't Paul in saying he would be willing
to not eat meat if it would cause an unbeliever to stumble risk to promote
obscurring grace? Or are we missing something? Perhaps loving the immature
and anticipating their confusion is about the highest level of maturity for
us as believers to come.
One has to anticipate the many yet struggling with alcohol whom cannot
handle with maturity the idea of entertaining responsible moderate use. It
is possible that while some breathed a silent amen and felt relief to enjoy
their next brew with less undue condemnation.....that many struggling with
alcohol are now facing tremendous up hill battles thinking they can now go
back to drinking. Unless Bill can gather them all together and disciple
them, counsel them, start his own church.....it wasn't necessarily the most
compassionate thing to do for them. That he may have caused many to bring
problems back to their churches may bring a slight smile that he has
affected his cause, but it does not serve unity or the greater purposes of
the fest.
I was among the many youth pastors that over the years have used and built
up the festival to be that place where young people would get excited about
being a Christian......where it would for once be cool to invite their
friends, etc; I and my wife had youth groups that started with only a
handful of teens whom after the fest and then ongoing concerts thereafter
quickly grew to 60-70 teens. We pleaded and argued with pastors, board
members.....we argued against the Bill Gothards of the world. We in
essence took these minors at risk to the authorities of the church having
shaky confidence.....promising to carefully oversee the week, and prayed
for things of testimony to go home to to justify everyone's taking the
chance. With that behind....we continued to look for incredible
opportunities the year thereafter for permission to yet bring more kids.
(one year my wife and I brought 46 teens, and Word Record gave us $600
worth of music videos and tapes for the effort). We envisioned support
eventually to bring in bands to our communities having built however
slowly...some credibility.
I lost a couple youth pastor jobs over the issue of insistence for arguing
on behalf of Christian rock music as viable for the subculture of the
youth. I myself having been a musician in such a band for three years. It
has been war. It is war.
All I could envision when I heard what I heard from main stage were youth
pastors all over putting their faces into their hands...fearing what storms
were about to face them when they went home. "See....we told you this
music was bad!" etc; and what? The youth pastors are to be the
sacrificial lambs to straighten out the whole church that people have been
blind to liberties Christ gives us to enjoy?
What are we worshipping anyway? Our right to liberties? Or Jesus Christ
and Him crucified?
The little grace that may have been cleared to enjoy this liberty, may have
undermined so much more...and what has to be weighed is the sum total of
the ultimate intention of God, and whether or not His objective has been
advanced and not our own.
I have learned that the Holy Spirit is capable in the still and quiet place
to help a believer sort through ideas, scriptures, etc., see indeed that a
liberty others reject outright has His stamp of approval for them. This is
the rudiment of experiencing what is actual or in reality a "personal
relationship" with God. However, not every liberty God approves for us is
a license to assume all others will or ought to be at the same place of
maturity to receive.
We are agreed that certain things are destructive.....and drinking is
clearly known to be one of them.
I personally have my own ideas about issues such as tithing and theories
about when Christ will return- pre, mid, and post..etc; about favoring
the rich and scorning the poor....about ridiculous notions concerning
demonic influences in music styles.....etc; however, when I attend the
church I do I am called to submit to the leadership God has called to
oversee that church. I may not agree with them, and in a number of
issues.....I do not. I have been asked perhaps about six times to fill in
and preach for our pastor when he leaves, and I do not see such
opportunities as a chance to "straighten things out."
Accountability at this fest takes into account the various doctrines that
would divide....and lifting Christ is the maximum purpose of those invited
to participate. There are now in this day and age many proclivities to
suggest what was once considered an obvious wrong as now a privilege to be
enjoyed by grace. The vast majority still see "alcoholism" as having a
destructive grip upon individuals, and like it or not many are encouraged
to hear a testimony that one is or has been set free....a witness to the
power of Christ.
It is simple wisdom. Maintaining unity is a difficult balancing act, and
maturity learns to focus on that which brings people together and not
divide. What perhaps is not clearly understood (unless you were pushing
for the music back in the 60's) is that what we now enjoy at Christian
festivals in the 90's did not come easily or without restraint...without
nurturing, taking guard, and prayer. Changes that YET maintain unity come
in very small steps, one at a time....
BTW......I too walk in the freedom of Christ amongst many whom do not enjoy
my liberties. It is not as though I do not understand.
--
Larry Seiler
my art web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
my NetMinistrie's page at- http://netministries.org/see/charmin/CM00117
"It's not what happens to you, but in you that matters!" (author unknown)
gho...@ibm.net
I do indeed have an obligation to respect those who may be hurt by alcoholism.
But there's a flip side--what about those whose faith is hurt or destroyed by
what they see as petty legalism?
If Bill's remarks were irresponsible, and maybe they were, then I find that
Steve's were, to the same degree. Maybe the problem is that (potentially)
disputed points like Steve's and Bill's ought not to be made, by anyone, in a
situation where they can't be discussed. Steve is responsible for raising the
issue on the Cornerstone main stage, which can add unjustified authority to
what anyone says (and again, this goes for Bill, too). Bill is responsible
for choosing to answer in that same forum.
Geoff
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jerry B. Ray
Norman Leach <nor...@anson-industries.com> wrote:
>i don't think anyone should refrain from drinking because someone else has
>an extrabiblical conviction about it. that opens up too many things then
>that people can't do. for example, the churches i was raised in believe
>that musical instruments during worship services is wrong. does this mean
>that none of us should musical instruments during a worship service because
>it might offend this group of believers? of course not.
This brings us back around to a point that's been raised time and again
here in r.m.c., almost since the group was started. That is, how much
of the stuff that people say "causes them to stumble," be it drinking,
cursing, rock and roll, or whatever, REALLY causes them to stumble in
the Biblical sense and how much of it actually just offends their
sensibilities. When people say "that makes me stumble," are they
really just trying to enforce their own personal flavor of legalism
on others? How do you discern between these situations? At what
point does the "baby Christian" need to grow up? I've never heard
these questions addressed in a satisfactory manner, and I certainly
don't have answers for them.
Jerry B. Ray
Larry Seiler <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>Aren't we just a little all sick and tired of the church being immature?
>Wouldn't we just all rather be able to enjoy our liberties as we see fit
>without fear of judgement? Yet didn't Paul in saying he would be willing
>to not eat meat if it would cause an unbeliever to stumble risk to promote
>obscurring grace? Or are we missing something? Perhaps loving the immature
>and anticipating their confusion is about the highest level of maturity for
>us as believers to come.
The question then becomes, how do you discern when somebody REALLY has
a point about being "caused to stumble" and when they're just trying
to push their convictions on others without justification? On the
one hand, it's really hard to really know somebody's heart well enough
to tell if they're being sincere or manipulative. So should we even
try to figure it out? But on the other hand, it seems that EVERYBODY
is offended by SOMETHING, so if we _don't_ discern motivations,
how can we ever do ANYTHING?
Additionally, doesn't the very concept of the mature Christian deferring
to the weaker brother imply that the weaker brother should eventually
become stronger and more mature?
>One has to anticipate the many yet struggling with alcohol whom cannot
>handle with maturity the idea of entertaining responsible moderate use. It
>is possible that while some breathed a silent amen and felt relief to enjoy
>their next brew with less undue condemnation.....that many struggling with
>alcohol are now facing tremendous up hill battles thinking they can now go
>back to drinking.
Sorry, that's not only stupid, it's also completely contrary to what
Bill said. If somebody that struggles with alcohol abuse hears a
Christian saying that drinking alcohol isn't prohibited in the Bible
and then falls off the wagon, sorry, they're a moron. Of course,
Bill went out of his way to make the point that people need to be
very careful with alcohol if they're "at risk" for alcoholism (and
Bill included himself in that category, given his history of
depression and so forth).
Should we preach something other than the truth for the sake of the
weaker brethren? That seems to be taking things a bit too far.
>I lost a couple youth pastor jobs over the issue of insistence for arguing
>on behalf of Christian rock music as viable for the subculture of the
>youth. I myself having been a musician in such a band for three years. It
>has been war. It is war.
And I've been more or less pressured out of a church for more or less
the same reasons.
>All I could envision when I heard what I heard from main stage were youth
>pastors all over putting their faces into their hands...fearing what storms
>were about to face them when they went home. "See....we told you this
>music was bad!" etc; and what? The youth pastors are to be the
>sacrificial lambs to straighten out the whole church that people have been
>blind to liberties Christ gives us to enjoy?
I think you're letting the youth pastors who spread outright LIES about
what Bill had to say off the hook quite a bit too easily. And the last
time I checked, there was a lot more in the Bible against lying than
against drinking. (And bear in mind that I _do_ lie and I _don't_ drink,
for what that's worth.)
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Have I lost it if I hope for something more than feeling fatalistic pain?
And if true love never did exist how could we know its name?"
Sam Phillips -- "Love Is Not Lost"
loserboy
>Yet didn't Paul in saying he would be willing to not eat meat if it would
>cause an unbeliever to stumble risk to promote obscurring grace?
>We pleaded and argued with pastors, board members.....we argued against
>the Bill Gothards of the world.
>I lost a couple youth pastor jobs over the issue of insistence for arguing
>on behalf of Christian rock music as viable for the subculture of the
>youth.
about this whole "stumbling block" issue...from the disjointed (and
mercilessly ripped out of context) snippets i included above, it sounds to
me like this whole "rock music" issue has been a stumbling block for
people in some of the churches at which you've served. really, should you
have promoted and allowed something other people at your church honestly
think is sin? it sounds to me like your position and insistence on
sticking to your guns wrt a controversial issue (one concerning which the
bible is rather vague, to boot) has caused a great deal of strife.
glenn
--
"if it wasn't for disappointment i wouldn't have any appointments"
-they might be giants http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt1636b
Jason Steiner
> Geoff....
>
> My responses tend to ignite firestorms, so the length of my answer
> here is not all intended to be thrown at you. Yours was a good
> response. But I am anticipating that which is about to come.....
[100 lines snipped.]
I should save this article for the next time someone asks me why I'm
not a Christian. This isn't the reason, but being free of all this
utter bullshit and needless worry has got to be one of the top ten
reasons why losing my religion was one of the best experiences of my
life.
Fuck doctrine, here's the simple truth: used in moderation, alcohol
can bring people together, be quite enjoyable, and may even be good
for your health. Used in excess, it will make you sick, stupid,
destroy your judgement and your health. Whether you choose to enjoy
one drink, or one drink too many is entirely up to you, and the
consequences are yours to deal with as well. I don't want to hear
any more goddamned whining about how Bill Malonee is at fault for
your - or anybody else's - pitiful lack of self control.
That said, what'll it be? I'm having Maker's Mark, but the bar is
well stocked, and there's plenty of floor and a couple of comfy
couches to crash on if you don't feel up to driving home. Heather
will cook breakfast and I won't even count the butts and bottles in
the morning when you're gone.
jason
r.m.c's first resident atheist
--
"The man who marries a modern woman marries a woman who expects to vote
like a man, smoke like a man, have her hair cut like a man, and go without
restrictions and without chaperones and obey nobody."
BOBBED HAIR - John R. Rice, 1941 http://www.gaydeceiver.com/
HistoryDC
[big snip]
>We are agreed that certain things are destructive.....and drinking is
>clearly known to be one of them.
[big snip]
Well, I don't think we are in agreement at all. True, certain things are
destructive, but drinking is not clearly known to be one of them. Underage
drinking, heavy drinking, drinking and driving, addictive drinking, other kinds
of drinking perhaps, but your statement above is an untrue blanket that just
doesn't cut it.
Personally, I don't drink. I am the permanent designated driver. I never drank
in school. My choice has little or nothing to do with religious/bibical
beliefs. I don't even like the taste. But, studies have shown that your
statement is not true. Drinking is not clearly known to be destructive. In
fact, medical studies show that perhaps a small bit of drinking may actually be
beneficial to health.
I realize that this wasn't the issue at Cornerstone, but I just couldn't let
such an erroneous statement pass without comment.
Tim
randall g
wrote:
>That said, what'll it be? I'm having Maker's Mark, but the bar is
>well stocked, and there's plenty of floor and a couple of comfy
>couches to crash on if you don't feel up to driving home. Heather
>will cook breakfast and I won't even count the butts and bottles in
>the morning when you're gone.
