Satan is alive and well in Christian Music
Thguaks
latest attempt to infiltrate the church and corrupt our youth. By
tricking even the elect into believing that music of this world, with
it's tortured guitar, pounding drums, and chaotic melodies, can somehow
be used to glorify the creator, he has led them deeper into his eveil grip.
I have witnessed first hand these so-called "Christian" rock concerts.
The red lit stage and billowing smoke recreate the look of hell, while
the band members gyrate their hips sending young Christian girls into a
sexual frenzy. The young men in the audience, hypnotized by the tribal
beat, begin slamming their bodies into on another and throwing the
weaker among them into the air. They raise their fists and sing along
to the dark rhythm, unknowingly paying homage to the devil. The band,
with song titles like "Circle Slide" (no doubt a song about
hallucenigetic drugs), "Speckled Bird" (about the vultures of Hell), and
"Wide-Eye Wonder" (about the demonic trance the music brings about)
leads the children away like a possesed pied-piper.
Wake up, true believers, for there is an evil among us.
And don't forget, Satan is also the mastermind behind the internet, and
it is hiss playground. Christians has no place in his web. For more
information, and to see the face of the dark one gnashing his teeth at
you, visit http://www.skaught.com . Be warned.
Thguaks
Skaught
Scott
Chuck Pearson wrote:
>
> Thguaks (ska...@skaught.com) wrote:
> : I have witnessed first hand these so-called "Christian" rock concerts.
> : The red lit stage and billowing smoke recreate the look of hell, while
> : the band members gyrate their hips sending young Christian girls into a
> : sexual frenzy. The young men in the audience, hypnotized by the tribal
> : beat, begin slamming their bodies into on another and throwing the
> : weaker among them into the air. They raise their fists and sing along
> : to the dark rhythm, unknowingly paying homage to the devil. The band,
> : with song titles like "Circle Slide" (no doubt a song about
> : hallucenigetic drugs), "Speckled Bird" (about the vultures of Hell), and
> : "Wide-Eye Wonder" (about the demonic trance the music brings about)
> : leads the children away like a possesed pied-piper.
>
> dang you, i had to go and take "speckled bird" and calculate its CI.
>
> it came in at -1%.
>
> chuck [http://www.rru.com/rmc/ci.html]
> --
> yeah, your radio's pretty good this year [thanx to bill mallonee.]
> but your retail's not worth a dime <cpea...@freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Chuck Pearson
Izzy81
I done went and burned up my Choir CDs.
(should heard the horrible shrieks that
eminated from the flames--sounded a lot
like that "wah wah sax" solo on 'If I had a
yard')
MdNiteMike
LOUD rock music for that whole time, still play in a worship band at my church.
I've been married to my high school sweetheart for 24 years. We have 2 lovely
children who also dig hard core Christian rock. I find it very divisive for
people to rail on music and try to make incorrect theological pronouncements
just because they don't care for a certain style of music, If you don't like
it, don't listen to it.
Josh Marihugh
Neiby wrote in message <19991023214848...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
><sound of something going quickly over someone's head>
>
>Methinks someone has entirely missed the joke... <g>
yep...took me a few seconds to figure it out, too...
Good one, Scott!
--
rev. jmarihugh
NP: Spoken LIVE
jmarihugh on the internet:
http://www.geocities.com/christrock99/
and of course http://www.tollbooth.org
Neiby
Skaught
Skaught
Scott
Josh Marihugh wrote:
>
> Neiby wrote in message <19991023214848...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
> >>Oh, give it a rest, please> I've been a christian for 30 years, have
> played
> >>LOUD rock music for that whole time, still play in a worship band at my
> >>church.
> >>I've been married to my high school sweetheart for 24 years. We have 2
> lovely
> >>children who also dig hard core Christian rock. I find it very divisive
> for
> >>people to rail on music and try to make incorrect theological
> pronouncements
> >>just because they don't care for a certain style of music, If you don't
> like
> >>it, don't listen to it.
> >>
> >
> ><sound of something going quickly over someone's head>
> >
> >Methinks someone has entirely missed the joke... <g>
>
snail
>Chuck Pearson wrote:
>> Thguaks (ska...@skaught.com) wrote:
>> : I have witnessed first hand these so-called "Christian" rock concerts.
>> : The red lit stage and billowing smoke recreate the look of hell, while
>> : hallucenigetic drugs), "Speckled Bird" (about the vultures of Hell), and
>> it came in at -1%.
Oops :)
>What's "CI"?
The Christianity Index. An anti-CCM person such as yourself should
take full advantage of this wondrous tool with which to assess the
'christianity' of your albums :)
>> chuck [http://www.rru.com/rmc/ci.html]
Chuck even included the URL so that faithless heathens may discover
the errors of their ways. Hosted by our good friend at _Roadkills R
Us_ (and maintainer of the General rmc FAQ) Miles O'Neal IIRC.
--
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
Larry Seiler
all these quibblings among those claiming to be his foes...<wink>
peace,
Larry
Michial
>take full advantage of this wondrous tool with which to assess the
>'christianity' of your albums :)
>
>>> chuck [http://www.rru.com/rmc/ci.html]
>
>Chuck even included the URL so that faithless heathens may discover
>the errors of their ways. Hosted by our good friend at _Roadkills R
>Us_ (and maintainer of the General rmc FAQ) Miles O'Neal IIRC.
that's *awesome*...apparantly my viva voce album is only 20% christian...so i'm
burning it in a big fire this afternoon...20% isn't good enough for me OR
God...
michial
Aaron Pierce [shameless self-promotion]
> The Christianity Index. An anti-CCM person such as yourself should
> take full advantage of this wondrous tool with which to assess the
> 'christianity' of your albums :)
>
> >> chuck [http://www.rru.com/rmc/ci.html]
heh! it must be bad... my filtering software blocked it!
Aaron.
--
st. aaron thomas pierce ~ aa...@avweb.net ~ http://www.avweb.net/
come see Aaron's studio... http://www.avweb.net/studio
Jonny Rash
Very simple..theyr'e not. Theyr'e Christian entertainment. So go
pay your $20 for a ticket and be entertained. Let us enjoy the show!
Thguaks <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
news:38123197...@skaught.com...
> The Prince of Darkness, Lucifer himself, is doing very well with his
> latest attempt to infiltrate the church and corrupt our youth. By
> tricking even the elect into believing that music of this world, with
> it's tortured guitar, pounding drums, and chaotic melodies, can somehow
> be used to glorify the creator, he has led them deeper into his eveil
grip.
>
> I have witnessed first hand these so-called "Christian" rock concerts.
> The red lit stage and billowing smoke recreate the look of hell, while
> the band members gyrate their hips sending young Christian girls into a
> sexual frenzy. The young men in the audience, hypnotized by the tribal
> beat, begin slamming their bodies into on another and throwing the
> weaker among them into the air. They raise their fists and sing along
> to the dark rhythm, unknowingly paying homage to the devil. The band,
> with song titles like "Circle Slide" (no doubt a song about
> hallucenigetic drugs), "Speckled Bird" (about the vultures of Hell), and
> "Wide-Eye Wonder" (about the demonic trance the music brings about)
> leads the children away like a possesed pied-piper.
>
Chuck Pearson
: >> chuck [http://www.rru.com/rmc/ci.html]
: Chuck even included the URL so that faithless heathens may discover
: the errors of their ways. Hosted by our good friend at _Roadkills R
: Us_ (and maintainer of the General rmc FAQ) Miles O'Neal IIRC.
and devised by snail's countryman, Russell Skingsley. he hasn't been on
r.m.c in ages and ages, and i don't even know if the e-mail addy Miles has
on the site is vaild. but it's still brilliant.
i calculated the CI of probably the most "Christian" album i have with me,
the ancient pseudo-punk album _Restless_Heart_ by the Holidays. it
checked in at 84%, which (according to Miles' new ratings, the inspiration
of which I doubt) God won't give me leprosy over.
Vector's _Temptation_ comes in at 57%, which isn't good.
i don't even want to think about what Rush's _Moving_Pictures_ comes in at.
chuck
Becky White
news:19991024114759...@ng-bk1.aol.com...
> >The Christianity Index. An anti-CCM person such as yourself should
> >take full advantage of this wondrous tool with which to assess the
> >'christianity' of your albums :)
> >
> >
> >Chuck even included the URL so that faithless heathens may discover
> >the errors of their ways. Hosted by our good friend at _Roadkills R
> >Us_ (and maintainer of the General rmc FAQ) Miles O'Neal IIRC.
>
christian...so i'm
> burning it in a big fire this afternoon...20% isn't good enough for me
OR
> God...
You found one rating 20%?!? Wow. I don't think I've ever gotten
anything above 5.
And you know, there's no point in everyone burning these albums
individually - why don't you just send them all to me...
Becky
--
Becky White -- bec...@dakota.net
Cstone 99: http://members.xoom.com/beckywhite
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com * The Internet's Discussion Network *
* The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! *
JJDET1
figure.
JJ
JJDET1
>individually - why don't you just send them all to me...
>
>Becky
JJ
Ethan D. Rogati
>
[snip]
> i calculated the CI of probably the most "Christian" album i have with me,
> the ancient pseudo-punk album _Restless_Heart_ by the Holidays. it
> checked in at 84%, which (according to Miles' new ratings, the inspiration
> of which I doubt) God won't give me leprosy over.
Hrm. I wonder if any of mine would score that high.
> Vector's _Temptation_ comes in at 57%, which isn't good.
Only 57%?! That album's more Christian than most of the CCM dreck out there!
> i don't even want to think about what Rush's _Moving_Pictures_ comes in at.
Probably -25%
> chuck
e
dsing...@attglobal.net
because they did a cover of "Jesus is Just All Right With Me." Of course,
the band they were covering was a main reason for their "falling from
grace." But even more ridiculous was the suggestion that "Jesus is not
'just all right.' Jesus is God, so it is evil to call Him 'just all right'."
Have you checked Led Zeppelin IV?
Jason Steiner
>
> The Prince of Darkness, Lucifer himself, is doing very well with his
> latest attempt to infiltrate the church and corrupt our youth. By
> tricking even the elect into believing that music of this world,
> with it's tortured guitar, pounding drums, and chaotic melodies,
> can somehow be used to glorify the creator, he has led them deeper
> into his eveil grip.
Curses! The secret's out! Oh well, nobody knows about our fiendish
WWJD plan yet...
jason
r.m.c's first resident atheist
--
"a general theme of anarchy, rebellion, and autonomy"
==== ja...@gaydeceiver.com =================== http://www.gaydeceiver.com/ ====
Chuck Pearson
: > Vector's _Temptation_ comes in at 57%, which isn't good.
: Only 57%?! That album's more Christian than most of the CCM dreck out there!
too many songs that don't mention Jesus, too many minor chords, and too
many dark colors. God can't work through that. oh no. 8-)
Bob Miller
(cpea...@gcfn.org) wrote:
: Vector's _Temptation_ comes in at 57%, which isn't good.
Chasing Furies' _with abandon_ came in at 20. I need to tell my bass-
playing cousin Jimmy to get out *now* before the fire and brimstone falls...
Bob (and the CI didn't even mention "body piercings")Miller
r...@hpfirhm.fc.hp.com
Aaron
dc Talk changed the lyrics anyways. They said "Jesus is *still* alright
with me." No matter what the world says. Why don't sceptics look at the
facts before they judge other Christians who are trying harder to
evangelize, rather than wasting their time criticizing other Christians.
Ethan D. Rogati
>
> Ethan D. Rogati (ero...@rmi.net) wrote:
> : > Vector's _Temptation_ comes in at 57%, which isn't good.
>
>
> too many songs that don't mention Jesus, too many minor chords, and too
> many dark colors. God can't work through that. oh no. 8-)
But God's "Mr. Color Wheel"! =)
e
Josh Marihugh
Chuck Pearson wrote in message
>dang you, i had to go and take "speckled bird" and calculate its CI.
>
>it came in at -1%.
Random samplings from my musical collection:
The Blamed _Again_ scored 37
Jewel _Spirit_ came in at 4
Bloodshed's EP came in at 45
On the other side, Sonicflood's CD came in at a fairly respectable 69.
Has anyone checked Rich Mullins' _Jesus Record_? Should do fairly well,
except for the "dead artist" thing.
--
rev. jmarihugh
NP: Pleasantville
Noah Elliott
> Has anyone checked Rich Mullins' _Jesus Record_? Should do fairly
> well, except for the "dead artist" thing.