>
>jason
>r.m.c's first resident atheist
I'll have whatever your local microbrew is, and I'll hang around
trying to be good conversation until you play Christian music, or
Heather makes breakfast: whichever comes first.
Sounds like a good time.
randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short
mailto:rand...@telemark.net http://www.telemark.net/~randallg
When You let me fall, grew my own wings, now I'm as tall as the sky
When You let me drown, grew gills and fins, now I'm as deep as the sea
When You let me die, my spirit's free, there's nothing challenging me
- James (a band from England, not my name)
Coyote Art
language, and then said:
> "I'm having Maker's Mark..." I have an N.B.C. news package on the
distillery tour, the culmination of which involves "making your own
mark" by dipping a bottle in the hot wax to seal it.
I will have a Dr. Pepper w/Geo. Dickel #12
NP- Emmylou Harris on Conan O'Brien
"To think I had my hand in that man's humidor!" - Cmdr. Dick, 3rd Rock
FTSun
Wednesday White
>on behalf of Christian rock music as viable for the subculture of the
>youth. I myself having been a musician in such a band for three years. It
>has been war. It is war.
>
>All I could envision when I heard what I heard from main stage were youth
>pastors all over putting their faces into their hands...fearing what storms
>were about to face them when they went home. "See....we told you this
>music was bad!" etc; and what? The youth pastors are to be the
>sacrificial lambs to straighten out the whole church that people have been
>blind to liberties Christ gives us to enjoy?
Ah, so it isn't about Bill causing people to stumble, it's about people's
sensibilities being offended and getting in the way of your personal war.
It's about your work being taken down and ripped to shreds by <accent=
"rural southwestern american">Gawd-fearin' perrints</accent>, about you
being upset because a Christian musician had an opinion somewhere off the
party line -- not so dissimilar to you, really, but it got in your way.
Or you're scared it might.
I feel faintly ill from the scent of your *ahem* piety.
>The little grace that may have been cleared to enjoy this liberty, may have
>undermined so much more...and what has to be weighed is the sum total of
>the ultimate intention of God, and whether or not His objective has been
>advanced and not our own.
You could say that just as much about Christian rock music as you could about
drinking. How do you know that God's ostensible objective wasn't advanced
through Bill's statements and attitudes? Does he have to toe the party line
and coddle the people who'll use any excuse to fall off the wagon, fine
upstanding Christian source or no? Maybe more good is done by a statement
which can help shatter the petty, shrill legalistic approaches to "liberties"
that, o trust me my buckyball, kill more than they save.
>We are agreed that certain things are destructive.....and drinking is
>clearly known to be one of them.
Bunk. A glass of red wine a night reduces your chances of a heart attack,
for example. My neuralgia lessens with half a pint of cider (or a cigarette)
more so than with available medications, for another example. Other people
have listed social benefits and whatnot. Of course, this flame war has
gone around in circles since time immemorial and it's not like it does
any good, now, does it?
-- weds. trade you a shot of laphraoig for some of that maker's mark, jason...
--
wednesday white * personal: wedn...@chiark.greenend.org.uk or @tezcat.com
Chuck Pearson
: That said, what'll it be? I'm having Maker's Mark, but the bar is
: well stocked, and there's plenty of floor and a couple of comfy
: couches to crash on if you don't feel up to driving home. Heather
: will cook breakfast and I won't even count the butts and bottles in
^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^
jason, that HAS to be the slyest ob-r.m.c that i've ever seen.
chuck
--
follow your dreams. you can reach your goals. [thanx to eric cartman.]
i'm living proof. beefcake. BEEFCAKE! <cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Norman Leach
>here in r.m.c., almost since the group was started. That is, how much
>of the stuff that people say "causes them to stumble," be it drinking,
>cursing, rock and roll, or whatever, REALLY causes them to stumble in
>the Biblical sense and how much of it actually just offends their
>sensibilities. When people say "that makes me stumble," are they
>really just trying to enforce their own personal flavor of legalism
>on others? How do you discern between these situations? At what
>point does the "baby Christian" need to grow up? I've never heard
>these questions addressed in a satisfactory manner, and I certainly
>don't have answers for them.
>
if i understand what you're saying about when does the "baby Christian" need
to grow up (and i think you're saying when do they not need to let it
present them with a problem anymore) i don't guess i think they ever have to
"grow up". i mean there are just some things that you don't get over as a
general rule, such as alcoholism. but, if i were to have a glass of wine
with my dinner, and someone who doesn't have a problem with alcohol, never
drank it, has no desire to drink it, came up to me and said, "you know, i
really think that's wrong and you're offending me so stop it because the
bible says not to cause me to stumble" i would probably down the rest of my
glass and tell them to get over it. BUT if it were someone who struggled
with alcoholism and they said "look, i'm a recovering alcholic and the sight
and smell of that really makes me want a drink, would you please not do that
right now so i'm not presented with the temptation" then i believe it would
be a sin for me to continue.
it depends on where that person is and is coming from. if it just offends
their sensibilites then that's their problem, if it is a stumbling block for
someone then it becomes my problem and the problem of the church.
make any sense?
norm
Norman Leach
>That said, what'll it be? I'm having Maker's Mark, but the bar is
>well stocked, and there's plenty of floor and a couple of comfy
>couches to crash on if you don't feel up to driving home. Heather
>will cook breakfast and I won't even count the butts and bottles in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the morning when you're gone.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>jason
>r.m.c's first resident atheist
nice cameo of lyrics! btw, can i just have Dr. Pepper?
norm
Jeff Holland
> I should save this article for the next time someone asks me why I'm
> not a Christian. This isn't the reason, but being free of all this
> utter bullshit and needless worry has got to be one of the top ten
> reasons why losing my religion was one of the best experiences of my
> life.
What a sad, but true commentary on our rediculous Christian
sub-culture, really. One has to wonder what Jesus would (or will) say
to the leaders of "Christian culture."
Jeff
(...bet the word "Pharissee" is in there somewhere.)
NP: Mortal, _Pura_
--
Jeff Holland - IBM Education & Training
Lotus Notes Application Development
jeff...@us.ibm.com
Jason Steiner
> Jason Steiner wrote:
> >
> > I should save this article for the next time someone asks me why
> > I'm not a Christian. This isn't the reason, but being free of all
> > this utter bullshit and needless worry has got to be one of the
> > top ten reasons why losing my religion was one of the best
> > experiences of my life.
>
> What a sad, but true commentary on our rediculous Christian
> sub-culture, really. One has to wonder what Jesus would (or will)
> say to the leaders of "Christian culture."
>
While I appreciate your kind words, your comments actually reveal
one of the real reasons _why_ I'm not a Christian, rather than
why I enjoy not being a Christian.
Why do Christians have to speculate about what Jesus would or will
say? Supposedly, he's still alive. Supposedly he's God. Supposedly
there are lots of people who have a personal relationship with him.
So what's with all this speculation? He should be able to just tell
everyone what's what. And if the leaders of the "Christian culture"
are really in need of reproof, why wait?
Why, if God exists and wants people to know him, does he sit around
while people claiming to speak for him spread slanderous lies about
him and what he wants? Does he not care that he's being
misrepresented? Is he too lazy to correct it? Is he taking a nap? Is
he on a long trip?
> (...bet the word "Pharissee" is in there somewhere.)
The Christian leadership in America makes the Pharisees look
like saints; if Jesus doesn't destroy it both utterly and soon,
he owes one hell of an apology to those nice moneychangers.
- rang...@ix.netcom.com in alt.fan.bob-larson, November 21, 1997
Not only are Christians not cleaning their own house, Jesus isn't
either. He's as conspicuously absent as Baal on Mount Carmel.
jason
Jeff Holland
> While I appreciate your kind words, your comments actually reveal
> one of the real reasons _why_ I'm not a Christian, rather than
> why I enjoy not being a Christian.
>
> Why do Christians have to speculate about what Jesus would or will
> say? Supposedly, he's still alive. Supposedly he's God. Supposedly
> there are lots of people who have a personal relationship with him.
> So what's with all this speculation? He should be able to just tell
> everyone what's what. And if the leaders of the "Christian culture"
> are really in need of reproof, why wait?
This is all under _your assumption_ that God isn't doing anything,
but I won't get trapped into an argument with you, Jason. I think we
both know each other's prejudices. The chance of either of us
budging on them are nil and I find these kind of discussions tiresome
and repetitive.
Care for a Guiness?
Jeff
NP: Newsboys, _Step Up to the Microphone_
Jason Steiner
> > say? Supposedly, he's still alive. Supposedly he's God. Supposedly
> > there are lots of people who have a personal relationship with him.
> > So what's with all this speculation? He should be able to just tell
> > everyone what's what. And if the leaders of the "Christian culture"
> > are really in need of reproof, why wait?
>
> This is all under _your assumption_ that God isn't doing anything,
> but I won't get trapped into an argument with you, Jason.
I'm sure the 450 prophets of Baal tried that line on Elijah too,
just before they got hauled off and slaughtered. "It's just _your
assumption_ that Baal isn't doing anything. As a matter of fact,
he had very good reasons for not lighting that sacrifice. He had
something better in mind, but you're incapable of understanding it.
Have patience and let's not argue in the meantime."
And the people of Israel said "Yeah, right! You're god had his
chance." ...and slit their throats.
Now, I'm not going to slit your throat, but I will point out that
Baal only got one morning to show his might. Jesus has had nearly
2000 years, and the church has been wracked by divisiveness the whole
time, divisiveness so severe that you can find "Christians" killing
"Christians" throughout most of it. If he's really God, Jesus could
easily have straightened this whole mess out, made his message for
mankind that much more clear, and convinced that many more people to
come to him.
Like Baal, he couldn't be bothered. Of course Christians have all
kinds of great excuses why this was too much trouble for their "all
powerful" God, but those same excuses would have worked just as well
for Baal (ie. not at all) and the fact that they have to make
_excuses_ for _God_ tells me about all I need to know.
> Care for a Guiness?
Add another 'n', and yeah. :)
jason
r.m.c's first resident atheist
Mattias G. Hembruch
>The problem with looking out for the weaker brother is that it cuts both ways.
>I do indeed have an obligation to respect those who may be hurt by alcoholism.
>But there's a flip side--what about those whose faith is hurt or destroyed by
>what they see as petty legalism?
>
>If Bill's remarks were irresponsible, and maybe they were, then I find that
>Steve's were, to the same degree. Maybe the problem is that (potentially)
>disputed points like Steve's and Bill's ought not to be made, by anyone, in a
>situation where they can't be discussed. Steve is responsible for raising the
>issue on the Cornerstone main stage, which can add unjustified authority to
>what anyone says (and again, this goes for Bill, too). Bill is responsible
>for choosing to answer in that same forum.
That has to be the most sensible thing I've heard about this whole issue in
some time, and nicely puts into words some thoughts that were partially
floating around in my head as well (i.e. I didn't take it this far, but was
wondering what about the 3X guy for bringing it up in the first place).
I would say, neither one should have said anything. For Steve (is that his
name) of 3Xs to praise God for delivering him from alcoholism and drugs is
great. To start preaching that one shouldn't drink at all was wrong (at
least, that's how it sounded to me).
For Bill to publicly rebuke Steve wasn't great - Steve didn't have a chance
to respond.
I think if my friend from Germany had been there as opposed to being at one
of the more "hardcore" shows, he would have probably laughed his head off..
Mattias
--
Mattias Hembruch, University of Waterloo. Where time has no meaning,
BASc, MASc Electrical and Computer Engineering, our reason does not apply.
Parallel & Distributed Systems Group K. Livgren
mghe...@dictator.uwaterloo.ca http://www.pads.uwaterloo.ca/~mghembru
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Since teenagers have no legal grounds to even consider drinking as an
: option anyway . . .
Maybe not in the United States, but in my province the age of majority is
19, and in Alberta and Quebec (and one or two other provinces, I think)
it's as low as 18. Thus teenagers -- of a certain age -- do have legal
grounds to consider drinking in these parts.
But the law does not forbid teenagers from drinking, per se, right? It
only prevents vendors from *selling* drinks to minors, yes? If someone
-- a parent or legal guardian, say -- wanted to share a drink with a
14-year-old, that would be okay, would it not?
--
Peter T. Chattaway | "All you touch and all you see is all your life
16397 Glenmoor Ct. | will ever be." -- Pink Floyd
Surrey, BC V4N 1V2 | "All is touch and vision in a passionate kiss, and
pet...@unixg.ubc.ca | life's a drab curtain ready to be raised." -- Da
e...@bellatlantic.net
> I would say, neither one should have said anything. For Steve (is that his
> name) of 3Xs to praise God for delivering him from alcoholism and drugs is
> great. To start preaching that one shouldn't drink at all was wrong (at
> least, that's how it sounded to me).
I heard the same speech from Dale Thompson from Bride at cornerstone 91 or
92?? Cornerstone must just bring out that anti drinking thing in people???
Eric
CPARKS43993
Peter Thomas Chattaway <pet...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>Larry Seiler <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>: Since teenagers have no legal grounds to even consider drinking as an
>: option anyway . . .
>
>Maybe not in the United States, but in my province the age of majority is
>19, and in Alberta and Quebec (and one or two other provinces, I think)
>it's as low as 18. Thus teenagers -- of a certain age -- do have legal
>grounds to consider drinking in these parts.
>
>But the law does not forbid teenagers from drinking, per se, right? It
>only prevents vendors from *selling* drinks to minors, yes? If someone
>-- a parent or legal guardian, say -- wanted to share a drink with a
>14-year-old, that would be okay, would it not?
i would suppose so. The police don't make a habit of going from house to
house to see if mom and dad are sharing wine at dinner with their kids,
for instance. On the other end of the spectrum, a few years ago parents
in the Milwaukee area faced (if i recall correctly) criminal charges for
buying alcoholic beverages for their child's unsupervised HS prom party.
Even if they had been at the party, i think they would have had trouble
with the law.
i personally don't drink, largely because i never liked the taste of beer
or wine. i missed Three Crosses set at Cornerstone, so i dont know
exactly what they said. i was at the VoL set, and it seemed to me that
Bill went out of his way to be (1) fair to Three Crosses and (2) clear
that the freedom to drink carries important responsibilities. i think the
distortions of what Bill said were the results of (at best) poor
listening.
i agree with Geoff that the mainstage at Cornerstone in the midst of a
relatively short set is not the best place for these issues to be raised.
Peace,
chris
--
"'Do you find it easy to get drunk on words?'
'So easy that, to tell you the truth, i am seldom perfectly sober. which
accounts for my talking so much.'" --dorothy sayers _gaudy night_
skr...@cris.com is chris parks >< http://www.concentric.net/~skrapc
Philip Daly
>Larry Seiler <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>: Since teenagers have no legal grounds to even consider drinking as an
>
>OI!
>
>WE. ARE. NOT. ALL. AMERICANS.
.. and *Amen* to that.
phil
snail
>Larry Seiler <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>: Since teenagers have no legal grounds to even consider drinking as an
Tony, Tony...even I resisted that one :-) Given the context of the thread
(ie cornerstone) I figured I'd let it pass. Although as Peter commented,
I'd imagine teenagers would be allowed to drink with their parent's
permission (noting Chris's comments on parties I'm referring specifically
to home situations such as a glass of wine with the family meal).
Mind you I'm more offended by another post that Clinton is 'our
president'. Although the author of that one did try to make amends
for it when we discussed it in email.
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
---------- [radio: http://www.careless.net.au/~misfits] ----------
clive
>
> Larry Seiler <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
> : Since teenagers have no legal grounds to even consider drinking as an
>
> OI!
>
> WE. ARE. NOT. ALL. AMERICANS.
tony, tony, tony... you have forgotten that americans NEVER
tire of announcing themselves as the most powerful and
important country in the world. the rest of us dont matter,
as long as the "american way" prevails....
> Tony
clive
Wednesday White
Even if some of us SOUND like them. :)
Jeff Holland
> Jeff Holland <jeff...@NOSPAM.us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Jason Steiner wrote:
> >
> > This is all under _your assumption_ that God isn't doing anything,
> > but I won't get trapped into an argument with you, Jason.
>
> I'm sure the 450 prophets of Baal tried that line on Elijah too,
> just before they got hauled off and slaughtered. "It's just _your
> assumption_ that Baal isn't doing anything. As a matter of fact,
> he had very good reasons for not lighting that sacrifice. He had
> something better in mind, but you're incapable of understanding it.
> Have patience and let's not argue in the meantime."
*yawn*
This is why I'm not arguing with you. We aren't covering any
new ground here. You say God isn't doing anything in the world
today. I disagree. Anything further than that and we're both
wasting precious time that could be spent doing any one of many
other things, like reading my other witty posts. ;)
I'm here to discuss music, not debate God's existance. You
and I both already have our minds made up on that issue.
Jeff
(if I called you a Nazi, would it kill this thread?)
Norman Leach
clive wrote in message <35DC02...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk>...
>Tony Bowden wrote:
>>
>> Larry Seiler <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>> : Since teenagers have no legal grounds to even consider drinking as an
>> : option anyway.....
>>
>> OI!
>>
>
>tire of announcing themselves as the most powerful and
>important country in the world. the rest of us dont matter,
>as long as the "american way" prevails....
finally, you're seeing the light of day! as the chosen of God we americans
feel superior (and rightly so i might add) to people from "those other
countries" and if you have blonde hair and blue eyes we just love you that
much more.
norm
ps - oh, btw, all the really GOOD music comes from the united states too,
like U2 and The Cure both of which are from a little town called Tacovilla
in Texas
Coyote Art
>"WE ARE NOT ALL AMERICANS"
You "furuners" are just jealous that your ancestors weren't driven out
in religious and/or political persecution and/or famine.
Nobody came here because life was great in the "old country."
What's wrong with weak beer, television addiction, bad petrol mileage,
too sweet sweets, and high fat cuisine covered in ketchup? Why do the
Japanese and Limies drive on the wrong side of the road? They are
inviting a head-on collision. And calling soccer "football," real
football involves abnormally large men in elaborate padding sustaining
painful injuries on every complex down.
And ya'll need to learn to speak American properly:-)
Seeking world peace
through hyperbole,
COYOTEART
p.s. When visiting here, please try the the green chile sundaes.
"To think I had my hand in that man's humidor!" - Cmdr. Dick, 3rd Rock
FTSun
COYOTEART
Spam can be sent to <rhu...@fcc.gov>
FCC <jqu...@fcc.gov>,<sn...@fcc.gov>
<rch...@fcc.gov>
Matt Laswell
:> WE. ARE. NOT. ALL. AMERICANS.
: tony, tony, tony... you have forgotten that americans NEVER
: tire of announcing themselves as the most powerful and
: important country in the world. the rest of us dont matter,
: as long as the "american way" prevails....
Amen.
--
matt laswell -- laswell at jump dot net
"Computers don't make errors. What they do, they do on purpose."
- Dale Gribbel
snail
>So sum "furuner" sez:
>>"WE ARE NOT ALL AMERICANS"
We are all individuals.
>You "furuners" are just jealous that your ancestors weren't driven out
>in religious and/or political persecution and/or famine.
Hmmm ? Speaking as a furuner, Oz has had its fair share of antipathy
with the pommies. The yanks had it easy, Oz was started as a penal
colony, at least america started off with settlers.
>Nobody came here because life was great in the "old country."
But at least "you people" had a choice :-)
>inviting a head-on collision. And calling soccer "football," real
>football involves abnormally large men in elaborate padding sustaining
>painful injuries on every complex down.
Padding....you wear padding...what a bunch of pansies.
>And ya'll need to learn to speak American properly:-)
Speaking of which it's "y'all", so sayeth all the americans in rmc.
> Seeking world peace
> through hyperbole,
Not if we nuke you first..."cause we've got the bomb" hang on...uh oh,
you've got the bomb...oh dear...<fx: runs for the nearest bomb shelter>
I'm sooooorrrrrryyyyyyyyyy....!
Jerry B. Ray
clive <cl...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk> wrote:
>tony, tony, tony... you have forgotten that americans NEVER
>tire of announcing themselves as the most powerful and
>important country in the world. the rest of us dont matter,
>as long as the "american way" prevails....
Of course, it appears that non-Americans never tire of bitching
about America at every turn, either...
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Have I lost it if I hope for something more than feeling fatalistic pain?
And if true love never did exist how could we know its name?"
Sam Phillips -- "Love Is Not Lost"
Jerry B. Ray
snail <sn...@careless.net.au> wrote:
>>>"WE ARE NOT ALL AMERICANS"
>We are all individuals.
I'm not. :-)
Jason Steiner
> Jason Steiner wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure the 450 prophets of Baal tried that line on Elijah too,
> > just before they got hauled off and slaughtered. "It's just _your
> > assumption_ that Baal isn't doing anything. As a matter of fact,
> > he had very good reasons for not lighting that sacrifice. He had
> > something better in mind, but you're incapable of understanding it.
> > Have patience and let's not argue in the meantime."
>
> *yawn*
>
> This is why I'm not arguing with you. We aren't covering any
> new ground here. You say God isn't doing anything in the world
> today.
No, that's not what I'm saying. God may be doing all kinds of things
in the world today. But there's one thing he's not doing, and that
is making clear who speaks for him, and who doesn't.
That's the issue.
Matt Laswell
: In article <35DC02...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk>,
: clive <cl...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk> wrote:
:>tony, tony, tony... you have forgotten that americans NEVER
:>tire of announcing themselves as the most powerful and
:>important country in the world. the rest of us dont matter,
:>as long as the "american way" prevails....
: Of course, it appears that non-Americans never tire of bitching
: about America at every turn, either...
Besides - they may dog us out for producing "Baywatch" for example,
but what does it say when they're importing the bloody thing?
Mattias G. Hembruch
Matt Laswell <las...@nospam.jumpnet.com> wrote:
>Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>: In article <35DC02...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk>,
>: clive <cl...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>:>tony, tony, tony... you have forgotten that americans NEVER
>:>tire of announcing themselves as the most powerful and
>:>important country in the world. the rest of us dont matter,
>:>as long as the "american way" prevails....
>
>: Of course, it appears that non-Americans never tire of bitching
>: about America at every turn, either...
>
>Besides - they may dog us out for producing "Baywatch" for example,
>but what does it say when they're importing the bloody thing?
David Hasselhoff is really big in Germany?
snail
>>>>"WE ARE NOT ALL AMERICANS"
>>We are all individuals.
>I'm not. :-)
Exactly. You're an american. :-)
obrmc: There's a Miranda Stone track on the 7ball compilation I just
bought. Nice. I like it.
HistoryDC
>In article <slrn6togjk...@jinx.silas.unsw.edu.au>,
>snail <sn...@careless.net.au> wrote:
>
>>>>"WE ARE NOT ALL AMERICANS"
>
>>We are all individuals.
>
>I'm not. :-)
>JRjr
Somewhere out there, Steve Taylor must be enjoying this. . .
Tim
Eisenbraun
>only prevents vendors from *selling* drinks to minors, yes? If someone
>-- a parent or legal guardian, say -- wanted to share a drink with a
>14-year-old, that would be okay, would it not?
>
>
Here in Missouri, it is illegal for anyone but a parent or legal guardian to
serve a drink to someone who is underage. So yes, you're basically right. A
family can serve wine at dinner, say, and everyone can imbibe.
David Eisenbraun
clive
>
> :>tony, tony, tony... you have forgotten that americans NEVER
> :>tire of announcing themselves as the most powerful and
> :>important country in the world. the rest of us dont matter,
> :>as long as the "american way" prevails....
>
> : Of course, it appears that non-Americans never tire of bitching
> : about America at every turn, either...
i'm surprised that you'd doubt this. :)
> Besides - they may dog us out for producing "Baywatch" for example,
> but what does it say when they're importing the bloody thing?
it's cheap, tacky, and fills a vacant tea-time slot in the
scheduling?
> matt
clive
clive
> Matt Laswell <las...@nospam.jumpnet.com> wrote:
> >
> >Besides - they may dog us out for producing "Baywatch" for example,
> >but what does it say when they're importing the bloody thing?
>
yes, but for his singing apparently. no wonder the germans
get ridiculed.