According to my calculations, _The Jesus Record_ comes in at 17.
Apparently, having "Jesus" in the album title doesn't add to the
Christianity of the album.
Some other albums:
Dime Store Prophets, _Love Is Against the Grain_ -- 5
DC Talk, self titled -- 32
Fleming and John, _Delusions of Grandeur_ -- 21
--noah
snail
>I think your point is how can these things be called a ministry.
>Very simple..theyr'e not. Theyr'e Christian entertainment. So go
>pay your $20 for a ticket and be entertained. Let us enjoy the show!
YHBT. HTH. HAND.
Michial
michial
Michial
>The Blamed _Again_ scored 37
>Jewel _Spirit_ came in at 4
>Bloodshed's EP came in at 45
the beatles, _sgt peppers_ came in somewhere in the 40s...
michial
Skaught
know. If you ask around, I occassionaly do variations of this just to
see how people will react. I usually put in an obvious clue that I was
joking, but there is always someone who totally misses it.
Scott
Bradford wrote:
>
> Hilarious, Scott
>
> How DARE anyone question ANYTHING about CM groups!
Iceman6577
Iceman6577
>From: dsing...@attglobal.net
>Date: Sun, 24 October 1999 06:33 PM EDT
>Message-id: <3813c...@news1.prserv.net>
>
>I visited one "kook" site where they suggested that DC Talk was an evil band
>because they did a cover of "Jesus is Just All Right With Me." Of course,
>the band they were covering was a main reason for their "falling from
>grace." But even more ridiculous was the suggestion that "Jesus is not
>'just all right.' Jesus is God, so it is evil to call Him 'just all right'."
>
>
>
>
Don't you think Jesus is alright? I think he's pretty darn cool. Jesus is the
man (or the son of man). That seems like a good song. Fundamentalists can be
too picky and paranoid. wow
Iceman6577
>Date: Sun, 24 October 1999 01:52 PM EDT
>Message-id: <U0cTOLtr46ZGCo...@4ax.com>
>
>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 22:05:55 GMT, Thguaks <ska...@skaught.com> wrote:
>
>>I have witnessed first hand these so-called "Christian" rock concerts.
>>The red lit stage and billowing smoke recreate the look of hell, while
>>the band members gyrate their hips sending young Christian girls into a
>>sexual frenzy.
>
>laughing. :)
>
>
You go girl!
Iceman6577
>Date: Tue, 26 October 1999 07:25 PM EDT
>Message-id: <381638C6...@skaught.com>
Can I be your gay lover joker man? lol well? lol :-) tsk tsk tsk
Skaught
this for me?
Scott
P.S. No.
Josh Marihugh
Skaught wrote in message <381677C1...@skaught.com>...
>Appears some people are a bit stranger then me...can someone translate
>this for me?
>
>
>Scott
>
>P.S. No.
I've been looking for an Iceman-to-English translator, but to no avail.
--
rev. jmarihugh
NP:
Josh Marihugh
snail wrote in message ...
>Jonny Rash <JR...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I think your point is how can these things be called a ministry.
>>Very simple..theyr'e not. Theyr'e Christian entertainment. So go
>>pay your $20 for a ticket and be entertained. Let us enjoy the show!
>
>YHBT. HTH. HAND.
Translation for the acronym-impaired among us? (I got the HTH.)
snail
>Translation for the acronym-impaired among us? (I got the HTH.)
You Have Been Trolled. Hope That Helps. Have A Nice Day.
For these (hopefully :) and other acronyms, try this site:
<http://www.ucc.ie/cgi-bin/acronym>
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> I appreciate your saying that. And I did detect that you had done this in
> the past, before I began posting to this ng.
>
> I guess what concerns me is this. While my posts were by no means a master
> work of CM critique, I did put forth several things that I do believe
> deserve consideration. There IS room for a whole lot of progress in CM,
As there is in every church, ministry, business, person, etc.
> and thus fair critique and challenge. Yet, most of the response seemed to be
> just pickin at the edges, fussing about terms, single statements or
> paragraphs highlighted then given disproportionate critique. (See note
> below.) Whether or not my criteria for CM was accurate or all-inclusive,
> they were still very good criteria. (And their listing cannot fairly be
> judged to be a condemnation of all else.) I can't see how the whole of CM
> would be hurt by groups being challenged to produce more CM in that
> direction. Young people are being assaulted by the gates of hell like they
> never have been before. They need a potent anecdote. They need the word of
> Christ.
I guess we were focused on the bands with less "direct" lyrics, so I
never mentioned it myself, but there are a LOT of bands with very clear,
direct obvious Christian lyrics. I would say the MAJORITY, too. The
only reason we got stuck on Sixpence is because of their recent
popularity. I can rattle off a long list of bands who are obviously
"Christian" bands because of their lyrics. Some songs may be blatant
altar calls, while others may be about the struggles and pains of life
and point to Jesus. Others may be praise oriented songs. There's a
whole variety out there that all have their purposes. The kids I work
with do not really respond to the altar call type songs, yet love the
songs that deal with pain, suffering, sadness, loss, frustration,
confusion, and point to Jesus. It's these type of lyrics I find the
most "evangelical".
I still get the feeling that you think there are bands out their writing
"indirect" lyrics that SHOULD be writing "direct" lyrics. Which would
mean they must be disobeying God, since if they SHOUDL be doing
something, then it must be God who thinks they SHOULD be doing it. You
think that we should challenge groups to produce more music that fall
under your desctiption of "Christian Music". By saying this you are
assuming that there are bands that AREN'T doing what God has called them
to do. Now, I'm sure there are bands out there not doing that. But
don't you think it would be better to CHALLENGE groups to follow what
God would have them do, instead of what you would like them to do?
Isn't that the challenge and support we should offer?
Again, I think you are mixing up what YOU would like to see and hear
with what GOD would like to see and hear. There are certainly many many
groupd who fall under your description of "Christian Music". Maybe
there is a band who God has called to take a less direct approach in
their lyrics so that they can take a direct approach in their personal
lives, but they instead decided to do what you said and write lyrics
that please you. This is why I think your energy would be better spent
encouraging bands to honestly seek out what God wants them to do.
> If you would take all the protests of those you are mocking in this original
> posts, and examine them point by point, I believe you would find plenty
> there that does deserve some attention, their exaggerations and paranoia
> notwithstanding. When I was (I'm guessing) closer to your age, I got some
> of the best advice I've ever been given for my ministry. The public
> relations director for the Christian college I attended said this of his
> time in the pastorate. "You know, every church has its sourpuss, its
> whiners and complainers. But if you ignore your first blush reaction to
> counter their moanings, and stop and really listen to what they have to say,
> you'll find that there's usually something, at least something, of value to
> their complaints."
I have examined the (few) point, and found them empty, lacking, and
wrong. They frequently bring up the "tribal beat" aspect, which has a
lot of racism at it's root, which is a just plain silly and wrong point.
They also misquote lyrics from bands to "prove" the bands support
drunkeness, drug use, perversity, and numerous other things. You'll
also find many of these people are also in the same boat as those who
think the NIV translation is a Satanic translation and that the only
Holy translation is the KJV. Poor Chinese people must learn
Elizabethian English, I guess, if they want to become Christians!
Anyway -- their points have been reviewed and deemed ludicrous at best,
evil at worst.
Scott
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> > I guess we were focused on the bands with less "direct" lyrics, so I
> > never mentioned it myself, but there are a LOT of bands with very clear,
> > direct obvious Christian lyrics.
>
> Have you suggested any to me? If so, just say yes, and I'll re-read the
> posts. If not, what bands are they?
Do you recall the 5 bands I suggested you check out, which I then
expanded to more when I realized you were looking for your daughter?
You said you would check them out. I'm really not in the mood to start
listing bands. Just go to a Christian bookstore.
> > I would say the MAJORITY, too.
>
> I wouldn't have guessed that, but again, I'd like to know of the bands that
> come to your mind to add to others I've now heard about.
>
> > I still get the feeling that you think there are bands out their writing
> > "indirect" lyrics that SHOULD be writing "direct" lyrics.
>
> Well, I'm not sure your feeling is validated by anything I've said, as I've
> (eventually) tried to bend over backwards to make sure I don't disallow
> christians to have a band. In fact I do believe there are no small amount
> of bands that take the indirect approach that should take a more direct
> approach. As time allows in the future I will make a case for that,
> although my posts may already give hints of why I feel that way.
After saying "I'm not sure your feeling is validated by anything I've
said", you go on and say "In fact I do believe there are no small amount
of bands that take the indirect approach that should take a more direct approach."
Can you see why I'm banging my head against a wall? First you doubt the
validity of my feelings, and then you CONFIRM my feelings. Do you not
see the inconsistency here?!?!?!?
> > But don't you think it would be better to CHALLENGE groups to follow what
> > God would have them do, instead of what you would like them to do?
> > Isn't that the challenge and support we should offer?
>
> That's what I'm doing. I believe God would have many more groups take a
> more direct approach. That's what I believe God would have many more
> (though not necessarily all) to do.
This may be what *YOU* want, but you don't know that God want's more of
the bands writing "indirect" lyrics to change and write "direct" lyrics.
This is your desire. You don't know that it is God's.
> >
> > I have examined the (few) point, and found them empty, lacking, and
> > wrong. They frequently bring up the "tribal beat" aspect, which has a
> > lot of racism at it's root, which is a just plain silly and wrong point.
> > They also misquote lyrics from bands to "prove" the bands support
> > drunkeness, drug use, perversity, and numerous other things
>
> Do you have an example of this that you can point me to? A website?
I never bothered to bookmark it. I think there is one associated with
the God Hates Fags people, too. Post a message under this subject and
I'm sure someone knows of one.
Scott
Noah Elliott
>
> Skaught wrote:
> >
> > I have examined the (few) point, and found them empty, lacking, and
> > wrong. They frequently bring up the "tribal beat" aspect, which
> > has a lot of racism at it's root, which is a just plain silly and
> > wrong point. They also misquote lyrics from bands to "prove" the
> > bands support drunkeness, drug use, perversity, and numerous other
> > things
>
> Do you have an example of this that you can point me to? A website?
Josh Marihugh
Noah Elliott wrote in message <38179E99...@concentric.net>...
also
http://www.biblebelievers.com
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/
--
rev. jmarihugh
NP: Petra Praise The Rock Cries Out
"honor and power and strength be to our God forever and ever///"
Noah Elliott
> You'll also find many of these people are also in the same boat as
> those who think the NIV translation is a Satanic translation and
> that the only Holy translation is the KJV.
If John the Baptist used the King James Version, then it's good enough
for me!
--noah
Neiby
>>
>> Skaught wrote:
>> >
>> > I have examined the (few) point, and found them empty, lacking, and
>> > wrong. They frequently bring up the "tribal beat" aspect, which
>> > has a lot of racism at it's root, which is a just plain silly and
>> > wrong point. They also misquote lyrics from bands to "prove" the
>> > bands support drunkeness, drug use, perversity, and numerous other
>> > things
>>
>> Do you have an example of this that you can point me to? A website?
>
>www.av1611.org
heh heh heh.....oh man... :) Now there is a work of art...
Skaught
Noah Elliott wrote:
>
> Bradford wrote:
> >
> > Skaught wrote:
> > >
> > > I have examined the (few) point, and found them empty, lacking, and
> > > wrong. They frequently bring up the "tribal beat" aspect, which
> > > has a lot of racism at it's root, which is a just plain silly and
> > > wrong point. They also misquote lyrics from bands to "prove" the
> > > bands support drunkeness, drug use, perversity, and numerous other
> > > things
> >
> > Do you have an example of this that you can point me to? A website?
>
> www.av1611.org
I went to this site and read about a long (and AMAZINGLY indepth) list
of Christians bands who covered secular songs. I guess the idea is that
this is wrong because God says to sing a "new song". Does that mean I
can't sing the songs in my hymnal? I didn't write those! Anyway, they
actually have "C is for Cookie" by The Throes, originally done by COOKIE
MONSTER. Yes, that evil of evils, the blue beast himself -- Cookie
Monster! Teaching gluttony to the children of the world!
See what I mean?
Scott
David Murray
These were new ones to me. Thanks for the laughs!
David Murray
Skaught
After saying "I'm not sure your feeling is validated by anything I've
said", you go on and say "In fact I do believe there are no small amount
of bands that take the indirect approach that should take a more direct
approach."
Can you see why I'm banging my head against a wall? First you doubt the
validity of my feelings, and then you CONFIRM my feelings. Do you not
see the inconsistency here?!?!?!?