> Mattias
clive
Robert Reid
Eisenbraun <eisen...@aol.com> wrote:
>>But the law does not forbid teenagers from drinking, per se, right? It
Here in Texas, minors in possession of alcohol can (and do) get
tickets. Austin, being home to UT, hands out a lot of these
tickets every weekend on sixth street.
>>only prevents vendors from *selling* drinks to minors, yes? If someone
>>-- a parent or legal guardian, say -- wanted to share a drink with a
>>14-year-old, that would be okay, would it not?
>>
>>
>
>Here in Missouri, it is illegal for anyone but a parent or legal guardian to
>serve a drink to someone who is underage. So yes, you're basically right. A
>family can serve wine at dinner, say, and everyone can imbibe.
>
>
That's basically true here, too.
Robert - who doesn't drink enough to know the laws real well
SoL
--
Robert E. Reid re...@io.com Home Page: http://www.io.com/~reid/
"The little boy who had a sick cebu', a sad cebu' and a
mute cebu'. And also a hippo." _Song_of_the_Cebu'_, Veggie Tales
Jeff Holland
Mattias G. Hembruch wrote:
> In article <6rhoj5$39g$1...@news.jump.net>,
> Matt Laswell <las...@nospam.jumpnet.com> wrote:
> >Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >: In article <35DC02...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk>,
> >: clive <cl...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >:>tony, tony, tony... you have forgotten that americans NEVER
> >:>tire of announcing themselves as the most powerful and
> >:>important country in the world. the rest of us dont matter,
> >:>as long as the "american way" prevails....
> >
> >: Of course, it appears that non-Americans never tire of bitching
> >: about America at every turn, either...
> >
> >Besides - they may dog us out for producing "Baywatch" for example,
> >but what does it say when they're importing the bloody thing?
>
> David Hasselhoff is really big in Germany?
>
>
Yes, apparently.
Jeff
NP: Whiteheart, _Inside_
Matt Laswell
: Matt Laswell <las...@nospam.jumpnet.com> wrote:
:>but what does it say when they're importing the bloody thing?
: David Hasselhoff is really big in Germany?
Hmmm. Apparently we export Saturday Night Live, too...
Mark DeShazo
> So sum "furuner" sez:
>
> >"WE ARE NOT ALL AMERICANS"
I can see the headlines now:
"World War III started by internet newsgroup!"
Well, I hope everyone outside the U.S. doesn't take this webtv user too
seriously. I think that if this NG ever started a war, I would want
General Jerry to initiate the conflict.
Peace and carrots...or something like that.
--
Mark DeShazo "getting really weird"
Larry Seiler
> he went out of his way to state that all drinking was subject to
> "the laws of the land," so illegal drugs are out of the question, and
> drinking if you're underage is out of the question, among other caveats.
Then there was no reason for him to say anything....as Steve's comments
were not in reference to what was legal for whom.....but his personal
testimony as one in bondage to drugs and alcohol which began AS a teenager.
He was speaking truthfully when he pointed out the problems even starting
to drink can lead to for those teens present...and where it could lead AS
it led him. His advice for teens is that they not even start. Steve is
well aware that adults have that choice, and that some Christians do drink
moderately and responsibly. Scripture says that what may be lawful is not
necessarily profitable, and alcohol not done with some maturity (which most
teens do not have) certainly gives the devil a foothold. A foothold that
Steve was targeting....and a foothold that he testified to the glory of God
that the cross of Jesus Christ can break.
> So the allegations that VoL was supporting drug use and encouraging
> teenagers to drink were complete and utter bull$#!+
Supporting drug use? I never heard Bill support drug use. I heard him
speak of the baggage we bring to the gospel. But I also saw him take the
liberty of a stage in a fest not put on by VoL to speak that which is a
divisive, confusing issue not only between the many denominations but
between those immature and mature of faith within each of those
denominations.
That which we might discuss in a small group setting between people of
faith whom we discern have the maturity to think the matter through
logically without destroying faith is one thing....but many many people out
on the grounds come from churches that in the first place are still
wrestling with Gothardism and 4/4 time signature being of the
devil.....some wrestling with legalisms of hair length and public
appearances....some being entrusted to oversee youth knowing that back home
narrow sighted spiritually immature people are looking for any excuse never
to let youth attend such a festival or concert again.....and their release
unto grace comes by small moments of revelation. Maturity cannot be rushed
or forced.
Simply attending a festival is itself a challenge. Many coming for the
first time eventually just have to go up to a guy with green hair to find
out if indeed that person is a Christian. By the time they go home....they
have been stretched, and their hearts enlarged by what Christ can and is
doing in other segments of society.
I'm sorry. Bill is a great musician. I wouldn't discourage purchasing
VoL's music. He is a man like many here, but like all of us not above
error and perhaps could use correction or a kick in the pants too. I was
not at all impressed with the "need" for him to express what he did at the
expense of the grand immaturity of many in attendance.....yet I stayed and
enjoyed his concert. That is my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
I quickly became aware of those whom Bill at the rmc bbq referred to as the
"youth pastor contingency" that he was requesting prayer for.....as many
such youth pastors visions of seeing their youth groups grow with more
support of their local churches to bring kids to concerts....and bring
bands in all but vanished for the sake of a cause. Bill is not the only
one seeking to remove that which obscures grace.
Youth pastors are constantly confronted with the demand to do something
spiritual for the kids.....yet have their wings clipped in "what" they can
do. They are patiently striving to overcome misinformation concerning the
music, to move their church to understand more the compassion the Lord has
for the lost, and to see where such ignorance contributes to obscure grace
within their own community as well as how to work to overcome it. This
process is a fight to win one small square inch at a time. It is spiritual
warfare. Satan does not give up ground easily.
When youth pastors sighed and despaired, it was not because they do not
believe in the liberties to be found and enjoyed in Christ, but because
they will have to go back to their home churches and recover much lost
ground with those that have the final say over the minor's report. It
simply was IMHO lacking in wisdom.
When Danielsons chose to disregard prior instructions not to do their
"finger" song...kids and people coming into the tent not hearing all that
led up to the grand moment got to witness many flipping the bird toward
heaven. What is true...and what is the right thing to do are separate
issues.
The point is.....a fest needs a common goal, and it is the job of the hosts
of the fest to play the role of the bad guy to apply accountability that
all those involved submit to the common goal. In this case.....the hosts
are the very ones we owe gratitude for taking all the heat in the 60's and
70's to even get this whole music thing off and running. Jesus Christ and
Him crucified. Lift Him up and all will be drawn to Him. He has the power
to save, and the power to set one free from the bondages of sin. With
that, Steve was in line with the common goal. Bill's cause as noble as you
may all wish to see it, was not in line with the common unity of the fest.
Unlike others whom might have been upset with Bill, I did not respond with
disrespect nor choose to leave when he came to the bbq. I am perfectly
frank and honest when I give him the right to be a human being, mistakes
and all.
Now....lest this thread go another direction and everyone now demands that
I have erred to speak with Bill not present. The thread started
criticising Steve, and he and his band members are not here. Nor were the
"youth pastors" or the authority of the fest present at the bbq to defend
themselves as he spoke. Its a wash as far as I'm concerned. (And
Bill.....if you're reading, I'm just a man, a brother in the Lord that
needs accountability like anyone else. Not expecting my gifts, my passions
to be ignored or scorned because others differ. I regard your musicianship
and writing skills highly, and that for which the Lord has done for and
through you. You already know full well that others will differ in
opinion, and I trust as such you will not be here offended). This issue
came forth publically with those- not as admired as with Bill by people
here, not present to speak from the counterpoint.
> An issue that Bill addressed at some length in subsequent "press
conference"
> type things.
For whom the majority of the 15,000 in attendance at the main stage did not
attend!
> The question that I extrapolate from that whole discussion
> is this: if a particular behavior, say "driving a red car," is not
Biblically
> unsound, should I then be hesitant about driving my red car for fear that
> somebody with some extraBiblical convictions might "stumble"?
If you agree to be an instrument, a vehicle by which to perform at an event
and understand what the purposes of that event is.....and know in advance
that your red car, a liberty you are thankful to enjoy.....will be a major
stumbling block to those in attendance. Then you need to consider if you
can submit to the purposes of the event. For instead of pointing focus
upon the Saviour...you would be attempting yourself to BE the saviour to
push your own agenda forward. One can say that God put them up to
it.....but as the scriptures tell us, He is not the author of confusion, He
sets the standard for order.....and says plenty about submission to the
elders and authorities.
What you could do is believe enough in the power of prayer of the very One
you purport faith in, and begin to engage in spiritual war seeking release
of all to the power of darkness that blinds them from the truth of the
liberty to drive red cars. Believe me....I did this for years concerning
the privilege to expose teens to Christian rock concerts. I pushed little
by little for the privilege to play guitar on the platform of the various
churches I youth pastored or attended. At first I got away with an
acoustic. Eventually as things progressed, I bought a "white" bodied
electric knowing the symbolic association to goodness.....but NEVER played
distortion. Today I rejoice that I play an Eric Clapton "Blackie" strat
with distortion pedals, a wah and delay, and a tube amp. I often play my
arch top as well....and that process required patience and caution for
nearly 15 years.
That is love for those immature in the faith, placing them above one's own
cause, yet trusting in and seeking God to enlarge understanding.
There is a difference between seeing how we wish things were, and begin to
seek God how a correction might come, and submit to absorb our frustration
if God does not appear to be as concerned as we......and choosing that we
are going to do it FOR God.
I personally think this was the grand error of Judas. Being a zealot, I
think he fully expected that being that this was indeed by all evidences
and signs the messiah...the Christ.....that it was the coming of the King
to establish His kingdom on earth and dethrone the authorities of Rome. I
think he tried to "force" the issue by placing Christ before the religious
authorities thinking that all of Israel would get behind their king and
prepare to conqueor Rome as he "proved" Himself. Judas never expected
that Christ would be silent and speak not on His own behalf so as to save
Himself.
When we seek to do something FOR God, because it appears fully reasonable
in our own minds.....we rise above the throne as though we had the
transcendence and authority to do so. Instead.....revelation that indeed
something is not as it ought to be may not be a call to action....but a
covenant with the Lord to be His servant in prayer over the issue. In this
way, we yet recognize that the Lord is Lord, and that it is His authority
plus His love that will accomplish that which needs to be accomplished
rightly!
> Obviously
> the issue of alcohol isn't QUITE so cut-and-dried, but nobody seems able
> to produce a verse that says "don't drink," so maybe it's cut-and-dried
> after all...
And this is another issue that for about 20 years we have had to deal with
gingerly, step by step. I know that 90% perhaps of the church I attend
currently do not believe Christians should see drinking as a liberty. I
know they think Jesus made grape juice....as though it would not ferment in
hot arrid climate. Again...it requires persistence...caution, and love.
There is more freedom now than 20 years ago, but patience will see to it
that the faith of many immature is not devestated.
It becomes a liberty that one holds in common with a few others, but
restraint and wisdom understands that the frustration of it must needs be.
If we think we are so much better because we understand more.....imagine
all that the transcedent mind of God yet has over us, yet He is willing to
associate with us, nor does He cause us to stumble! In fact.....he loves
us during years of some legalistic bondages we have, knowing one day we
will be release and that day-by-day we are changing into His likeness.
> > Such a festival is a time to focus on the power of Jesus Christ
> >to save....a name above all names, a name to be lifted up and
worshipped,
> >and honored.
>
> And I think that Bill sincerely believed that he _was_ honoring Jesus
> with his comments.
And I believe you are absolutely right. I believe Bill is a good brother
in the Lord, that his intentions were completely and fully honorable.
But...being that you, I and others here are finite...are yet calling areas
of our lives to conform, be transformed and renewed.....that we are subject
to human misunderstanding and error....it is possible that his sharing was
inappropriate. Disagreement with one another does not mean we have to
abandon one another, gather together with our other friends we are in
agreement with and jest and giggle with each other over what we perceive to
be the foolishness of another....etc; it is simple recognition that we all
need this Savior....and all need encouragement, instruction, correction,
yet all with acceptance and love.
>
> I didn't hear what Three Crosses had to say, so I've tried to keep an
> open mind on their end of things. I have heard some quotes from them
> from a later show that I found rather disturbing, however. (Just the
> sort of behind-the-back, passive-aggressive behavior that you'll find
> in any given church on any given Sunday. I'm not sure if it was directed
> at the VOL situation, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't.)
So that you know.....Steve went to speak one-on-one with Bill. I won't
repeat anything I know about Steve's opinion of how it went, but lest he be
misunderstood not to be acting out in accordance to a manner that he
should.... at least understand the two tried to clear the air with each
other.
Now....I do have a life. As an artist when I'm sitting here, I'm not
making money, and as a steward of the gifts God has given me and the family
I am responsible for....I must carefully pick and choose to what I will
respond to. Since I see more and more that a thread invites much endless
debate.....all that I can reasonably expect is to air an opinion I have,
but to do more than that becomes much the same as "wrangling about words"
and quarreling which the scriptures say should not be the pattern of those
that believe. Forgive me for vacating this subject henceforth.....but I
have said enough. It is not out of disrespect that I appear hereafter to
ignore others. Please understand.
peace......
Larry
Mark DeShazo
>
> I'm not. :-)
You mean there's more than one Jerry B. Ray? No wonder you can find the
time to read and reply to all this news. :-) Are you using Calvin's
Cloning Machine?
--
Mark DeShazo "the one and only...thank God"
Coyote Art
citizens of every other nation on the planet.
The U.S. is a "political" nation, not an ethnic one (in theory). It is,
therefore, difficult to bear ill will toward the citizenry of any other
nation (they are close kinsmen of our citizenry). We are the world, at
least we were the ones driven out of it.
As domestic racism subsides (pray hard!), foreign policy will become
even more political, and less ethnically based (letting Serbs kill
Bosian muslims, while dealing harshly with Iraqi and Somalian muslims).
The Allies made Hitler watch an ethnic German, Eisenhower, supervise his
defeat
Our diversity is our strength. Whatever your beliefs, they are probably
more easily lived out here.
Our sins are Hasselhoff to Germany, and Jerry Lewis to France.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Mattias G. Hembruch <mghe...@tyrant.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
: : David Hasselhoff is really big in Germany?
:
: Hmmm. Apparently we export Saturday Night Live, too...
Pfeh. Note that Mattias is writing from a Canadian e-mail account. Note
too that _Saturday Night Live_ was founded by a Canadian (Lorne Michaels)
and has featured the work of no end of Canadian comedians (Dan Aykroyd,
Norm MacDonald, Mike Myers, bla bla bla).
You ain't exporting it, you're *importing* it.
--
Peter T. Chattaway | "All you touch and all you see is all your life
16397 Glenmoor Ct. | will ever be." -- Pink Floyd
Surrey, BC V4N 1V2 | "All is touch and vision in a passionate kiss, and
pet...@unixg.ubc.ca | life's a drab curtain ready to be raised." -- Da
Jason Steiner
> Matt Laswell (las...@nospam.jumpnet.com) wrote:
> > Mattias G. Hembruch <mghe...@tyrant.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > David Hasselhoff is really big in Germany?
> >
> > Hmmm. Apparently we export Saturday Night Live, too...
>
> Pfeh. Note that Mattias is writing from a Canadian e-mail account. Note
> too that _Saturday Night Live_ was founded by a Canadian (Lorne Michaels)
> and has featured the work of no end of Canadian comedians (Dan Aykroyd,
> Norm MacDonald, Mike Myers, bla bla bla).
>
> You ain't exporting it, you're *importing* it.
We're importer-exporters!
We buy your comedians at CUT-RATE PRICES and SELL THEM RIGHT BACK TO
YOU! Because deep down inside, you know that anything from America
is better.
Why do other nations hate America? Okay, I can understand Arabs
hating us (that little Israeli situation), but what crawled up
the other nations' asses? It's not like we send American
paratroopers into London forcing residents to accept copies of
"Baywatch," cartons of McDonald's Happy Meals, and boxes of Levis.
- from the page of the misanthropic bitch.
jason
--
jason (at) "As an American I have been conditioned
gay to accept a little bit of dishonesty from
deceiver my president. This is more than just a
(dot) com little bit of dishonesty." - scottie-five
Geoff Horton
luck, today won't be the exception:
Starting with the easiest issue, I think that, if anyone did tell Henry
Huang that Bill Mallonnee said it's OK to do drugs, that is inexcusable.
Bill specifically said the opposite. If some people heard what they wanted
to hear . . . no, that's not fair. If some people, for whatever reason, did
not hear what Bill actually said, and therefore reported it incorrectly,
they were wrong to do so. With an issue that live, correct attribution is
important.
And yet . . . are we doing this to Steve Pasch? On the one hand, the more I
think about it, the more I don't recall him saying, in so many words, that
it is wrong to drink. One the other, several reasonably intelligent
listeners (including me) somehow came away with the impression that he had.
He certainly said nothing to the contrary, which is one important difference
between these two cases. If anyone has a transcript of what Steve actually
said, I'd like to hear it.
In the end, my problem with Steve's testimony is that statement he puts in
toward the end, about how it all began with one drink. Did it? Or did it
begin at the Fall? If that's too far off, is it right to put all the blame
on the drink and none on the situation that led him to take it? Is the
alcohol a cause or a symptom?
I don't know, and maybe nobody but Steve knows for sure (and he may not
either). But is avoiding alcohol the point, or is a life centered in Christ
the point?
A further question: is it good to focus so much on what alcohol did to Steve
and does to many others, when there are still more people for whom it's not
a problem? Let me try an analogy. Let's say, for example, that Jesus rescued
someone from an abusive relationship. Would it be reasonable for that person
to tell the story later and say that it all began with one date?
Sex can wreck lives just as easily as alcohol, and yet God made us male and
female. Of course there are people who shouldn't drink, just as there are
people who shouldn't get married. Is that a good reason not to at least ask
which group I'm in, instead of assuming the worst?
My analogy isn't perfect, and maybe I'm pressing it too far. But it was food
for my though, so I offer it here.
When I'd finished with that train of thought for a while, I switched to
thinking about the suitability of the Cornerstone main stage for both
Steve's and Bill's statements. Standing on stage with the mike in your hands
and the lights on must be an enormous responsibility. In a prior post, I
wondered if both Steve and Bill had fumbled that responsibility.
Let's look at Steve's story first. If he didn't mean to imply that no
Christian should drink, then perhaps he needs to look at how he tells that
story, because he did convey that message to several sets of relatively
discerning ears. If he did mean to imply that, then he used the main stage
to take a position on an issue on which Christians disagree in good faith,
without (I think) making it clear that he is aware he's not speaking for
everyone. At that point, the issue has been raised and I find it
unreasonable to expect everyone else to refrain from stating a different
opinion.
And that seems to be what Bill though had happened; by his own statements
afterwards, he interpreted what Steve was doing as making a theological
statement, and one without adequate justification. He then believed he was
acting in integrity by disagreeing. Perhaps his response could have been
phrased differently, but then so could Steve's story.
In either case, I hope that the youth pastors who were challenged by either
person's statements took the time to talk things over with their kids, so
that they know _why_ the pastors are saying Steve was right and Bill wasn't,
or vice versa. If that happened, then, whoever was right, some good came
from the situation.
I could go on to look at the circumstances surrounding St. Paul's warning
about the weaker brother, but it's getting late and I'm getting tired. Check
1 Corinthians, chapter 8.
Grace and peace,
Geoff
snail
>We buy your comedians at CUT-RATE PRICES and SELL THEM RIGHT BACK TO
>YOU!
Anyone want to buy some woodchips :-) We sell it off cheap, it gets
sold back to us in terms of expensive goods. Then of course, I believe
we sold uranium to the french, who in turn decided to explode a few
nukes not all that far away.
> Why do other nations hate America? Okay, I can understand Arabs
> hating us (that little Israeli situation), but what crawled up
Which also affected how other nations viewed america. The Iraq thing
left many (if they didn't have it already) with the impression of
America as a bunch of greedy, money hungry capitalists willing to
do anything to protect their oil supply. In other words, little
different from most dictators :-)
> the other nations' asses? It's not like we send American
> paratroopers into London forcing residents to accept copies of
> "Baywatch," cartons of McDonald's Happy Meals, and boxes of Levis.
Nope, you sent marketing experts instead, and cut price shows for
cash strapped stations :-) Never mind a pervasive ignorance of the
world at large...of course that image is as much a media manipulation
(on all sides) as anything else. Vomitous speeches in ID4, which are
used to *promote* the movie.
Of course we will get our back. I don't think we've sent you _Neighbours_
yet...or _Home and Away_...you'll never survive...the poms are already
having problems :-)
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
Jason Steiner
> Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why do other nations hate America? Okay, I can understand
> > Arabs hating us (that little Israeli situation), but what
> > crawled up
>
> Which also affected how other nations viewed america. The Iraq thing
> left many (if they didn't have it already) with the impression of
> America as a bunch of greedy, money hungry capitalists willing to
> do anything to protect their oil supply.
We might take that kind of criticism a wee bit more seriously if the
rest of the world weren't sucking at the same tarry teat...
> > the other nations' asses? It's not like we send American
> > paratroopers into London forcing residents to accept copies of
> > "Baywatch," cartons of McDonald's Happy Meals, and boxes of
> > Levis.
>
> Nope, you sent marketing experts instead, and cut price shows for
> cash strapped stations :-) Never mind a pervasive ignorance of the
> world at large...of course that image is as much a media
> manipulation (on all sides) as anything else. Vomitous speeches in
> ID4, which are used to *promote* the movie.
It worked.
> Of course we will get our back. I don't think we've sent you
> _Neighbours_ yet...or _Home and Away_...you'll never survive...the
> poms are already having problems :-)
I've been warned, actually. Good thing our American televisions are
actually equipped with an "off" switch. Handy little device, that.
jason
r.m.c's first resident atheist
--
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: We buy your comedians at CUT-RATE PRICES and SELL THEM RIGHT BACK TO
: is better.
Heh. Evidently Operation Trojan Horse is working ... they haven't caught
on to our dastardly plan yet ... heh heh heh ...
: Why do other nations hate America? Okay, I can understand Arabs
: hating us (that little Israeli situation), but what crawled up
: the other nations' asses? It's not like we send American
: paratroopers into London forcing residents to accept copies of
: "Baywatch," cartons of McDonald's Happy Meals, and boxes of Levis.
Paratroopers, tourists, what's the difference ... bumping into an
American when you're overseas is always disheartening somehow ...
although the few South African girls I've met were mighty big snobs, much
more than the Americans, who just kind of assume that the world is theirs
for the taking but couldn't be bothered to actually *take* much of it ...
BrianDAS1
1776 and if it weren't for the U.S. you'd all be speaking German"?
Come on what happen to all the ugly Americans? It's getting so hard to force
our will on other nations these days.
I also want to know how British pop went from the Beatles, The Sex Pistols and
The Who to Wham and The Spice Girls. I blame disco.
Later
Brian
P.S. mark me down for the "all drinking is not drunkneness" side.
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/BrianDAS1/dasindex.html">Dead Artist
Syndrome</A>
clive
>
> In article <9035616...@sparc.tibus.net>,
> Tony Bowden <to...@crux.blackstar.co.uk> wrote:
> >WE. ARE. NOT. ALL. AMERICANS.
>
> Even if some of us SOUND like them. :)
oh?. when i was in california, THREE times i got mistaken
for being canadian. obviously a canadian accent also
sounds like a soft-spoken n-irish brogue as well. :)
> wednesday white
clive
clive
> Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
> >We buy your comedians at CUT-RATE PRICES and SELL THEM RIGHT BACK TO
> >YOU!
not ours you dont. :)
> > the other nations' asses? It's not like we send American
> > paratroopers into London forcing residents to accept copies of
> > "Baywatch," cartons of McDonald's Happy Meals, and boxes of Levis.
>
> Nope, you sent marketing experts instead, and cut price shows for
> cash strapped stations :-) Never mind a pervasive ignorance of the
> world at large...of course that image is as much a media manipulation
> (on all sides) as anything else. Vomitous speeches in ID4, which are
> used to *promote* the movie.
yes, but the world laughed *at* the americans in that movie! :)
actually, where i live, we finally succumbed to a mcdonald's
restaurant in september '97. star trek: borg is a huge
metaphor, dont you see? :)
> Of course we will get our back. I don't think we've sent you _Neighbours_
> yet...or _Home and Away_...you'll never survive...the poms are already
> having problems :-)
ahem, not all of us are *poms*. :-P actually neighbours hasnt
been anywhere near as popular as the jason/kylie years. and
it was partly a BBC investment that helped keep the show going
was it not?. blame the english. ;) 99.9% of soap operas suck.
it's a universal truth. :)
> snail
clive
clive
> Ain't this about the time someone usually says the old "We
> kicked your butt in 1776 and if it weren't for the U.S.