*****
I'd really like to know what you think about the above.
Bradford wrote:
>
> Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
> news:38178A93...@skaught.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you recall the 5 bands I suggested you check out, which I then
> > expanded to more when I realized you were looking for your daughter?
> > You said you would check them out. I'm really not in the mood to start
> > listing bands. Just go to a Christian bookstore.
> >
> Sorry. I said I'd review the posts if you had.
I gave this to you in an email, and you replied back about it and then I
gave you some more. Are you really interested?
Scott
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> > After saying "I'm not sure your feeling is validated by anything I've
> > said", you go on and say "In fact I do believe there are no small amount
> > of bands that take the indirect approach that should take a more direct
> approach."
> >
> > Can you see why I'm banging my head against a wall? First you doubt the
> > validity of my feelings, and then you CONFIRM my feelings. Do you not
> > see the inconsistency here?!?!?!?
>
> Thanks for leaving my text above so you can easily re-read it and see that
> you have absolutely no reason to bang your head against a wall. The only
> thing that text proves is that I'm trying to limit the discussions to a
> manageable number. There is no inconsistency here. The "In fact I do
> believe" issue is one that I've planned to more fully develop in a later
> discussion. I never said I didn't feel that way. I just wasn't sure your
> feelings were confirmed by anything I had yet said. And, to spare you
> another response, note that I said "I wasn't sure". Perhaps I did, but I
> haven't the time to audit each post for this.
Regardless, I HAVE that feeling. And my FEELING is turning out to be
TRUE. So you obviously have said things to give me that feeling. This
was very silly...
> > This may be what *YOU* want, but you don't know that God want's more of
> > the bands writing "indirect" lyrics to change and write "direct" lyrics.
> > This is your desire. You don't know that it is God's.
>
> So what? Why the caps? So don't express my feeling? Don't ever challenge
> people according to what I believe the Word of God says? Certainly it's
> optional, but at least the option is quite scriptural. What is the fruit of
> this kind of argument?. I could say *YOU* don't know that is is God's will
> for you to be involved at The Refuge. Maybe I'm wasting my time. Let me
> just ask you directly. Do you believe that the scriptures contemplate
> believers admonishing each other, encouraging each other, challenging each
> other, (sometimes) exhorting or even rebuking each other? And if so, can
> the admonisher, exhorter, encourager, etc., be received with the view that,
> while he or she certainly has no guarantee of 100% utterance from God, they
> just may say something in whole or part that God and the scriptures would
> have them say? "Let him who speaks, speak as it were the oracles of God".
> Forgot where that is . . . in one of the Peter epistles, I think. Or are we
> just reduced to "every man doing what is right in his own eyes"? (last vs.
> of the book of Judges)
Of course we are to do those things, but only some of them when they are
necessary. You certainly don't rebuke a person if they haven't done
anything wrong. You don't know what God has called a certain band to do
or say. They are not breaking a commandment or statement made by Jesus
by writing more poetic lyrics, so you certainly can't rebuke them for
it. And as for challenging a band to write more direct lyrics -- again,
YOU DON'T KNOW that God has called them to that. So wouldn't it be a
waste of time? Challenge them instead to seek out what God would have
them do. I still think you believe that God would prefer every band to
write direct lyrics. But you don't know that. That is your preference.
> > I never bothered to bookmark it. I think there is one associated with
> > the God Hates Fags people, too.
>
> Why even mention this? What if your church happened to believe that
> Christian Rock was evil. You'd disagree, but probably still feel they had a
> lot of other good things. Would you then want them wrongly associated with
> "God hates Fags" people?
HUH? Why mention it? Because it's true? I wasn't trying to slander
anyone. REREAD WHAT I WROTE, PLEASE. I SAID, "I think there is one
associated with the God Hates Fags people, too." I didn't say "They are
probably associateed with the GHF people". I remember reading one of
those GHF websites and seeing a section about the evils of Christian
rock.
I saw this, so HOW IN THE WORLD can you accuse me of wrongly associating
them? I said nothing that would indicate any wrong associating. Are
you LOOKING for things to accuse me of?
Scott
Skaught
read several sections of the site, and the things they have said and
attributed to bands is HORRIBLE. Just read this section:
http://www.av1611.org/crock.html . They aren't interested in truth at
all. They misquote, misrepresent, and withhold facts to give a false
image. For example, one (very dumb) band called Lust Control has a song
called "The Big 'M'". It's about masterbation and it encourages people
to resist the urge, remain pure, and not to do it. Does this website
give out that fact? No. Instead they write this:
"With a name like Lust Control, you know these guys are real spiritual
giants! One of their album is titled We Are Not Ashamed. They should be
– their song The Big "M" is about – well, you'll just have to listen to
it to believe it! Listen to it.
That filthy song was purchased in the Baptist Bookstore in Birmingham,
Al, one of the largest Christian bookstores in the country. It can be
found in most Christian bookstores. We Are Not Ashamed is a good title
for such filth. Jeremiah chapter 6, truthfully described Lust Control:
Were they ASHAMED when they had committed abomination? nay, they
were not at all ashamed,. . ." Jeremiah 6:9"
The song segment the have for download is just a small part that when
heard apart from the entire song, would mislead people as well.
He does this with most of the bands listed on there. So I really won't
give this liar and deceiver much of my time.
Scott
See what he intends to do? Mislead the read into thinking the song is
supportive of masterbation.
Bradford wrote:
>
> Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
> news:3817BD01...@skaught.com...
> >
> > >
> > > www.av1611.org
> >
> > I went to this site and read about a long (and AMAZINGLY indepth) list
> > of Christians bands who covered secular songs. I guess the idea is that
> > this is wrong because God says to sing a "new song". Does that mean I
> > can't sing the songs in my hymnal? I didn't write those! Anyway, they
> > actually have "C is for Cookie" by The Throes, originally done by COOKIE
> > MONSTER. Yes, that evil of evils, the blue beast himself -- Cookie
> > Monster! Teaching gluttony to the children of the world!
> >
> >
> > See what I mean?
> >
> > Scott
>
> >Scott -
>
> I have no problem with you countering the things in this site that you want
> to dispute. But I also took some time to peruse the site. Why they took
> the time to do the
> expose on the "Dorsey" statement, I don't understand. But their
> (incomplete?) posts of Steve Camps statements were very helpful. I'd like
> to read the whole thing later. (Seems like I did see that a while back.)
> Can you not allow that many of Camp's statements should give the makers and
> enjoyers of CM a lot to prayerfully consider, even if you don't agree with
> his overall conclusions?
>
> Then, that site says quotes the verse about separating the holy from the
> profane. Now granted, they will have the burden of proving that any rock
> music is profane, but it's still helpful to consider the verse. Perhaps you
> don't agree with their interpretation, but isn't it fair to ask, "Does that
> verse have ANY application to CM today? If so, what? And why not encourage
> other CM artists with your conclusions?
Troy M Miller
you're responding to without having to go back and look. this is
especially helpful for long threads with many contributors>
Bradford wrote:
> <i believe it was skaught who wrote:>
> >
> Have you suggested any to me? If so, just say yes, and I'll re-read the
> posts. If not, what bands are they?
<raises hand> i have, i have! and i'd be happy to post a fuller
(indeed, even complete) set of their lyrics if you would so like. pick
a few from my list if you'd like.
> > I still get the feeling that you think there are bands out their writing
> > "indirect" lyrics that SHOULD be writing "direct" lyrics.
>
> Well, I'm not sure your feeling is validated by anything I've said, as I've
i've gotten that feeling, and i'm fairly sure you've pretty much said as
much in other threads. but whether you have or not, i think many on
here have gotten that idea from you.
> (eventually) tried to bend over backwards to make sure I don't disallow
> christians to have a band. In fact I do believe there are no small amount
understand that we understand this. we know that you "allow" christians
to have a band. but you seem to be saying that, even though it is
perfectly fine for christians to have a band, you believe the majority
of them would be better off (ie, more effective) if they adhered to the
guidelines of christian music that you stated. is this incorrect?
> > But don't you think it would be better to CHALLENGE groups to follow what
> > God would have them do, instead of what you would like them to do?
> > Isn't that the challenge and support we should offer?
>
> That's what I'm doing. I believe God would have many more groups take a
> more direct approach. That's what I believe God would have many more
> (though not necessarily all) to do.
ok, fine. but you haven't really effectively answered any of the
counter-opinions that people who do not share this belief have offered.
either way, there are two camps. and there are bands that could
probably benefit from the "suggestion" of each camp - ie, bands that
could stand to be encouraged to be more direct, but also bands that may
be more effective if they were more indirect.
it's really rather pointless to argue on a general basis, as it depends
highly on each individual situation.
troy
Skaught
Troy M Miller wrote:
>
> Bradford wrote:
> > <i believe it was skaught who wrote:>
> > >
> > > I still get the feeling that you think there are bands out their writing
> > > "indirect" lyrics that SHOULD be writing "direct" lyrics.
> >
> > Well, I'm not sure your feeling is validated by anything I've said, as I've
>
> i've gotten that feeling, and i'm fairly sure you've pretty much said as
> much in other threads. but whether you have or not, i think many on
> here have gotten that idea from you.
I knew I wasn't alone!
Scott
Josh Marihugh
Skaught wrote in message
>I knew I wasn't alone!
>Scott
<Scully>Mulder, what's that behind you?</Scully>
--
rev. jmarihugh
NP: Any Given Day
Coyote Art
Prince of Darkness, Lucifer himself, is doing very well with his> latest
attempt to infiltrate the church and corrupt our youth. By> tricking even
the elect into believing that music of this world, with> it's tortured
guitar, pounding drums, and chaotic melodies, can somehow> be used to glorify
the creator, he has led them deeper into his eveil grip.> > I have witnessed
first hand these so-called "Christian" rock concerts. > The red lit stage and
billowing smoke recreate the look of hell, while> the band members gyrate
men in the audience, hypnotized by the tribal> beat, begin slamming their
bodies into on another and throwing the> weaker among them into the air.
They raise their fists and sing alongamen <www.carman.org>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
> news:3818748B...@skaught.com...
> > Regardless, I HAVE that feeling. And my FEELING is turning out to be
> > TRUE. So you obviously have said things to give me that feeling. This
> > was very silly...
>
> Not at all. All this proves is that you take things that I say, and then
> make your own assumptions about things that I haven't said, or haven't said
> yet. This is characteristic of many of your responses to my posts. You
> want to put me in a box with a bunch of others whose views you don't hold.
> Just because you assumed right this time doesn't mean I'm being
> inconsistent.
What other assumptions have I made that weren't correct? You are
assuming that I want to "put you in a box", which is a cliche reaction
to me trying to figure out where you're coming from.
> Suppose I subscribe to the "tribal beat" argument. All along you suppose
> that I do. For this illustration, lets suppose I NEVER said I did. You
> say, "I think you're a tribal beat arguer." I say, "Well, I don't think
> I've ever said anything to you to give you that idea". Then that's it. All
> I'm saying is that I don't think I've ever said anything to you. Whether
> you FEEL that I was a tribal beat arguer, and whether or not I turn out to
> be is a different issue. I agree, this is silly, and I'm through arguing
> about it. Have the last word. Again, I'm happy to let my posts speak for
> themselves.
But you HAVE said many things that have led me to believe what has
turned out to be true. Maybe you didn't spell it out, but you've said
things that gave me that impression. Do you think I randomly grabbed
that "vibe" out of the air with no basis for it? I'm sorry, but that's
just plain wrong. And as another has stated, they ALSO had that
impression. So now there are two of us who had the same impression
about you without you ever saying anything to give us that impression?
If that's the case, I should start my own pyschic hotline, because I'm good.
> >
> > Of course we are to do those things, but only some of them when they are
> > necessary. You certainly don't rebuke a person if they haven't done
> > anything wrong. You don't know what God has called a certain band to do
> > or say. They are not breaking a commandment or statement made by Jesus
> > by writing more poetic lyrics, so you certainly can't rebuke them for
> > it. And as for challenging a band to write more direct lyrics -- again,
> > YOU DON'T KNOW that God has called them to that. So wouldn't it be a
> > waste of time? Challenge them instead to seek out what God would have
> > them do. I still think you believe that God would prefer every band to
> > write direct lyrics. But you don't know that. That is your preference.
>
> No. I'm not going to do that at all. That's a cop-out. "Just do what you
> think God wants you to do." First of all, that's a meaningless admonishion.