> you'd all be speaking German"?
nein, das ist nicht wahr!. :)
> I also want to know how British pop went from the Beatles,
> The Sex Pistols and The Who to Wham and The Spice Girls.
> I blame disco.
do the spice girls count as britpop? i wouldnt have thought
so. arent the likes of space, catatonia, etc supposed to
be britpop.? [1]
> Later
> Brian
clive
[1] i dont listen to pop.
Coyote Art
Norman Leach
>for the taking but couldn't be bothered to actually *take* much of it ...
>
well, see, we're perfectionists and we just want to make sure we have the
attitude down before taking any actual steps to world conquest. attitude is
everything
norm
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: oh?. when i was in california, THREE times i got mistaken for being
: n-irish brogue as well. :)
If you're from the Maritimes, maybe ...
Watching _Fargo_, I felt like I was back in Saskatchewan, actually ...
snail
>BrianDAS1 <bria...@aol.com> wrote:
>: I also want to know how British pop went from the Beatles, The Sex Pistols and
>: The Who to Wham and The Spice Girls. I blame disco.
Absolutely.
>And you say it like Wham! and The Spice Girls were Bad Things(tm).
I've now heard the same _Spice Girls_ song a couple of times now (something
about Stop ??) and I don't mind it. Certainly tags of bubblegum music can be
applied, but on the whole I think I like them.
snail
>snail wrote:
>> (on all sides) as anything else. Vomitous speeches in ID4, which are
>> used to *promote* the movie.
>yes, but the world laughed *at* the americans in that movie! :)
Ok, I admit I neglected to mention that it was promoted as a comedy :-)
However it disturbed me a little that quite a few americans saw the
speech in question and thought it was a good thing ("Iday for the whole
world"). Although it disturbs even more that so many of my fellow
countrypeople went and saw it in the first place. How am I supposed to
maintain a radical leftie stance when all around me are deserting :-)
>actually, where i live, we finally succumbed to a mcdonald's
>restaurant in september '97.
In the suburb my dad lives in, they've just closed the maccas (made the
front page of the Sydney Morning Herald too!) due to lack of business.
And this is in a suburb (Newtown) with a high student population. On the
other hand there are masses of restaurants and cafes.
>> Of course we will get our back. I don't think we've sent you _Neighbours_
>> yet...or _Home and Away_...you'll never survive...the poms are already
>> having problems :-)
>ahem, not all of us are *poms*. :-P actually neighbours hasnt
But, I hadn't realised that was shown in Ireland. I don't exactly follow
its distribution. :-)
>been anywhere near as popular as the jason/kylie years. and
I should be so lucky.
snail
>> do anything to protect their oil supply.
>We might take that kind of criticism a wee bit more seriously if the
>rest of the world weren't sucking at the same tarry teat...
Well yeah. Oz has had a history of crawling up America's backside at
every opportunity.
>> manipulation (on all sides) as anything else. Vomitous speeches in
>> ID4, which are used to *promote* the movie.
>It worked.
I know :(
>> _Neighbours_ yet...or _Home and Away_...you'll never survive...the
>> poms are already having problems :-)
>I've been warned, actually. Good thing our American televisions are
>actually equipped with an "off" switch. Handy little device, that.
Shame more people don't know how to use them.
Back to the anti-america thing: There's probably a bit of tall poppy
syndrome tied up in it as well: The US is big and powerful therefore
they need to be cut down a rung or two...simply because they're big
and powerful. Although americans generally seem determined to ram
this down everybody's throats. I s'pose in the same way that Clinton
is regarded as arrogant in his treatment of the American people, so too
there may be an element of arrogance by America in their treatment of
the rest of the world. Many americans seem determined to make sure the
rest of the world knows how great America is. Plus it seems fair to
suggest that the smaller nations feel threatened by the US dominance in
world affairs and their willingness to ignore the UN when it suits them
(but's a whole other argument re: the usefulness of the UN which I ain't
getting into) and this in turn can lead to a paranoia on their part.
It's not a straight forward thing though. Of course, as someone else
mentioned there is the behaviour of US tourists overseas who seem to
get a little stroppy if things don't match what they have back home.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: clive <cl...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk> wrote:
: > actually, where i live, we finally succumbed to a mcdonald's
: > restaurant in september '97.
:
: In the suburb my dad lives in, they've just closed the maccas (made the
: front page of the Sydney Morning Herald too!) due to lack of business.
: And this is in a suburb (Newtown) with a high student population.
Interesting. Meanwhile, only an hour or two's drive away from where I
live, in a little place called Squamish, two teenage girls recently
succeeded in unionizing the McDonald's where they work, and the papers
are calling it the first unionized McDonald's in North America. How are
things elsewhere around the world?
clive
> >> used to *promote* the movie.
>
> Ok, I admit I neglected to mention that it was promoted as a
> comedy :-)
not here it wasnt, though it probably would have been better
received if it had! :)
> However it disturbed me a little that quite a few americans saw the
> speech in question and thought it was a good thing ("Iday for the whole
> world").
while the rest of the world wretched? :) com'on, even the
americans are not stupid enough to believe that you can
have plug-and-play technolgy with an alien mothership. ;)
> Although it disturbs even more that so many of my fellow
> countrypeople went and saw it in the first place. How am I supposed to
> maintain a radical leftie stance when all around me are deserting :-)
the world is becoming centralised. ;) you'll have to get
more *active* :)
> >actually, where i live, we finally succumbed to a mcdonald's
> >restaurant in september '97.
>
> In the suburb my dad lives in, they've just closed the maccas (made the
> front page of the Sydney Morning Herald too!) due to lack of business.
well you know, maybe there just isnt enough population to sustain
a fried-cardboard franchise? :)
> >> Of course we will get our back. I don't think we've sent you _Neighbours_
> >> yet...or _Home and Away_...you'll never survive...the poms are already
> >> having problems :-)
> >ahem, not all of us are *poms*. :-P actually neighbours hasnt
>
> But, I hadn't realised that was shown in Ireland. I don't exactly follow
> its distribution. :-)
ahem, it is shown in *britain*. ;) we do get BBC you know. :)
and if you're lucky you can also pick up radio-teilifis-eireann
and teilifis-na-gaelige (irish tv stations, though the latter
is virtually all in irish). i live far enough south in NI to
be able to receive it, which is lucky 'cause they've
just started showing dawson's creek.. so i can catch up
on all that teen-angst i missed at the start of the series
on channel 4. :) i dont *think* the irish tv-stations carry
neighbours, although RTE2 does have home and away.
> >been anywhere near as popular as the jason/kylie years. and
>
> I should be so lucky.
..lucky, lucky, lucky.
> snail
clive
snail
>snail wrote:
>while the rest of the world wretched? :) com'on, even the
>americans are not stupid enough to believe that you can
>have plug-and-play technolgy with an alien mothership. ;)
It was apple. Anything's possible. :)
>> countrypeople went and saw it in the first place. How am I supposed to
>> maintain a radical leftie stance when all around me are deserting :-)
>the world is becoming centralised. ;) you'll have to get
>more *active* :)
Centralisation...homogenisation...a new world order...oops :-)
>> In the suburb my dad lives in, they've just closed the maccas (made the
>> front page of the Sydney Morning Herald too!) due to lack of business.
>well you know, maybe there just isnt enough population to sustain
>a fried-cardboard franchise? :)
The population wasn't the problem. It was a rejection of the contents.
>> But, I hadn't realised that was shown in Ireland. I don't exactly follow
>> its distribution. :-)
>ahem, it is shown in *britain*. ;) we do get BBC you know. :)
Ahem. You know how much TV I watch here, let alone anywhere else. I'm
down to one hour a week (B5 is finished, _Good News Week_ is on repeats,
and I've fallen behind on _This Life_). _Hamish Macbeth_ is it.
>> I should be so lucky.
>..lucky, lucky, lucky.
...lucky in love...not :)
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
e...@bellatlantic.net
Eric
np: Jetenderpaul dont look down (final show was saturday at Purple door
fest : < )
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Jerry B. Ray
>Starting with the easiest issue, I think that, if anyone did tell Henry
>Huang that Bill Mallonnee said it's OK to do drugs, that is inexcusable.
>Bill specifically said the opposite. If some people heard what they wanted
>to hear . . . no, that's not fair. If some people, for whatever reason, did
>not hear what Bill actually said, and therefore reported it incorrectly,
>they were wrong to do so. With an issue that live, correct attribution is
>important.
I agree completely. The least-cynical interpretation of the misunderstanding
is that certain people heard the beginnings of what Bill said, and got so
freaked out that they were too busy freaking out to really _hear_ what he
was saying, so they instead took what they THOUGHT he was saying, because
they were so freaked out. That's bad enough, but I'm trying to be
gracious enough to believe that those people weren't _deliberately_
twisting his words. Or that they aren't that comprehension-impaired.
>In the end, my problem with Steve's testimony is that statement he puts in
>toward the end, about how it all began with one drink. Did it? Or did it
>begin at the Fall? If that's too far off, is it right to put all the blame
>on the drink and none on the situation that led him to take it? Is the
>alcohol a cause or a symptom?
And from what I remember of things at this point, that was the springboard
from which Bill made his comments (I definitely remember Bill alluding to
the "one drink" thing).
>I don't know, and maybe nobody but Steve knows for sure (and he may not
>either). But is avoiding alcohol the point, or is a life centered in Christ
>the point?
Exactly. I'll address this further if I ever get around to answering
Larry's massive missive on the topic, but in short, I don't think that
avoiding or "simplifying" an issue (to the point of losing the truth
entirely) for the benefit of the less-mature is really beneficial.
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Have I lost it if I hope for something more than feeling fatalistic pain?
And if true love never did exist how could we know its name?"
Sam Phillips -- "Love Is Not Lost"
Wednesday White
snail <sn...@careless.net.au> wrote:
>down to one hour a week (B5 is finished, _Good News Week_ is on repeats,
Wah! We still have 5 episodes of B5 to go, and not til November.
WAH!
--
Wednesday White: Helpdesk/Documentation Jockey, Clinical School IT Support
The voice you hear at ext. 36261 is not an American.
clive
> clive <cl...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk> wrote:
> >snail wrote:
> >while the rest of the world wretched? :) com'on, even the
> >americans are not stupid enough to believe that you can
> >have plug-and-play technolgy with an alien mothership. ;)
>
> It was apple. Anything's possible. :)
so why hasnt this been used as an apple marketing ploy?. ;)
> >> countrypeople went and saw it in the first place. How am I supposed to
> >> maintain a radical leftie stance when all around me are deserting :-)
> >the world is becoming centralised. ;) you'll have to get
> >more *active* :)
>
> Centralisation...homogenisation...a new world order...oops :-)
microsoftisation. armageddon is coming. :)
> >> But, I hadn't realised that was shown in Ireland. I don't exactly follow
> >> its distribution. :-)
> >ahem, it is shown in *britain*. ;) we do get BBC you know. :)
>
> Ahem. You know how much TV I watch here, let alone anywhere else. I'm
> down to one hour a week (B5 is finished, _Good News Week_ is on repeats,
> and I've fallen behind on _This Life_). _Hamish Macbeth_ is it.
you should leave the computer terminal more!. :)
> >> I should be so lucky.
> >..lucky, lucky, lucky.
>
> ...lucky in love...not :)
heh.
> snail
clive
snail
>snail <sn...@careless.net.au> wrote:
>>down to one hour a week (B5 is finished, _Good News Week_ is on repeats,
Hmpf! The UK IIRC is in the middle of Season 5. We've just finished No.4!
>WAH!
Wah indeed...grumble grumble
Wednesday White
snail <sn...@careless.net.au> wrote:
>Wednesday White <br...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>snail <sn...@careless.net.au> wrote:
>>>down to one hour a week (B5 is finished, _Good News Week_ is on repeats,
>>Wah! We still have 5 episodes of B5 to go, and not til November.