> As if I'm tempted to say, "Hey friend, do something different than what God
> wants you to do." I'm going to challenge, exhort, and admonish because
> that's what I believe God wants me to do. If you think that's wrong, show
> me in the Word.
Since when is a challenge a one sentence statement? Now you're making a
cop out by over simplifying what I mean with "challenge". I want to
challenge people (and I want others to challenge me) to seek out God's
will in their life/band/business/ministry. I would do this by
encouraging them to read the Word, spend time in prayer, and *wait* for
an answer. Since I don't know what God's will is for other people, it
would be WRONG of me to tell them "God wants you to write more direct
lyrics". God doesn't tell me OR YOU what his will is for other people.
How do you know God's will for other people?
> > > Why even mention this? What if your church happened to believe that
> > > Christian Rock was evil. You'd disagree, but probably still feel they
> had a
> > > lot of other good things. Would you then want them wrongly associated
> with
> > > "God hates Fags" people?
> >
> > HUH? Why mention it? Because it's true? I wasn't trying to slander
> > anyone. REREAD WHAT I WROTE, PLEASE. I SAID, "I think there is one
> > associated with the God Hates Fags people, too." I didn't say "They are
> > probably associateed with the GHF people". I remember reading one of
> > those GHF websites and seeing a section about the evils of Christian
> > rock.
> >
> > I saw this, so HOW IN THE WORLD can you accuse me of wrongly associating
> > them? I said nothing that would indicate any wrong associating. Are
> > you LOOKING for things to accuse me of?
>
> I can't see any useful purpose in making that connection, other than to
> discredit, in general, people that make the tribal beat argument.
Again, HUH???? Finally, you've upset me. HOW IN THE STINKING WORLD CAN
YOU SAY THIS? Did I say ALL PEOPLE WHO THINK ROCK MUSIC IS EVIL BECAUSE
OF THE TRIBAL BEAT are connected with the God Hates Fags people??? DID
I SAY THAT? NO! Why are you distorting my words?!?!?! I said one --
ONE WEBSITE THAT I SAW -- was connected. JUST ONE!!! NOT ALL! If it
discredits this ONE website, then GOOD. But I made no -- NO --
connection between the GHF people with any other website/person/group
who thinks Christian rock is evil. CAN'T YOU READ? OR DO YOU ONLY SEE
WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE????? As I said, you upset me.
Why are you so defensive of the people who lie and deceive to trick
people into thinking Christian rock groups are knowingly out to destroy
youth, anyway?
Scott
Iceman6577
re:South park
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
> news:38192523...@skaught.com...
> >
> >
> > Bradford wrote:
> > >
> > > Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3818748B...@skaught.com...
> >
> > > > Regardless, I HAVE that feeling. And my FEELING is turning out to be
> > > > TRUE. So you obviously have said things to give me that feeling.
> This
> > > > was very silly...
> > >
> > > Not at all. All this proves is that you take things that I say, and
> then
> > > make your own assumptions about things that I haven't said, or haven't
> said
> > > yet. This is characteristic of many of your responses to my posts. You
> > > want to put me in a box with a bunch of others whose views you don't
> hold.
> > > Just because you assumed right this time doesn't mean I'm being
> > > inconsistent.
> >
> > What other assumptions have I made that weren't correct? You are
> > assuming that I want to "put you in a box", which is a cliche reaction
> > to me trying to figure out where you're coming from.
>
> Well, I just don't have time to audit the posts that are there for your and
> anyone else's review. I'll list one that was a pretty gross example. That
> was your implication that I required CM groups to "know Greek and all that
> other silly stuff". You knew that wasn't true.
That wasn't an assumption. And just so you don't waste your time
looking. I made NO other assumptions. Just the one, and I was right.
> >
> >
> > > Suppose I subscribe to the "tribal beat" argument. All along you
> suppose
> > > that I do. For this illustration, lets suppose I NEVER said I did. You
> > > say, "I think you're a tribal beat arguer." I say, "Well, I don't think
> > > I've ever said anything to you to give you that idea". Then that's it.
> All
> > > I'm saying is that I don't think I've ever said anything to you.
> Whether
> > > you FEEL that I was a tribal beat arguer, and whether or not I turn out
> to
> > > be is a different issue. I agree, this is silly, and I'm through
> arguing
> > > about it. Have the last word. Again, I'm happy to let my posts speak
> for
> > > themselves.
> >
> > But you HAVE said many things that have led me to believe what has
> > turned out to be true. Maybe you didn't spell it out, but you've said
> > things that gave me that impression. Do you think I randomly grabbed
> > that "vibe" out of the air with no basis for it? I'm sorry, but that's
> > just plain wrong. And as another has stated, they ALSO had that
> > impression. So now there are two of us who had the same impression
> > about you without you ever saying anything to give us that impression?
> > If that's the case, I should start my own pyschic hotline, because I'm
> good.
>
> Well now, you're twisting the argument to one I haven't made. I allowed for
> the fact that I may have left some impression in my posts for what you felt
> to be true. All I did was make a casual statement that I wasn't sure I had
> *yet* said anything to confirm your feeling. I wasn't saying your feeling
> was wrong, nor was I saying that you feeling was not prompted by my posts.
> I'm just trying to help you learn to distinguish between your "hunches" and
> the facts. Many times your hunches may turn out to be facts, but there's a
> big difference between a hunch and a fact. I allowed that, in this case,
> your hunch was right. Then you say I'm inconsistent. >
Oh please. I didn't have a "hunch". I had an impression. And I don't
need you to teach me the difference between a hunch and a fact.
>
> >
> > Since when is a challenge a one sentence statement? Now you're making a
> > cop out by over simplifying what I mean with "challenge".
>
> I don't understand either of these. Did I even address your use of
> challenge?
Well, you sniped your portion where you do this, so let me go and get
both my paragraph, then your response, and post it below:
> > Of course we are to do those things, but only some of them when they are
> > necessary. You certainly don't rebuke a person if they haven't done
> > anything wrong. You don't know what God has called a certain band to do
> > or say. They are not breaking a commandment or statement made by Jesus
> > by writing more poetic lyrics, so you certainly can't rebuke them for
> > it. And as for challenging a band to write more direct lyrics -- again,
> > YOU DON'T KNOW that God has called them to that. So wouldn't it be a
> > waste of time? Challenge them instead to seek out what God would have
> > them do. I still think you believe that God would prefer every band to
> > write direct lyrics. But you don't know that. That is your preference.
>
> No. I'm not going to do that at all. That's a cop-out. "Just do what you
> think God wants you to do." First of all, that's a meaningless admonishion.
> As if I'm tempted to say, "Hey friend, do something different than what God
> wants you to do." I'm going to challenge, exhort, and admonish because
> that's what I believe God wants me to do. If you think that's wrong, show
> me in the Word.
Okay. If you read my paragraph you'll see me mention challenging a band
to do what God has called them to do. Then, in your paragraph, you say
that is a cop out. Then you make up a one sentence quote: "Just do what
you think God wants you to do." This is where you reduce my "challenge"
to a "meaningless admonishion". So yes, you did address my use of
challenge. And you treated it as if I only thought it was one sentence statement.
> > I want to
> > challenge people (and I want others to challenge me) to seek out God's
> > will in their life/band/business/ministry. I would do this by
> > encouraging them to read the Word, spend time in prayer, and *wait* for
> > an answer. Since I don't know what God's will is for other people, it
> > would be WRONG of me to tell them "God wants you to write more direct
> > lyrics". God doesn't tell me OR YOU what his will is for other people.
>
> I would say this is all acceptable and good. But I think it's very
> incomplete. You've probably heard the joke about the town being flooded and
> the man being offered help by others in boats. He says "God will
> provide.", ignores the help and waits on God. After this happens a few
> times, he drowns, then asks God, "Why didn't you save me?". God says,
> "Well, I sent three people in boats to come get you!"
So you're saying that God has chosen you to go and tell band's to write
more direct lyrics? And he told you exactly which bands to tell? Are
you a Prophet?
> > How do you know God's will for other people?
>
> He sends it to me every day in an e-mail. By the way, you should quit your
> job and go flip hamburgers.
> Come on Scott, are you really going waste time with this kind of
> questioning? How many verses do you want in the New Testament or Old where
> God uses people to help people. What do you think an apostle is, or a
> prophet, or an evangelist, or a pastor, or a teacher? Do you want to fire
> all the NT teachers today. Or tell them, "Okay, go tell everybody to read
> the Word, spend time in prayer, and *wait* for an answer." Then, all you
> teachers resign, or cease your teaching function.
Can you say "overreaction" and "exageration"? That paragraph was a
waste of time because you know full well that I never suggested nor gave
the impression that we should fire all those people. And I don't think
you really believe that I don't think God uses people to help people.
But that's NOT what the issue is here. The issue is KNOWING what God's
will is for a person or group. I have yet to meet a teacher or pastor
who told me, "Scott, God has revealed to me that you are to do *this*
with your life/ministry". I have met teachers and pastors who have
encouraged me to spend time in prayer and the Word and told me about how
God revealed things to them.
Now, unless you are a Prophet, who God does use to give out specific
instructions concerning His will, I would still wonder how you know
whether a band or person should write direct lyrics, other than it's
simply what *YOU* want to hear.
You keep dancing around this, yet you never address it. How do *YOU*
know that God wants a certain band to write direct lyrics? If you are
to challenge a band to do this, don't you think you should know that it
is what God wants?
Why is this so difficult!?
> > >
> > > I can't see any useful purpose in making that connection, other than to
> > > discredit, in general, people that make the tribal beat argument.
> >
> >
> > Again, HUH???? Finally, you've upset me. HOW IN THE STINKING WORLD CAN
> > YOU SAY THIS? Did I say ALL PEOPLE WHO THINK ROCK MUSIC IS EVIL BECAUSE
> > OF THE TRIBAL BEAT are connected with the God Hates Fags people??? DID
> > I SAY THAT? NO! Why are you distorting my words?!?!?! I said one --
> > ONE WEBSITE THAT I SAW -- was connected. JUST ONE!!! NOT ALL! If it
> > discredits this ONE website, then GOOD. But I made no -- NO --
> > connection between the GHF people with any other website/person/group
> > who thinks Christian rock is evil. CAN'T YOU READ? OR DO YOU ONLY SEE
> > WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE????? As I said, you upset me.
>
> I'm sorry I upset you. I'll just ask you then. What useful purpose was
> served by mentioning it?
Uh, maybe to show the mindset and heart of this ONE anti-rock person?
To show that they have a tendency to twist and misuse scripture to
support their own personal HATE? To illustrate how any use of scripture
by this person will most likely be a MISUSE? I would think this would
be IMPORTANT! Don't think you suggesting I was trying to discredit ALL
people who are anti-rock when I was OBVIOUSLY only making this
connection with ONE person a DISTORTION? Please tell me how you weren't
doing this, when it's very clear I said ONE site, which you followed up
with "in general, people"? Answer this.
> > Why are you so defensive of the people who lie and deceive to trick
> > people into thinking Christian rock groups are knowingly out to destroy
> > youth, anyway?
>
> This isn't fair. I only said that within everything they had to say, some
> of which (I at least implied, if not said outright) you could disagree with,
> that there were also some very good things.
It's more than just a disagreement. It's like a member of the KKK
saying black people aren't as smart as white people. That's his
opinion. But then if they follow it up with a "fact" that black
people's brains are 30% smaller than white people's, they are just plain
liars. That's what this website has done. Created FALSE information
and presented it as fact to support their own hate. They have some
serious black marks on their hearts, let me tell you.
Troy M Miller
> Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
> > Bradford wrote:
> > > Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
> > turned out to be true. Maybe you didn't spell it out, but you've said
> > things that gave me that impression. Do you think I randomly grabbed
> > that "vibe" out of the air with no basis for it? I'm sorry, but that's
> > just plain wrong. And as another has stated, they ALSO had that
> > impression. So now there are two of us who had the same impression
> > about you without you ever saying anything to give us that impression?
> > If that's the case, I should start my own pyschic hotline, because I'm
> good.
>
> the fact that I may have left some impression in my posts for what you felt
> to be true. All I did was make a casual statement that I wasn't sure I had
> *yet* said anything to confirm your feeling. I wasn't saying your feeling
> was wrong, nor was I saying that you feeling was not prompted by my posts.
> I'm just trying to help you learn to distinguish between your "hunches" and
> the facts. Many times your hunches may turn out to be facts, but there's a
> big difference between a hunch and a fact. I allowed that, in this case,
> your hunch was right. Then you say I'm inconsistent. >
this is annoying me, so i went to the trouble of searching deja.com (i
just searched in rmc for bradford's posts with the words "direct" in
them, so this may not be all-inclusive).
apologies for not referencing each snippage to it's corresponding post,
but i'm not quite that ambitious. but these were all bradford's words,
from his posts.
---------------
Then I say to the CM groups that want to entertain, "Fine, dear
brothers, but WHEN in your life DO you carry out the great commission
(that's Matt. 28:19, Johnny)?" I appreciate your ministering
"indirectly". Now tell me, how many have you brought to the Lord
through your witnessing . . . directly? If none, put your instrument
down and go take an evangelism course, or go ask your Christian brothers
and sisters how to preach the gospel. [snip] Again, why, why pray
tell, would a CM group NOT want to have more real gospel in their
music? Are they ashamed of the gospel of Christ?
I've allowed Christians to just have a band, but I've
challenged some of the music makers - Why NOT - take a more direct
approach?
While youngpeople are being saved . . . by (some of you will say) groups
whose lyrics are "indirect", many, many more could be saved and
spiritually nourished by a much more direct ministry.
As for the groups that take the indirect approach, I would just ask,
"Why NOT take a more direct approach?"
---------------
can you now see where some of us got the idea that you would prefer xian
musicians be more direct?
troy
Troy M Miller
> {First}Well, I'm not sure your feeling is validated by anything I've said,
> as I've
> (eventually) tried to bend over backwards to make sure I don't disallow
> christians to have a band.
>
not really. as i attempted to point out, you pretty much stated your
position. so it wasn't a "hunch" on scott's part. whether or not you
qualified your statement with "i'm not sure" is irrelevant on that
point.
> evidence. Here's an example. I think Sally, a co-worker despises me at
> work, and also that she doesn't want to carry out our bosses orders. This
> is my hunch. I can get in trouble fast if I act on that hunch alone. If I
> did that . . . "Hey boss, I think Sally despises me and doesn't want to
> carry out your orders." I'm wrong to have done that. If later, Sally
> admits as much, that still doesn't make what I did right. She's proved my
> hunch was true, but that's irrelevant.
this case is not analogous. the statements i quoted from you were made
before scott's statement. to translate to your story, sally told you
her intentions *before* you made your statement.
but this whole thing isn't related to our discussion, so let's just drop
it, all right?
troy
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> Troy -
>
> I'm really sorry you took the time to do this, but nevertheless, it speaks
> well of your attention to detail.
>
> Skaught has spun the argument to make you think that the issue is that I was
> not wanting to own up to the posts you've listed, then turned around and
> admitted it, which caused him to have his head banging against the wall.
> This isn't the issue. Here is what I said
I haven't "spun" anything.
> {First}Well, I'm not sure your feeling is validated by anything I've said,
> as I've
> (eventually) tried to bend over backwards to make sure I don't disallow
> christians to have a band.
>
> Scott had a hunch. My point to him was and is; Fine, you can hunch all you
> want, but be careful to know when you're hunching and when you have solid
> evidence. Here's an example. I think Sally, a co-worker despises me at
> work, and also that she doesn't want to carry out our bosses orders. This
> is my hunch. I can get in trouble fast if I act on that hunch alone. If I
> did that . . . "Hey boss, I think Sally despises me and doesn't want to
> carry out your orders." I'm wrong to have done that. If later, Sally
> admits as much, that still doesn't make what I did right. She's proved my
> hunch was true, but that's irrelevant.
I did NOT have a "hunch". I had an impression and a feeling BASED ON
YOUR WORDS, not some gut feeling like you keep trying to twist it into.
Your analogy is false and leaves out the fact that Sally said many
things that a logical person would conclude meant she despises you. You
left out that important aspect.
> {Second, I went on to say} In fact I do believe there are no small amount
> of bands that take the indirect approach that should take a more direct
> approach. As time allows in the future I will make a case for that,
> although my posts may already give hints of why I feel that way.
WHY should they? Because you wish it? Or did GOD tell you? Which
bands are these? Let me say something about the "direct" approach.
With the kids I work with (basically, Non Christians), they can't stand
the direct approach. They live in a country where tv preachers have
cheapened the name of Christ and thrown scriptures at them in a
judgemental way. So when a kid hears a "direct" song, he laughs, mocks,
ignores, gets angry, and plenty of other negative things. However, when
a kid hears a song that addresses his pains, anger, and furstration, he
will grab hold of it with both hands because he knows the artist
understand them and wants to share a hope with them.
It's this "indirect" music that you wish there was less of that is
reaching the non Christian youth more so than the blatant "direct"
music. If you are working to change this, I hope and pray you fail --
because we need for bands who are willing to EARN the right to be heard.
"Direct" bands are great for Christians, but not usually the best thing
for reaching the lost. I've learned this from 10 years of music outreach.
What evidence do you have for the "direct" method being more effective
and reaching the lost?
Scott
Troy M Miller
>
> It's this "indirect" music that you wish there was less of that is
> reaching the non Christian youth more so than the blatant "direct"
> music. If you are working to change this, I hope and pray you fail --
> because we need for bands who are willing to EARN the right to be heard.
> "Direct" bands are great for Christians, but not usually the best thing
> for reaching the lost. I've learned this from 10 years of music outreach.
careful there... you seem to be taking the direct opposite stance of
bradford, which isn't necessarily correct either. in *your* situations
(and indeed, in most of mine as well), the indirect methods seem to work
best. in bradford's, it's quite possible he has seen evidence that a
direct method works best.
either way, it's situation dependent. and i would dare say that, in
either case, to go solely with one and not the other is also not the
best approach.
and lest we forget (not saying we have), but it's not the music or the
message or us or the food or the decorations or anything else that
"reaches" anyone...
troy
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
> Troy wrote:
>> understand that we understand this. we know that you "allow" christians
>> to have a band. but you seem to be saying that, even though it is
>> perfectly fine for christians to have a band, you believe the majority
>> of them would be better off (ie, more effective) if they adhered to the
>> guidelines of christian music that you stated. is this incorrect?
> Knee-jerk is no, that's not incorrect. But I'd need to ponder it a bit
> more. I'm not ready at this point to say majority. I think some groups
> certainly need to do this, given a purposeful intention to minister.
>
Here we have it again. A band who has a purposeful intention to
minister need to follow Bradford's definition of Christian music.
Otherwise, they won't be effective.
I'm sorry, but reality just is not on your side. I've had 10 years of
music outreach to see this.
Scott
Skaught
from a variety of backgrounds, many who have come from a church and many
who have never set a foot inside. I was trying to offer an example of
how if Bradford had his way, then the tools I use in minstry would
suffer greatly. I know, of course, that God uses many methods and
means, and therefore would never presume to call bands to a less direct
method just because it would benefit my work. That's just my preference
and what I have found to be effective.
Scott
Spin One80
It does seem to me that if we are to judge what impact today's "Christian"
music is having on our youth, we only need to look as far as the "friuts" it is
harvesting in their lives? Doesn't it? Wouldnt this be a good barometer of
where the music is at? Am I saying that Christian music is the sole factor in
bringing fruit to the Christian life? No, but we can compare the fruits of
those who listen to these groups compared to those that don't, can't we? Just a
thought...
Skaught
produce fruit, then lets have more of them!
Scott
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>Skaught has spun the argument to make you think that the
>issue is that I was not wanting to own up to the posts you've
Excuse me, but I share Skaught's opinion that you appear
to be changing position every few posts. I propose that
(1) you try to be more explicit about what your position is,
and stick to it so as not to confuse your discussion partners
(2) and try to keep away from bringing in personal accusations
like "Skaught has spun the argument".
I added (2) because personally I think it is (a) an aggravation to
[in this case] Skaught and (b) an insult to the posters you
propose would have been bedazzled by the aggravated party
under (a). I don't think that is constructive or recommendable in
any way.
>Scott had a hunch. My point to him was and is; Fine, you can
>hunch all you want, but be careful to know when you're hunching
>and when you have solid evidence. [..]
Excuse me again, but given the solid evidence Troy posted in
full view, it seems clear to me that Scott did not just "have a
hunch" but was in fact perfectly in the right to point to what you
had said earlier on.
>{Second, I went on to say} In fact I do believe there are no
>small amount of bands that take the indirect approach that
>should take a more direct approach. [..]
Thank you.
>So sure, I've admitted that Scott was correct about his hunch.
I think you should admit there was plenty of evidence when
he pointed to your earlier sentiments, and that it was, thus,
in fact, not so much "a hunch" at all.
--
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@casema.net (private)
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>> {Second, I went on to say} In fact I do believe there are no
>> small amount of bands that take the indirect approach that
>> future I will make a case for that, [..]
>WHY should they? Because you wish it? Or did GOD tell you?
Could you ease down a bit, please?
First of all, Bradford just said "As time allows in the future I will
make a case for that", so I think it's a bit aggressive to push
on like this in reply to that.
Not only that, but if you are going to ask the first question
anyway, how about letting Bradford try to answer it _before_
you add such suggestions as contained in your second and
third?
>Let me say something about the "direct" approach.
Okay..
>With the kids I work with (basically, Non Christians), they can't
>stand the direct approach. They live in a country where tv
>preachers have cheapened the name of Christ and thrown
>scriptures at them in a judgemental way. So when a kid hears
>a "direct" song, he laughs, mocks, ignores, gets angry, and
>plenty of other negative things. However, when a kid hears
>a song that addresses his pains, anger, and furstration, he
>will grab hold of it with both hands because he knows the artist
>understand them and wants to share a hope with them.
I think you make a good case here for the validity of a less direct
approach by at least some artists.
>It's this "indirect" music that you wish there was less of that is
>reaching the non Christian youth more so than the blatant
>"direct" music.
I am not entirely convinced this generalization (from the kids
you're around to "the nonchristian youth") is quite valid, but
alright.
>If you are working to change this, I hope and pray you fail --
>because we need for bands who are willing to EARN the right
>to be heard.
I must say this sentence looks rather convoluted.
I suppose you are emotionally reacting to what you perceive to
be the suggestion that the type of bands that you have found
reach the kids you are around best should cease to exist. I will
allow that Bradford has made some statements that appear to
be unconditional enough to lead to that feeling, but I think that
we should strive to have some more nuances in this discussion.
Both you and Bradford appear rather absolutist to me.
I am also at a loss to the meaning of "EARN". It seems that both
you and Bradford are talking about ministry mostly now, and from
that angle I think it is certainly irrelevant what anyone does or
doesn't earn, but what works. I also do not like the suggestion
your words appear to carry that bands who take a 'direct'
approach would automatically not earn to be heard. I am not
sure about that. What I personally find a requirement for a band
to earn to be heard, is doing something true and meaningful in
the sense that they have something to SAY rather than CLAIM.
I like a bit of a perspective or explanation why they believe
whatever they believe if a statement of belief is central to their
music. If they can manage to make such a statement with
perspective in a way I can believe has integrity, I respect that,
whether or not I share their theology and/or philosophy at all,
and regardless of how direct or indirect they are; if they appear
to just be throwing around phrases, or appear to be inconsistent
or unbalanced (for instance, judgemental), I'll have none of it.
[And I would rather see you state you'll pray for things to turn
out right whichever way that may be than to say that it must
be (is) as you say and therefore you will pray for that, but maybe
I am hypersensitive here, I don't know.]
> "Direct" bands are great for Christians,
I don't really understand this statement at all. I would say that if
you already knew the basics you definitely didn't need them
repeated, but maybe that's me..
> but not usually the best thing for reaching the lost. I've learned
>this from 10 years of music outreach.
Okay, I'll definitely not quibble with that.
>What evidence do you have for the "direct" method being more
>effective and reaching the lost?
Now that is an entirely valid question given Bradford's earlier
statements.
However, I think it may be that your experience and Bradford's
are simply different.
But in any case, do try to find out whether you can determine
what approach has a higher success rate IN WHAT CONTEXT.
"Who'll be forever? Constant is forever
What'll be forever? Constant is forever
Who'll be the one? Wonder..
Heaven now reign
I am the creation so bold in design
The errors of one thousand minds
Bleed out through a world.. gone blind
This is the magic that a name would stain"
-- Dark Tranquillity, "Constant" (The mind's I, 1997)
[the first part is interpretation]
Skaught
"Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman" wrote:
>
> Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote:
> >> {Second, I went on to say} In fact I do believe there are no
> >> small amount of bands that take the indirect approach that
> >> should take a more direct approach. As time allows in the
> >> future I will make a case for that, [..]