>Hmpf! The UK IIRC is in the middle of Season 5. We've just finished No.4!
Oh.
*blush*
Matt Laswell
:> >snail wrote:
:> >while the rest of the world wretched? :) com'on, even the
:> >americans are not stupid enough to believe that you can
:> >have plug-and-play technolgy with an alien mothership. ;)
:>
:> It was apple. Anything's possible. :)
: so why hasnt this been used as an apple marketing ploy?. ;)
It was.
--
matt laswell -- laswell at jump dot net
"Computers don't make errors. What they do, they do on purpose."
- Dale Gribbel
clive
>
> In article <slrn6u2stv...@jinx.silas.unsw.edu.au>,
> snail <sn...@careless.net.au> wrote:
> >down to one hour a week (B5 is finished, _Good News Week_ is on repeats,
>
> Wah! We still have 5 episodes of B5 to go, and not til November.
tell me about it!. it's TNTs fault as well. channel 4 were in
a position to show it, and the last minute had it yanked, because
the americans had to see it first.. and well, their basketball
season is so much more important.. at least here, you can get
to buy the B5 movies on video.
> Wednesday White:
clive
Jerry B. Ray
snail <sn...@careless.net.au> wrote:
>However it disturbed me a little that quite a few americans saw the
>speech in question and thought it was a good thing ("Iday for the whole
>world").
I'm hardly an apologist for _Independence Day_, but I really can't see
why people are getting so bent out of shape about it. I mean, the line
that you quoted above? See, the whole world was being taken over by
aliens. They fought off the aliens, and regained their _independence_.
The whole world. See?
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: I'm hardly an apologist for _Independence Day_, but I really can't see
: why people are getting so bent out of shape about it. I mean, the line
: that you quoted above? See, the whole world was being taken over by
: aliens. They fought off the aliens, and regained their _independence_.
: The whole world. See?
Only an American would see it that way.
Actually, come to think of it, one might think that even Americans --
perhaps especially Americans -- would *not* see it that way. Independence
Day in the United States commemorates a time when the colonies decided to
sever the umbilical cord linking them to their home country. That ain't
exactly the scenario in _ID4_, where the aliens just pop over for a visit
and the earthlings kick 'em back out within a couple of days. You'd think
people who are so familiar with the American story of independence might
notice the difference.
What I found annoying was not the speech so much as the implicit attitude
reflected in the following (or parallel?) scenes, where people around the
world listen to their radios and go, "Oh yeah! America's leading the way
now! Now we can all fight back!" As if all the non-Americans in the
world had decided to sit on their asses until the American president woke
up or something. Having the Yankee president thus impose *his* national
holiday on the *rest* of us ... well, it confirms that America has gone
from being a colony to being a colonial power in its own right.
In other words, no independence for *anybody*. Except maybe America.
Really, it's all in Thucydides (which I admittedly haven't read in almost
a decade). Look what happened to Athens after the Persian Wars. "We
booted out the invaders, so now all you other Greek villages have to suck
up to *us*." Naturally, all the other Greek villages didn't take too
kindly to this. So they ganged up on Athens and kicked its ass.
Jerry B. Ray
Peter Thomas Chattaway <pet...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>: I'm hardly an apologist for _Independence Day_, but I really can't see
>: why people are getting so bent out of shape about it. I mean, the line
>: that you quoted above? See, the whole world was being taken over by
>: aliens. They fought off the aliens, and regained their _independence_.
>: The whole world. See?
>Actually, come to think of it, one might think that even Americans --
>perhaps especially Americans -- would *not* see it that way. Independence
>Day in the United States commemorates a time when the colonies decided to
>sever the umbilical cord linking them to their home country. That ain't
>exactly the scenario in _ID4_, where the aliens just pop over for a visit
>and the earthlings kick 'em back out within a couple of days. You'd think
>people who are so familiar with the American story of independence might
>notice the difference.
I'd think that non-Americans, in particular, would not be stuck on such
a limited and specialized definition of "independence day." It's a simple
play on words, it seems to me. "Today was the day the colonies declared
independence from the empire. Today is also the day that the whole world
wins back its independence from enslavement by evil alien overlords,"
for example. Not parallel situations, but independence is independence.
I imagine your response will be that I'm just an Ugly American who
Just Doesn't Get It. Maybe so, or maybe you've just got some kind of
preoccupation involving the US. I dunno.
>In other words, no independence for *anybody*. Except maybe America.
So, you're paranoid, then.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: a limited and specialized definition of "independence day." It's a
: simple play on words, it seems to me. "Today was the day the colonies
: declared independence from the empire. Today is also the day that the
: whole world wins back its independence from enslavement by evil alien
: overlords," for example. Not parallel situations, but independence is
: independence.
It ain't "independence" if all the nations of the world are portrayed as
sitting on their asses depending on America to do something ...
: I imagine your response will be that I'm just an Ugly American who
: Just Doesn't Get It.
Nah, you're rather purdy, actually. :)
: Maybe so, or maybe you've just got some kind of preoccupation involving
: the US. I dunno.
I wouldn't call it a "preoccupation". It's just that those of us outside
America see it for what it is and, when confronted by American
self-importance, we call a spade a spade. If we weren't discussing
America's preoccupation with itself, there'd be no need to bring it up.
: > In other words, no independence for *anybody*. Except maybe America.
:
: So, you're paranoid, then.
Hey, *I* didn't make the movie. Hmm, and it was directed by a German ...
today America, tomorrow the world, ja?
snail
>I'd think that non-Americans, in particular, would not be stuck on such
>a limited and specialized definition of "independence day." It's a simple
>for example. Not parallel situations, but independence is independence.
Except that it was tied to the start of July as well, with specific
mention of July 4 becoming a global event. So whilst it is fair to
say 'independence is independence', the movie did seem to push a
particular line of american superiority over the rest of the world.
I'm normally a fan of the american gungho blockbuster, but ID4, in
addition to its myriad of faults in other areas, seemed to be pushing
a stronger american patriotic line than other films of its ilk that
I've seen.
Of course, you could argue that if it had been a decent film I might
have been more forgiving :-) Dunno on that one.
>I'm just an Ugly American who Just Doesn't Get It.
Well yeah, but not because you don't get it :-)
>or maybe you've just got some kind of preoccupation involving the US.
There's also some truth in that.
Matt Laswell
: : Maybe so, or maybe you've just got some kind of preoccupation involving
: : the US. I dunno.
: I wouldn't call it a "preoccupation". It's just that those of us outside
: America see it for what it is and, when confronted by American
: self-importance, we call a spade a spade. If we weren't discussing
: America's preoccupation with itself, there'd be no need to bring it up.
Or, maybe movies like ID4 feed your inferiority complex...
--
matt laswell -- laswell at jump dot net
"Imperfection is a prerequisite for grace."
- Ted Beasley
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Or, maybe movies like ID4 feed your inferiority complex...
Uh, no. Movies like _Star Wars_ might, but not _ID4_. Alas, the only
inferiority complex I have, nationally speaking, has to do with the fact
that so many Canadian movies are, like, blah. Occasionally we'll make a
film that is at least interesting -- a la _Kissed_ -- and we might even
get a real gem like _Exotica_, but not often.
(I haven't seen much Quebecois cinema, but I understand it's a whole
different vibe there compared to English-speaking Canada. _Jesus of
Montreal_ is definitely one of the best films I've ever seen come out of
this or any other country.)
--
Peter T. Chattaway | "For your information, we will also list under misc.
16397 Glenmoor Ct. | immorality other illnesses such as grotesque skin
Surrey, BC V4N 1V2 | conditions ... as a forewarning to our readers."
pet...@unixg.ubc.ca | -- from Movieguide's apology to a reader with OCD
Wednesday White
clive <cl...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk> wrote:
>tell me about it!. it's TNTs fault as well. channel 4 were in
>a position to show it, and the last minute had it yanked, because
>the americans had to see it first.. and well, their basketball
>season is so much more important.. at least here, you can get
>to buy the B5 movies on video.
You mean you can't buy them in the States?
*gleam*
*giggle*
*bounce*
-- weds, who just came back from paris with a big-ass stack of manga.
Wednesday White
>sitting on their asses depending on America to do something ...
Oo. Oo. This is what I *hated* about _Armageddon_. The sum total of
evident international participation? Yon WACKY RUSSIAN. Zany! Laffaminit!
Chah.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Oo. Oo. This is what I *hated* about _Armageddon_. The sum total of
: Laffaminit! Chah.
Hey, it's more than _Deep Impact_ gave us ...
Anyone else remember the concerted efforts of nations around the world in
classic 1950s films like _When Worlds Collide_?
--
Peter T. Chattaway | "God's place is the world, but the world is not
16397 Glenmoor Ct. | God's place." -- Sinead O'Connor
Surrey, BC V4N 1V2 | "Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject
pet...@unixg.ubc.ca | of cheese." -- G.K. Chesterton
clive
>
> In article <35E3E6...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk>,
> clive <cl...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk> wrote:
> >tell me about it!. it's TNTs fault as well. channel 4 were in
> >a position to show it, and the last minute had it yanked, because
> >the americans had to see it first.. and well, their basketball
> >season is so much more important.. at least here, you can get
> >to buy the B5 movies on video.
>
> You mean you can't buy them in the States?
> *gleam*
> *giggle*
> *bounce*
i dont think so. WB have only just started releasing
the episodes over there, whereas we've almost had
the first 4 seasons released on sell-through. thirdspace
premieres on video here on mon 14th sept. (the day before
my phd thesis is due in!)
> -- weds, who just came back from paris with a big-ass stack of manga.
didnt the customs man want a word with you? :)
clive
Norman Leach
>> You mean you can't buy them in the States?
>> *gleam*
>> *giggle*
>> *bounce*
>
>i dont think so. WB have only just started releasing
>the episodes over there, whereas we've almost had
>the first 4 seasons released on sell-through. thirdspace
>premieres on video here on mon 14th sept. (the day before
>my phd thesis is due in!)
>
we've been able to get the episodes on tape for quite a while. i'm in the
columbia house group getting the episodes on tape (at the rate of about two
episodes per month, a little slow for me but it keeps the up front cost
down) i'm not sure if the movies are going to be part of that or not (i hope
so) but if not, they are coming out on video here in the US in october i
think.
norm
Mark DeShazo
> >I'd think that non-Americans, in particular, would not be stuck on such
> >a limited and specialized definition of "independence day." It's a
simple
> ...
> >for example. Not parallel situations, but independence is independence.
>
> Except that it was tied to the start of July as well, with specific
> mention of July 4 becoming a global event. So whilst it is fair to
> say 'independence is independence', the movie did seem to push a
> particular line of american superiority over the rest of the world.
> I'm normally a fan of the american gungho blockbuster, but ID4, in
> addition to its myriad of faults in other areas, seemed to be pushing
> a stronger american patriotic line than other films of its ilk that
> I've seen.
Well, there is the fact that this movie was made for American audiences.
That 'strong patriotic line' sells here in America. I imagine that if the
movie was made in Australia and it's target was Aussies, or in France for
the French, that I would expect the movie to view their country as 'the
leader' and have a strong message about how great their country is.
> Of course, you could argue that if it had been a decent film I might
> have been more forgiving :-) Dunno on that one.
Come on, snail. Sure it was kinda cheesy, but it was decent. Cool effects
and all.
--
Mark DeShazo "Any President that lies to the
mdes...@chickasaw.com American people should resign."
JCIL -Bill Clinton, 1974
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Well, there is the fact that this movie was made for American
: audiences. That 'strong patriotic line' sells here in America.
Indeed. It's that sort of jingoism that prevents, say, _Saving Private
Ryan_ from being a truly great film. There are some spectacular scenes
in there, but that flag-waving stuff got annoying -- especially the way
that Christianity got co-opted by the flag-wavers in that film.
: I imagine that if the movie was made in Australia and it's target was
: Aussies, or in France for the French, that I would expect the movie to
: view their country as 'the leader' and have a strong message about how
: great their country is.
Boy, you don't see much international cinema, do you?