> >WHY should they? Because you wish it? Or did GOD tell you?
>
> Could you ease down a bit, please?
>
> First of all, Bradford just said "As time allows in the future I will
> make a case for that", so I think it's a bit aggressive to push
> on like this in reply to that.
>
> Not only that, but if you are going to ask the first question
> anyway, how about letting Bradford try to answer it _before_
> you add such suggestions as contained in your second and
> third?
The reason that I was getting "in his face" (I guess that description
works) about this is I've asked him many times about this and he has
either ignored it or said "I will get to it", and I guess I was losing paitence.
> >With the kids I work with (basically, Non Christians), they can't
> >stand the direct approach. They live in a country where tv
> >preachers have cheapened the name of Christ and thrown
> >scriptures at them in a judgemental way. So when a kid hears
> >a "direct" song, he laughs, mocks, ignores, gets angry, and
> >plenty of other negative things. However, when a kid hears
> >a song that addresses his pains, anger, and furstration, he
> >will grab hold of it with both hands because he knows the artist
> >understand them and wants to share a hope with them.
>
> I think you make a good case here for the validity of a less direct
> approach by at least some artists.
>
> >It's this "indirect" music that you wish there was less of that is
> >reaching the non Christian youth more so than the blatant
> >"direct" music.
>
> I am not entirely convinced this generalization (from the kids
> you're around to "the nonchristian youth") is quite valid, but
> alright.
The kids I'm around are nonChritian youth, so it's not a generalization.
This isn't a normal church situation. We're a street oriented ministry
that works with street kids, punks, skinheads, the homeless, etc. Our
shows don't take place in a church, but in our club or another secular
club if our place is to small. So no gneralization was made.
> >If you are working to change this, I hope and pray you fail --
> >because we need for bands who are willing to EARN the right
> >to be heard.
>
> I must say this sentence looks rather convoluted.
>
> I suppose you are emotionally reacting to what you perceive to
> be the suggestion that the type of bands that you have found
> reach the kids you are around best should cease to exist. I will
> allow that Bradford has made some statements that appear to
> be unconditional enough to lead to that feeling, but I think that
> we should strive to have some more nuances in this discussion.
> Both you and Bradford appear rather absolutist to me.
This wasn't an emotional reaction, and I'm certainly not an absolutist.
I did say "IF you are working to change this", and I was mainly trying
to show that he is dismissing and ignoring the ministry done by the
"indirect" bands and that we really need their ministry.
> I am also at a loss to the meaning of "EARN". It seems that both
> you and Bradford are talking about ministry mostly now, and from
> that angle I think it is certainly irrelevant what anyone does or
> doesn't earn, but what works. I also do not like the suggestion
> your words appear to carry that bands who take a 'direct'
> approach would automatically not earn to be heard. I am not
> sure about that. What I personally find a requirement for a band
> to earn to be heard, is doing something true and meaningful in
> the sense that they have something to SAY rather than CLAIM.
> I like a bit of a perspective or explanation why they believe
> whatever they believe if a statement of belief is central to their
> music. If they can manage to make such a statement with
> perspective in a way I can believe has integrity, I respect that,
> whether or not I share their theology and/or philosophy at all,
> and regardless of how direct or indirect they are; if they appear
> to just be throwing around phrases, or appear to be inconsistent
> or unbalanced (for instance, judgemental), I'll have none of it.
My "earn" statment is borrowed from the philosophy of Young Life,
certainly the most effective youth outreach ministry I have ever
witnessed. I volunteered with Young Life for about six years. The idea
is that leader should "earn the right to be heard", meaning they have
shown they care about kids and are really interested in their lives and
have spent time to get to really know the kids. That's what I'm
referring to. We've tried working with a lot of the more direct bands,
and frequently they only want to play large churches. Why this is,
well, I have some opinions on it but I'll keep those to myself right
now. Our place isn't large and beautiful, yet I'm confident we can
provide a larger non Christian crowd in our 400 person venue than a 2000
person church. Youth groups don't come out to our shows very often
(some do, many never will) because we have so many "nonchristians"
there, smoking outside and acting "nonchristian" (this has been said
directly too us!).
> > "Direct" bands are great for Christians,
>
> I don't really understand this statement at all. I would say that if
> you already knew the basics you definitely didn't need them
> repeated, but maybe that's me..
What I meant was a "direct" band is great for encouraging and lifting up
Christians, getting into worship, etc. Nonchristians kids will most
likely not understand the purpose of worship, and probably not be
inspired in that direction. Of course, I don't limit God or his using
ANY music or ANYTHING to open a person's heart. I'm just speaking in
general. I remember one band that started to preach hardcore and I
watched about 50 kids turn around and walk out the door. When the music
started, they came back in.
> > but not usually the best thing for reaching the lost. I've learned
> >this from 10 years of music outreach.
>
> Okay, I'll definitely not quibble with that.
>
> >What evidence do you have for the "direct" method being more
> >effective and reaching the lost?
>
> Now that is an entirely valid question given Bradford's earlier
> statements.
>
> However, I think it may be that your experience and Bradford's
> are simply different.
>
> But in any case, do try to find out whether you can determine
> what approach has a higher success rate IN WHAT CONTEXT.
I think I was clear that I was speaking about my circumstances only, and
I wasn't implying that they apply to Bradford. I don't know exactly,
but I think that he works in a "normal" church environment and is
looking for music to use with Christian kids. That is an entirely
different situation than what we have going on. I certainly don't think
that the "direct" (I'm really hating those terms) bands should change
just so there is more to benefit my ministry.
Scott
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>The reason that I was getting "in his face" (..) about this is
>ignored it or said "I will get to it", and I guess I was losing
That's what I figured. All I really asked was whether you
would try even harder not to lose patience. ;)
>> >It's this "indirect" music that you wish there was less of that is
>> >reaching the non Christian youth more so than the blatant
>> >"direct" music.
>> I am not entirely convinced this generalization (from the kids
>> you're around to "the nonchristian youth") is quite valid, but
>> alright.
>The kids I'm around are nonChritian youth, so it's not a generalization.
> This isn't a normal church situation. We're a street oriented ministry
>that works with street kids, punks, skinheads, the homeless, etc. Our
>shows don't take place in a church, but in our club or another secular
>club if our place is to small. So no gneralization was made.
If you say "the nonchristian youth" without further qualification, you
are no longer just talking about the kids you met in your ministry,
but assuming that what you observed there holds for all young
nonchristians. I would call that a "generalization".
From your reply I now assume you meant to refer to just those
"nonchristian youth" you are familiar with, though.
>This wasn't an emotional reaction,
Okay, you should know best.
>and I'm certainly not an absolutist.
I wrote "appear" there on purpose.
>I did say "IF you are working to change this", and I was mainly
>trying to show that he is dismissing and ignoring the ministry done
>by the "indirect" bands and that we really need their ministry.
That certainly seems justified.
However, I would still rather have seen a different word choice,
but okay..
>My "earn" statment is borrowed from the philosophy of Young Life,
I don't think I had ever heard of that organization. (Pardon my not
being an American. ;))
>certainly the most effective youth outreach ministry I have ever
>witnessed. I volunteered with Young Life for about six years.
>The idea is that leader should "earn the right to be heard", meaning
>they have shown they care about kids and are really interested in
>their lives and have spent time to get to really know the kids.
>That's what I'm referring to.
Okay, so you weren't referring to their approach or lyrical content,
but to their attitude from what you have expereinced. I certainly
couldn't figure from what you wrote the previous time. Thanks for
the clarification.
>We've tried working with a lot of the more direct bands, and
>frequently they only want to play large churches.
I see. Again I feel that it is not necessarily warranted to generalize
what the attitudes of more direct or less direct bands are in general
based on the samples you have seen, but I can understand the
sentiment.
>Why this is, well, I have some opinions on it but I'll keep those to
>myself right now.
Okay.
>Our place isn't large and beautiful, yet I'm confident we can provide
>a larger non Christian crowd in our 400 person venue than a 2000
>person church.
I take it that you don't expect a nonchristian crowd numbering in many
hundreds, then. ;)
Okay - so suppose I was in the vicinity of your church -- why would I
be interested in what you'd organize? :)
>Youth groups don't come out to our shows very often (some do,
>many never will) because we have so many "nonchristians" there,
>smoking outside and acting "nonchristian" (this has been said
>directly too us!).
I must say I have no concept of "acting nonchristian" whatsoever..
>> > "Direct" bands are great for Christians,
>> I don't really understand this statement at all. I would say that if
>> you already knew the basics you definitely didn't need them
>> repeated, but maybe that's me..
>What I meant was a "direct" band is great for encouraging and
>lifting up Christians, getting into worship, etc.
Okay, I guess that for those seeking an aid to "get into worship"
that might make good sense. I am not convinced this necessarily
covers all christians, but okay.. (word choice, word choice... sorry
for nitpicking, but.. ;))
>Nonchristians kids will most likely not understand the purpose of
>worship, and probably not be inspired in that direction.
??
>Of course, I don't limit God or his using ANY music or ANYTHING
>to open a person's heart. I'm just speaking in general.
Yep, that's what I said you were doing A LOT. *evil grin* ;)
>I remember one band that started to preach hardcore and I watched
>about 50 kids turn around and walk out the door. When the music
>started, they came back in.
There is some chance I'd do the same. I think there's a greater chance
I'd not come back, though.
>I think I was clear that I was speaking about my circumstances
>only, and I wasn't implying that they apply to Bradford.
I am not convinced you were that clear, but you've certainly made
it clear now. :)
>I don't know exactly, but I think that he works in a "normal"
>church environment and is looking for music to use with Christian
>kids.
I cannot answer that question for you, but the assumption seems
reasonable enough.
>That is an entirely different situation than what we have going on.
>I certainly don't think that the "direct" (I'm really hating those terms)
>bands should change just so there is more to benefit my ministry.
Now that is a concise, clear and admirable way to put it. (Bradford?)
:)
(And yes, we've been using rather stupid terminology.)
Skaught
"Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman" wrote:
>
> If you say "the nonchristian youth" without further qualification, you
> are no longer just talking about the kids you met in your ministry,
> but assuming that what you observed there holds for all young
> nonchristians. I would call that a "generalization".
>
> From your reply I now assume you meant to refer to just those
> "nonchristian youth" you are familiar with, though.
I would think you would have assumed that that was what I was referring
to from the start, since I was talking about my ministry. Since I was
replying to Bradford, who already knew about the ministry, I may not
have gone into detail about it so that may be how you missed it.
> >We've tried working with a lot of the more direct bands, and
> >frequently they only want to play large churches.
>
> I see. Again I feel that it is not necessarily warranted to generalize
> what the attitudes of more direct or less direct bands are in general
> based on the samples you have seen, but I can understand the
> sentiment.
I don't think I made a generalization. I said we've tried working with
a lot (not all) and they frequently (not always) aren't interested in
us, none of which implys I was referring to all "direct" bands in general.
> >Our place isn't large and beautiful, yet I'm confident we can provide
> >a larger non Christian crowd in our 400 person venue than a 2000
> >person church.
>
> I take it that you don't expect a nonchristian crowd numbering in many
> hundreds, then. ;)
Depends on the show. Our punk shows can average around 50%
Christian/nonChristian, though this is a difficult number to pick since
we don't poll the crowd. Years of experience, knowing the kids,
watching their reactions, reading their shirts, etc. give you a good
clue, though.
> Okay - so suppose I was in the vicinity of your church -- why would I
> be interested in what you'd organize? :)
I dunno...good music? good shows? we let people mosh? only place to
see the band? I haven't mentioned this before, since I can imagine some
people's negative reaction, but we also book nonChristian bands and have
had shows with Blink 182, Earth Crisis, U.S. Bombs, Less Than Jake, and
a ton of others (all for ministry purposes). So we're considered a
pretty "cool" place by Christians and nonChristians alike.
> >Youth groups don't come out to our shows very often (some do,
> >many never will) because we have so many "nonchristians" there,
> >smoking outside and acting "nonchristian" (this has been said
> >directly too us!).
>
> I must say I have no concept of "acting nonchristian" whatsoever..
You know, jumping around, tackling your friends, smoking, yelling,
looking to "extreme", cussing, and other things that will certainly
influence a highly impressionable youth group and drag them into
debauchery (sp?). They probably forget, though, that the hang with
these kids all day at school...