Admittedly, cultural identity issues figure into most films. In Canadian
films like _My American Cousin_ and _Bye Bye Blues_, the tempter is often
an American character. _Trainspotting_ ranted at English wankers and at
the fact that Scotland had been colonized by wankers. _Heaven's Burning_
included some weird Australian rants about the Japanese. But do any of
the films produced in these countries flatter their countrymen by
concocting some vision of global leadership? Not bloody likely. Even
the James Bond films don't flatter themselves by presenting England as
the leading NATO nation or anything like that. _The Fifth Element_ is
the only foreign aliens-and-action film I can think of -- it being the
most expensive film ever produced in France and all -- but you don't see
any French jingoism *there* either ...
The problem, as I see it, is that American films used to promote the
United Nations and other international co-operative efforts, but now they
don't. Just compare _When Worlds Collide_ and its sort-of remake _Deep
Impact_. We barely even *hear* about other countries in the latter film.
The former film, OTOH, spends a considerable chunk of time showing world
leaders and ambassadors haggling over how to deal with the planet's
impending doom.
For a foreign angle, there's Abel Gance's comet-threatens-the-earth movie
_Le fin du monde_, produced way back in 1931, which used the impending
end of the world as an opportunity to promote the League of Nations. So
it just ain't true that all countries are as jingoistic and self-centred
as the United States happens to be today.
And if you look at British films like _The Life and Death of Colonel
Blimp_, produced at the height of the Second World War, you'll find a
film that underscores the fact that Britain had concentration camps in
South Africa years before the Germans had them in Poland. No jingoism
there! It's a remarkably self-critical film, especially considering it
premiered in England in June 1943, two years before the war's end.
The only thing that might excuse ID4's jingoism is the fact that the film
was directed by a German. Perhaps he was being ironic, cynically playing
American audiences for the patriotic fools that they are, and it was only
those viewers outside the United States who got the joke.
But somehow I don't think so.
Jason Steiner
> >
> > Well, there is the fact that this movie was made for American
> > audiences. That 'strong patriotic line' sells here in America.
>
> Indeed. It's that sort of jingoism that prevents, say, _Saving
> Private Ryan_ from being a truly great film. There are some
> spectacular scenes in there, but that flag-waving stuff got
> annoying -- especially the way that Christianity got co-opted by
> the flag-wavers in that film.
WHAT?!
Where's the jingoism in Saving Private Ryan? And how in hell did it
co-opt Christianity?
jason
r.m.c's first resident atheist
--
jason (at) "As an American I have been conditioned
gay to accept a little bit of dishonesty from
deceiver my president. This is more than just a
(dot) com little bit of dishonesty." - scottie-five
David Murray
6sicj7$m15$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com...
>It's just an all-around accurate movie.
Yep. Sums it up.
Perhaps the reason Peter doesn't see countries other than America producing
jingo-istic films about their own heroes is because they are realistic when
comparing them to superior American heroes. Even comic books lack any great
non-American heroes. Superman would squash Judge Dredd in a heartbeat. (The
unmistakable whir of a Zebco reel can be heard in the distance.)
segue
How did you like _Merlin_? The script was pretty faithful to the Malory
legend and the casting was very good, but the effects were overly
cartoonish. I expected Morgan le Fay to be powerful rather than a flunky,
though.
David Murray /db-m...@rfci.net
to reply remove the dash from the email address
http://www.rfci.net/dbmurray
Making hay while the sun shines.
Coyote Art
Hidden message?
"To think I had my hand in that man's humidor!" - Cmdr. Dick, 3rd Rock
FTSun
COYOTEART
Spam can be sent to <rhu...@fcc.gov>
FCC <jqu...@fcc.gov>,<sn...@fcc.gov>
<rch...@fcc.gov>
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Peter Thomas Chattaway <pet...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
: > It's that sort of jingoism that prevents, say, _Saving Private Ryan_
: > from being a truly great film. There are some spectacular scenes in
: > there, but that flag-waving stuff got annoying -- especially the way
: > that Christianity got co-opted by the flag-wavers in that film.
:
: WHAT?!
: Where's the jingoism in Saving Private Ryan?
You did see those flags at the very begining and very end of the film,
yes? You did see those Norman Rockwell scenes of good American farms,
yes? You did hear the oh-so-noble horns on the soundtrack whenever the
John Williams music swelled up, yes? You did catch the sentiment just
oozing out of that film whenever we were reminded of the sacrifice "our
boys" made to preserve our hallowed American ideals, yes?
: And how in hell did it co-opt Christianity?
You did catch the (repeated!) references to "our heavenly father" and
"the altar of freedom" in that quote from Abraham Lincoln, yes? You did
notice the caricatured Christian sharpshooter who says God made him "a
fine instrument of warfare", yes? (That rubbed my Anabaptist upbringing
the wrong way, I admit. Other Christians may happen to like warfare. I
am not one of them. And I suspect Jesus was not fond of it either.)
Jason Steiner
> >
> > WHAT?!
> > Where's the jingoism in Saving Private Ryan?
>
> You did see those flags at the very begining and very end of the
> film, yes?
Yeah, so?
You were expecting maybe Canadian flags? It's a film about American
soldiers.
> You did see those Norman Rockwell scenes of good American farms, yes?
Yeah, so?
You are aware that such farms actually do exist, and given the time
period, that's both a likely and appropriate setting.
> You did hear the oh-so-noble horns on the soundtrack whenever the
> John Williams music swelled up, yes?
Yeah, so?
The film portrays acts of heroism and self-sacrifice. That's
appropriate music.
> You did catch the sentiment just oozing out of that film whenever
> we were reminded of the sacrifice "our boys" made to preserve our
> hallowed American ideals, yes?
No, actually. I found it anything but sentimental. A really
sentimental, jingoistic movie would not have shown the good guys
doing things like shooting captives. Sobering would be a better word.
> > And how in hell did it co-opt Christianity?
>
> You did catch the (repeated!) references to "our heavenly father"
> and "the altar of freedom" in that quote from Abraham Lincoln, yes?
Yeah, so?
That's the way Lincoln talked. I believe that quote was even from an
actual letter. That's the kind of stylistic detail that makes for good
historical fiction.
> You did notice the caricatured Christian sharpshooter who says God
> made him "a fine instrument of warfare", yes? (That rubbed my
> Anabaptist upbringing the wrong way, I admit. Other Christians may
> happen to like warfare. I am not one of them. And I suspect Jesus
> was not fond of it either.)
Yeah, so?
Saving Private Ryan wasn't about Jesus. It was about a group of guys
in a war, which pretty much rules out Anabaptists too.
As for the sharpshooter, he was more of a composite than a
caricature. A lot of snipers were (and still are) good old boys from
the backwoods. And like any backwoods boys, some of them are going
to have just a little touch of the old time religion. (Think Alvin
York.) Throw in a bit of justifiable ego for being damn good at what
you do, and you've pretty much got it. Not all snipers are alike, of
course, but this portrayal was well within the parameters. The
writers really did their homework on this one. Some of the events in
the movie were taken from the exploits of real snipers.
It's just an all-around accurate movie.
jason
snail
>Wednesday White wrote:
>> clive <cl...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >season is so much more important.. at least here, you can get
>> >to buy the B5 movies on video.
>> You mean you can't buy them in the States?
>> *giggle*
>i dont think so. WB have only just started releasing
>the episodes over there, whereas we've almost had
>the first 4 seasons released on sell-through. thirdspace
Oz has reached the end of S3 on sell-through a few weeks ago, around the
same time that S4 finished screening on TV. Now it remains to be seen if
the videos keep getting released at the same rate.
>(the day before my phd thesis is due in!)
Fingers crossed.
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
Don Waugaman
Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
>Peter Thomas Chattaway <pet...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> Jason Steiner (ja...@gaydeceiver.com) wrote:
>> > WHAT?!
>> > Where's the jingoism in Saving Private Ryan?
>> You did see those flags at the very begining and very end of the
>> film, yes?
>Yeah, so?
>You were expecting maybe Canadian flags? It's a film about American
>soldiers.
I'll interpose here with the comment that pretty much the only thing that
I didn't like about the film was the rather (IMHO) heavy-handed bookend
scenes. Just the 1944 scenes were enough to get the point across - that
we live in a universe where, unfortunately, in order to keep evil men
from triumphing, a lot of good men have to make some serious sacrifices
up to and including life, limb, mental health, and years of life so that
the rest of us can enjoy the freedom bought at a horrible cost by their
protection.
That's the message I got from the film, and I think it's a message that
deserves repeating in popular feature films that lots of people go see.
>> You did hear the oh-so-noble horns on the soundtrack whenever the
>> John Williams music swelled up, yes?
>Yeah, so?
>The film portrays acts of heroism and self-sacrifice. That's
>appropriate music.
I agree with Jason here. The music sets the tone to convey a message,
the same way that the classic shark attack music in _Jaws_ sets the
tone for the suspense of that film. Is is just that you don't like
the message, Peter? You have signalled approval previously in this
forum about ways that filmmakers have gotten their messages across -
what's different about this movie?
>> You did catch the sentiment just oozing out of that film whenever
>> we were reminded of the sacrifice "our boys" made to preserve our
>> hallowed American ideals, yes?
>No, actually. I found it anything but sentimental. A really
>sentimental, jingoistic movie would not have shown the good guys
>doing things like shooting captives. Sobering would be a better word.
Extremely sobering. And, yes, people made sacrifices to preserve our
American ideals, and Soviet and Canadian and British and Australian
and French and New Zealand and Indian and Dutch and Polish and Greek
and Danish and Norwegian ideals. Many made the ultimate sacrifice.
All of them were affected by the sacrifices they made.
>> > And how in hell did it co-opt Christianity?
>> You did catch the (repeated!) references to "our heavenly father"
>> and "the altar of freedom" in that quote from Abraham Lincoln, yes?
>Yeah, so?
>That's the way Lincoln talked. I believe that quote was even from an
>actual letter. That's the kind of stylistic detail that makes for good
>historical fiction.
Actually, the letter to Mrs. Bixby was most likely not written by Lincoln.
Lincoln's style tended to be more plain and earthy than what the letter
exhibits. Most Lincoln scholars believe the letter was written by John
Hay, one of the president's secretaries who handled much of his official
(typically non-speech) correspondence.
That being said, the sentiment echoed the thoughts and words of many
people of the Civil War era. Stephen Ambrose suggests in _Citizen
Soldiers_ that it echoed the thoughts though not the words of the
Allied army in World War II as well.
Wars are fought for reasons. They aren't just huge muddles of violence
that periodically happen without any cause. World War II was fought
because Churchill and later Roosevelt recognized that the rise of
Naziism was a threat to the basic institution of Western liberal
democracy. (Historical derivation of this idea available on request.)
Does the reason for a war justify fighting it? Personally, I'm in
favor of Western liberal democracy, which is why I think that the
Allies were justified in resisting Hitler during World War II. On
the other side, I'm not a big fan of colonialism, which is the reason
the U.S. got its foot stuck in the tar baby of Southeast Asia, which
is why I don't think that the Vietnam war was justified.
The Bixby letter gave some of Lincoln's (ghostwritten) reasons for
why the Civil War was fought - it gave the desperate sacrifice some
meaning for a woman who had lost so much. Politicians do this all
the time in the middle of wartime - that's how people can be motivated
to make the huge sacrifices that war requires. The reasons are not
always good, but I would be intrigued to hear from Peter why in your
opinion the reasons for fighting World War II and the Civil War did
not justify the sacrifice.
[ snip ]
>It's just an all-around accurate movie.
Amen to that.
I don't think there has been a more accurate war movie here in the US
than _Saving Private Ryan_. _Platoon_ or _Full Metal Jacket_ might
come close, but they lose by a nose. Certainly nothing before 1985
qualifies, with the possible exception of _Paths of Glory_ - itself
barely a war movie, IMHO.
It's a movie that packs a real punch, too.
The weekend that SPR came out, my wife and I saw _Bulworth_ on Friday
night, _Titanic_ on Saturday night (we're second-run theatergoers) and
then _Saving Private Ryan_ on Sunday afternoon. That Friday, I though
_Bulworth_ was pretty good, but I barely remembered it two days later.
--
- Don Waugaman (d...@cs.arizona.edu) O- _|_ Will pun
Web Page: http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/dpw/ | for food
In the Sonoran Desert, home of the phrase "It's a dry heat..." | <><
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a
new model.