> >> > "Direct" bands are great for Christians,
> >> I don't really understand this statement at all. I would say that if
> >> you already knew the basics you definitely didn't need them
> >> repeated, but maybe that's me..
> >What I meant was a "direct" band is great for encouraging and
> >lifting up Christians, getting into worship, etc.
>
> Okay, I guess that for those seeking an aid to "get into worship"
> that might make good sense. I am not convinced this necessarily
> covers all christians, but okay.. (word choice, word choice... sorry
> for nitpicking, but.. ;))
> >Of course, I don't limit God or his using ANY music or ANYTHING
> >to open a person's heart. I'm just speaking in general.
>
> Yep, that's what I said you were doing A LOT. *evil grin* ;)
No, I wasn't. Just this last part.
> >I think I was clear that I was speaking about my circumstances
> >only, and I wasn't implying that they apply to Bradford.
>
> I am not convinced you were that clear, but you've certainly made
> it clear now. :)
Well, since I was speaking to Bradford and not to you, I can understand
that you would not get where I was coming from. But I think you should
consider that the words were not directed to you and not make
assumptions that I was speaking in general.
Scott
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>I would think you would have assumed that that was
>what I was referring to from the start, since I was talking
>I don't think I made a generalization. [..]
Okay.
>Depends on the show. Our punk shows can average around 50%
>Christian/nonChristian, though this is a difficult number to pick since
>we don't poll the crowd. Years of experience, knowing the kids,
>watching their reactions, reading their shirts, etc. give you a good
>clue, though.
>I dunno...good music? good shows? we let people mosh? only place to
>see the band? I haven't mentioned this before, since I can imagine some
>people's negative reaction, but we also book nonChristian bands and have
>had shows with Blink 182, Earth Crisis, U.S. Bombs, Less Than Jake, and
>a ton of others (all for ministry purposes). So we're considered a
>pretty "cool" place by Christians and nonChristians alike.
Sounds pretty good (though most of the bands you mention don't mean
that much to me... you're more punk than metal oriented, right? ;)).
>> I must say I have no concept of "acting nonchristian" whatsoever..
>You know, jumping around, tackling your friends, smoking, yelling,
>looking to "extreme", cussing, and other things that will certainly
>influence a highly impressionable youth group and drag them into
>debauchery (sp?). They probably forget, though, that the hang with
>these kids all day at school...
Yep, they probably forget that. (Though what I really meant is that
I think that these things aren't really all that exclusive to
nonchristians, and therefore the labelling appears rather silly. :))
>> I am not convinced you were that clear, but you've certainly made
>> it clear now. :)
>Well, since I was speaking to Bradford and not to you, I can
>understand that you would not get where I was coming from.
I don't really understand that remark. I have been reading this thread
and a couple of previous ones as well, so I would assume I should be
able to follow... If you are just addressing Bradford, why do you post
to the newsgroup instead of exchanging email?
>But I think you should consider that the words were not directed to
>you and not make assumptions that I was speaking in general.
Excuse me; the way you picked your words you appeared to be
speaking more generally than you meant. So it would make more
sense if you said that I _should_ assume that you were _not_
trying to say something in general. However, since this is all an
evolvement from Bradford's original pretty generally formulated
point, and you are using the same kinds of expressions about
the subject, I am not sure that was the most natural thing to do,
even though obviously the generalization couldn't have been
really warranted.
Before I jumped in here, you wrote your reply to a paragraph
centering around
< In fact I do believe there are no small amount of bands that
< take the indirect approach that should take a more direct
< approach.
To me it looked like your first paragraph clearly addressed
what you had seen, but the second went:
< It's this "indirect" music that you wish there was less of that is
< reaching the non Christian youth more so than the blatant
< "direct" music. If you are working to change this, I hope and
< pray you fail -- because we need for bands who are willing to
< EARN the right to be heard. "Direct" bands are great for
< Christians, but not usually the best thing for reaching the lost.
< I've learned this from 10 years of music outreach.
That apparently looked rather more polarized to me than you
meant it; probably because there is not much in the way of
qualifiers in it...
Oh well...
Regards,
snail
>That's what I've said. If songs about rubber bands and purple hot dogs
>produce fruit, then lets have more of them!
Hmmm NP "Rubberband Girl" by Kate Bush
--
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
Skaught
"Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman" wrote:
>
> Sounds pretty good (though most of the bands you mention don't mean
> that much to me... you're more punk than metal oriented, right? ;)).
Punk, ska, alternative, hardcore, industrial. We'd do Living Sacrifice,
but otherwise metal is dead in our area -- even though we (Tampa Bay)
use to be the death metal capital of the world.
Scott
Troy M Miller
> One of greatest ways a minister can grow is to learn to appreciate those who
> minister in an entirely different way than he/she ministers. Don't let your
> legitimate success blind you to the very productive and real successes of
> other methods, especially when those methods are entirely scriptural.
<ring, ring>
hello, pot?
this is the kettle.
you're black.
troy, who couldn't resist
Troy M Miller
>
> Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman <jtig...@casema.net> wrote in message
> > (2) and try to keep away from bringing in personal accusations
> > like "Skaught has spun the argument".
>
> probably guilty of that too.
hmm... so you're saying that the sentence in the past tense is not an
accusation, but one in the present tense is?
or is the matter of plural vs. singular that makes the difference?
passive vs. active?
i'm confused.
troy
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
> news:381A0B77...@skaught.com...
> > Of course, this is in my situations of working with a variety of kids
> > from a variety of backgrounds, many who have come from a church and many
> > who have never set a foot inside. I was trying to offer an example of
> > how if Bradford had his way, then the tools I use in minstry would
> > suffer greatly
>
> Scott, instead of having 500 screwdrivers and 450 monkey wrenches, you'd
> have 100 and 75, still more than adequate to get your part of the job done.
> Then save the metal for other needed tools.
This works both ways, Bradford!
Scott
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> One of greatest ways a minister can grow is to learn to appreciate those who
> minister in an entirely different way than he/she ministers. Don't let your
> legitimate success blind you to the very productive and real successes of
> other methods, especially when those methods are entirely scriptural.
I do appreciate those who minister in an entirely different way. My
successes have not blinded me to the successes of other methods, nor
have I said anything that would lead anyone to think that I didn't
appreciate other methods (now who's spinning?). I was speaking in
defense of *ONE* tool our ministry uses. By speaking for the legitimacy
of one thing does not automatically mean I think other methods are not legitamate.
But I think you need to read your paragraph above and apply it to
yourself. As Troy said, this is a serious case of the pot calling the
kettle black.
Scott
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
>
> Scott, I'm not arguing against the indirect gospel you appreciate. But, I
> hope you'll admit that the scriptures contemplate an entirely different way
> for the majority of gospel preaching. I Cor. contemplates the preaching of
> the crucified Christ, which is more than adequate for "those who are
> called". Paul didn't have a band, and if he spent too much time talking
> about the problems of life, there is no record in scripture of it. The
> *main* point is not finding the right way, the *main* point is preaching the
> crucified Christ, the gospel of God, the unsearchable riches of Christ.
> Such preaching will, as promised in the Word, become in the hearers the
> power of God and the wisdom of God. Romans 10, and a host of other
> passages, also addresses this issue. "So then faith comes out of hearing,
> and hearing through the word of Christ." Luke 10 is also a good passage to
> review. Another scripture (its reference escapes me right now) says that
> the gospel or the word of Christ is to those who are perishing foolishness.
<sigh>...I hope you don't have the impression that we never, seldom, or
only occasionaly use scripture or preach Christ Crucified in our
ministry. That would be the exact opposite of reality. Our ONLY
purpose is to lead people to Jesus Christ. It's kinda hard to do that
without mentioning Him.
> You say some are turned off by the direct approach. Certainly you would at
> least concede that *some* of those turned off are those who have NOT been
> called?
Of course. It's not a "concession" either. But too many people think
that if a person is "turned off", it's because they have not been
called, when instead it was because of a bad, mispoken, or out of touch
witness. If I go to China, and preach to the Chinese in English and
they all stare at me and walk away, it would be silly for me to conclude
that they weren't called since the didn't respond. I just didn't speak
in a way they could understand or relate to.
> We are called as Christians to preach the gospel. Actually every
> believer should be doing it indirectly and directly all the time. For the
> most part, the direct vs. indirect issue should point to the recipient, not
> the best way of the message.
Isn't that whats I've been saying all along???
Scott
Noah Elliott
>
> Paul didn't have a band, and if he spent too much time talking
> about the problems of life, there is no record in scripture of it.
Maybe he didn't spend "too much time" talking about the problems of
life, but there certainly is record in scripture of him talking about
them. See Romans 7. Also II Corinthians 12.
--noah
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>Then save the metal for other needed tools.
We can always use some good metal bands, of
course. ;)-<
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
>> I don't know why you listed 2 Cor. 12. Romans 7? Problems of life? Well,
> you can't say no, because the basic problem of indwelling sin is certainly a
> problem of life. But I'd bet in the current crop of CM songs, the ones
> using Romans 7 to preach the good news are few and far between. Even then,
> I'm sure more would expose the problem than those that would expose the
> problem *and* give a relevant portion of the gospel as the answer.
How do you know these bands are "few and far between"? How many bands
have you checked out?
Scott
Troy M Miller
scott raises a good point. you asked for examples of bands, because you
believed that there were not many of them. we gave you several
examples. we're telling you that there *are* a good selection of them
out there. you are making statements in this regard based on your one
preconceptions.
let's take one example that addresses what was discussed above: _at the
moment_ from stavesacre.
http://www.stavesacre.com/atthemom.html
with a sigh i greet the day
i feel the morning on my face
weary at the moment i awake
even as i lie
the thought returns to mind
"welcome to the rest of your life".
somewhere i've lost my way
from saved to stray and failing
in silence my spirit pleads,
"is the vision lost
or has it been passed on?
is there any use continuing?"
my soul will wait
my soul-wait silently
for God, my God(God my refuge)
and i will live
and i know some destiny
still waits for me
his faithfulness, my hope
it brings comfort to my soul
with a still small voice whispering,
"call upon my name and i
will set you up on high
be still and know that i am God
creation speaks to me
i'm stricken to my knees
in reverance and fear
forever my Almighty
the heavens in your hand
surpass the grains of sand
who am i before you
elieonai eli adullam [God my father, God my refuge; Hebrew]
-------
response?
troy
ps - a sound clip is available at http://www.stavesacre.com/sounds.html
if you're interested
Troy M Miller
>
> Troy M Miller <tmi...@sgi.com> wrote in message
<snip stavesacre song>
> my drink was only positive. But in terms of nutrition, it served very
> little purpose. If my diet all day consisted of that kind of thing, I'd be
really? gee. when i hear that song, i hear about a man wondering about
his place in the world, wondering what the point of it all is. what's
the use? why continue? then he meets up with God, is "stricken to
[his] knees in reverence and fear", acknowledges God as the almighty,
and calls him father (in hebrew even!)
that seems a pretty meaty story to me.
> You offer these words as "an example of . . . {the previous discussion}". I
> don't know exactly what you mean by that. Surely you don't mean that this
> is a song that explores the Romans 7 and/or 2 Cor. 12 scriptures??
i wasn't referring to the specific verses, but rather the sentiment
being discussed of "talking about the problems of life". the song
seemed to directly relate a problem of life that many people face, and
presented the solution.
> in spiritual content. Is this one of the bands you are saying is in direct
> ministry of the gospel? If so, I'll need to see other lyrics then these to
no, i don't know that stavesacre would claim to be in "direct" ministry,
at least not in the capacity that you are likely referring to. that's
not to say that they don't have a viable ministry that effecting tons of
young people, tho. and that's not saying that their faith isn't
reflected in their music.
troy
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
> news:381F148A...@skaught.com...
> >
> >
> > Bradford wrote:
> > >
> > >> I don't know why you listed 2 Cor. 12. Romans 7? Problems of life?
> Well,
> > > you can't say no, because the basic problem of indwelling sin is
> certainly a
> > > problem of life. But I'd bet in the current crop of CM songs, the ones
> > > using Romans 7 to preach the good news are few and far between. Even
> then,
> > > I'm sure more would expose the problem than those that would expose the
> > > problem *and* give a relevant portion of the gospel as the answer.
> >
> >
> > How do you know these bands are "few and far between"? How many bands
> > have you checked out?
>
> I didn't say I knew. I said "I'd bet . . . ". So far, I've only checked
> out a few of those my daughter listens to.
> >
> > Scott
So based on the small number of CCM artists you have reviewed, you would
bet that those who preach the good news are few and far between?
Where's the logic here?
Let me know what horse you're betting on, so I can pick another.
Scott
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>> What evidence do you have for the "direct" method being
>>more effective and reaching the lost?
Does that mean that you do _not_ claim that the "direct method"
is more effective?
>But, I hope you'll admit that the scriptures contemplate an entirely
>different way for the majority of gospel preaching.
Actually, I don't think so.
>I Cor. contemplates the preaching of the crucified Christ, which is
>more than adequate for "those who are called".
You mean like
"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;
to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might
gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law,
as without law, (being not without the law to God, but under the
law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without the law.
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am
made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.
And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker
thereof with [you]." (I Cor 9:20-23)
?
>Paul didn't have a band, and if he spent too much time talking
>about the problems of life, there is no record in scripture of it.
Please explain how we could even begin to evaluate the clause
"too much time".
>The *main* point is not finding the right way, the *main* point is
>preaching the crucified Christ, the gospel of God, the unsearchable
>riches of Christ. [..]
This says nothing about how this is to be done, while the quote
above shows us that it is a function of context rather than something
constant. So I wonder what you are really trying to convey here.
>Another scripture (its reference escapes me right now) says that
>the gospel or the word of Christ is to those who are perishing
>foolishness.
And then there's scripture that says that you don't need to know you
are doing what Christ taught us to do as long as you do it, too.
(Actually I could give some references right here, but I don't think
that would be very relevant right now.)
>You say some are turned off by the direct approach. Certainly you
>would at least concede that *some* of those turned off are those
>who have NOT been called?
It is possible - who is to say? But in the quote above Paul tells us
to approach people in a manner they find friendly and
understandable, and I don't see how any answer to your question
would alter that at all.
>We are called as Christians to preach the gospel.
We were talking about HOW the gospel was to be preached, not
WHETHER, right?
>For the most part, the direct vs. indirect issue should point to the
>recipient, not the best way of the message. If my cousin won't
>accept the direct gospel, then sure, I give him the indirect gospel
>in a host of ways.
It looks like you are still claiming that one way of message is
better, and that you are suggesting that you'd only fall back
upon the "lesser" one where the "better" one didn't work.
I see no evidence for such a line of reasoning.
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>> Excuse me, but I share Skaught's opinion that you appear
>> to be changing position every few posts.
>know where. I say the "if's" because I'm admittedly asking you
>to take the time when I've not had the time lately to support my
>end of all these discussions. So, feel free to pass.
I was telling you what impression you were making on me. I don't
really see the point of digging deep into the preceding thread
again right now, I suggest you keep it to heart and we'll see how
the discussions continue.
>In any case, ng posting does have its clarifications, etc. All this
>is normal to the back-and-forth of debate. Is this what you call
>"changing positions"?
Not at all.
>Well, maybe I need to know more about ng culture.
That is certainly possible. Or maybe just realize the different
difficulties inherent in conveying thoughts through this
text-only medium.
>To be perfectly explicit, of course, is much more of a time
>burden than going back and forth, with clarification.
Going back and forth, with clarification, is not what I was
referring to.
>I have tried to cover different angles - to say what I'm saying,
>and NOT saying - apparently to a fault, as one has said
>"Bradford, we are all clear now that you are allowing christians
>to have a band".
I said nothing disparaging about your efforts, I believe, only that
so far you didn't quite manage to get your opinion across to me
loud and clear.
>> (2) and try to keep away from bringing in personal accusations
>> like "Skaught has spun the argument".
>I think an accusation would be more like "Scott spins arguments".
>But I'm probably guilty of that too.
What is your definition of "accusation", then?
I didn't say you were _condemning_ him, did I?
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>I said he spun (spinned?) the (or this, or one) argument. One
>can cheat on an occassion without deserving the accusation
>"He is a cheater".
One would deserve the accusation "he cheated", though.
Skaught
> >
> > let's take one example that addresses what was discussed above: _at the
> > moment_ from stavesacre.
> >
> > http://www.stavesacre.com/atthemom.html
<LYRICS SNIPPED>
> > response?
>
> I saw this post on the way to reviewing other posts for the names of bands
> you have offered as "in direct ministry".
>
> Well, this song reminds me of a drink I just had. The drink served a useful
> purpose. I was hungry and thirsty, about 2 hours from lunch. Being on a
> diet, I didn't want to eat any of the lunchroom snacks or donuts. So, I
> mixed 50% grapefruit juice with 50% club soda. It (sortof) "filled me", but
> really just served the purpose of keeping away the hunger until lunch. I
> enjoyed it. It tasted fairly good, although I'd rather have had 100%
> grapefruit juice, but didn't want all those calories. So, everything about
> my drink was only positive. But in terms of nutrition, it served very
> little purpose. If my diet all day consisted of that kind of thing, I'd be
> a sick man.
You found these lyrics served little purpose (from your analogy, you say
so)? Forget it. I'm done. Put a fork in me. Bradford is bent on
rejecting everything we offer and putting his fingers in his ears and
shutting his eyes so tight it would take a crowbar to open them. No
amount of evidence will satisfy his FIRMLY SHUT TIGHT MIND.
This song by Stavesacre moves my into worship like few others in recent
memory. It encourages me, lifts me up, motivates me, and opens my
heart. The lyrics remind me of the words of in Psalms. It is a praise song!
Bradford would rather lyrics just repeat scripture line by line instead
of employing any creativity, thought, or personal experience, apparently.
This song IS a DIRECT Christian song and meets Bradford's previously
stated criteria:
> It is Christian music if it
> 1) Honors and exalts the person and work of Jesus Christ.
It doesn't say "Jesus", but it does say "God" and exalts and honors him
(his faithfulness, my hope; it brings comfort to my soul; with a still
small voice whispering, "call upon my name and i will set you up on high
be still and know that i am God.") I equate honoring Jesus with
honoring God, so this fits criteria #1.
> 2) Is, or is very tied to . . . the Word of God, the eternal plan of God
The above lyric, as well as others in the song, meet this easily.
> 3) Relates to the work of Christ / The Spirit of Christ in the believer,
> the indwelling of Christ, hope in His return, etc.
Yep, does this. No problem.
So here we have a song that meets Bradford's own requirements for a
"Christian Song", yet he rejects it still. This leads me to believe
that Bradford has not been honest with us about his beliefs and
motivations.
Time to dust off my sandals, I think.
Scott
Troy M Miller
>
> Troy M Miller <tmi...@sgi.com> wrote in message
> Bradford wrote:
> > > Troy M Miller <tmi...@sgi.com> wrote in message
> > that seems a pretty meaty story to me.
>
> Well, we're far apart in our definitions of "meat", then. Still, I'm glad
as skaught pointed out, the song seems to fit your aforementioned
definition of "christian" music.
> you liked the song. BTW, I've reviewed the (I guess it's only two) songs on
> the skillet site, as well as Switchfoot's "New way to be human" album. I'm
> hoping you'd classify (at least in terms of *my* classifications)
> Switchfoot's lyrics as quite indirect.
when i listed switchfoot, i specifically mentioned the title track:
"everyday it's the same thing
another trend has begun
hey kids, this might be the one
it's a race to be noticed
and it's leaving us numb
hey kids, we can't be the ones
with all of our fashion
we're still incomplete
the God of redemption
could break our routine
there's a new way to be human
it's nothing we've ever been
there's a new way to be human
new way to be human"
i see this song as "ministering". it talks about the things the youth
of today look to for fullfillment, and how they all fail, and then
presents God as a "new way to be human".
> Agreed. I'm just looking for CM groups that are meeting *my* definition.
which definition? every song i listed, including the stavesacre song,
meet your definition.
> Didn't see it much in the two songs of Skillet, tho one of the songs was
> more direct than the other.
well, you've got to choose. when i answered skillet, i wasn't
responding to the question "what is a group with direct lyrics". i was
responding to the question "what groups are involved in direct
ministry". there's a difference.
> Didn't see it at all with Switchfoot's words.
not even in the title track?
> I'll check the other groups as time allows.
keep in mind which ones were given as examples of "music with direct
lyrics" (which would meet your previous definition of christian music)
and which ones were examples of "bands involved in direct ministry".
while not mutually exclusive, they are definitely separate things.
if you're going to start talking about "bands involved in direct
ministry", then you're going to have to define what you mean be "direct
ministry."
troy
Josh Marihugh
Skaught wrote in message <381F49A7...@skaught.com>...
>Yep, does this. No problem.
>
>So here we have a song that meets Bradford's own requirements for a
>"Christian Song", yet he rejects it still. This leads me to believe
>that Bradford has not been honest with us about his beliefs and
>motivations.
>
>Time to dust off my sandals, I think.
>
having missed some of the posts in this thread due to a fnorked-up news
server (and I don't have time to Deja...), I can't speak with absolute
certainty, but given what I have read via quotes and things, I'd have to get
the same idea.
Anyone who could look at "At the Moment", or for that matter, Stavesacre's
"Wither/Ascend" (from _Absolutes_) and not come away fully convinced that
these are "Christian" songs*, is either being intentionally obtuse or is
actually stupid.
--
rev. jmarihugh
NP: Fold Zandura _Ultraforever_ (check out track 13, "Jesus Eternal")
*"Christian" songs by Bradford's definition of course...i kinda hold to the
view that there are no "Christian songs" and no "Christian music", only
Christian musicians making music.
jmarihugh on the internet:
http://www.geocities.com/christrock99/
and of course http://www.tollbooth.org
Josh Marihugh
Noah Elliott
>
> Noah Elliott <mrn...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>
> > Maybe he didn't spend "too much time" talking about the problems of
> > life, but there certainly is record in scripture of him talking
> > about them. See Romans 7. Also II Corinthians 12.
>
7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this
reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a
thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me -- to keep me
from exalting myself!
8 Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave
me.
9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is
perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast
about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with
distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's
sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
I don't know about you, but I consider being tormented by a messenger of
Satan, as well as the more general categories of weaknesses, insults,
distresses, persecutions, and difficulties, to be problems of life.
> Romans 7? Problems of life?
> Well, you can't say no, because the basic problem of indwelling sin
> is certainly a problem of life. But I'd bet in the current crop of CM
> songs, the ones using Romans 7 to preach the good news are few and far
> between. Even then, I'm sure more would expose the problem than those
> that would expose the problem *and* give a relevant portion of the
> gospel as the answer.
Just off the top of my head, I can think of four songs on one album,
Third Day's _Conspiracy No. 5_ that address this problem and present
gospel truths: "I Deserve?", "Have Mercy", "Who I Am", and "Give Me a
Reason". http://www.thirdday.com
Another song that springs to mind is "Thankful" by Caedmon's Call on _40
Acres_. http://engr.uark.edu/~tks/tab/thankful.txt
--noah
Noah Elliott
>
>
> Scott spun the argument. The point is not whether I defined (certain)
> songs as Christian.
This whole discussion originated with the criteria you use to define
(certain) songs as Christian.
--noah
David Murray
case clear earlier, and the thread topic has since drifted.
But I wanted to interject a statistic that my pastor shared with us a
few weeks ago. Years ago, the majority of church members cited the
pastor as being the one person who most influenced them to attend church
services. More recently, music programs had the influence. Now, the
majority come because they first had a relationship with a friend who
was attending church and asked them to come along.
All this to say, it's easy to see why one generation would laud the
direct method and another would laud the indirect as being most
effective. Each side has its benefits or drawbacks in some certain
cases. The type of method practiced should be dependant upon which is
most beneficial for the recipient.
David Murray
Skaught
Josh Marihugh wrote:
>
> Skaught wrote in message <381F49A7...@skaught.com>...
> >Yep, does this. No problem.
> >
> >So here we have a song that meets Bradford's own requirements for a
> >"Christian Song", yet he rejects it still. This leads me to believe
> >that Bradford has not been honest with us about his beliefs and
> >motivations.
> >
> >Time to dust off my sandals, I think.
> >
>
> having missed some of the posts in this thread due to a fnorked-up news
> server (and I don't have time to Deja...), I can't speak with absolute
> certainty, but given what I have read via quotes and things, I'd have to get
> the same idea.
>
> Anyone who could look at "At the Moment", or for that matter, Stavesacre's
> "Wither/Ascend" (from _Absolutes_) and not come away fully convinced that
> these are "Christian" songs*, is either being intentionally obtuse or is
> actually stupid.
Thanks for the echo.
Scott
scholar and fool
> > let's take one example that addresses what was discussed above:
> > _at the moment_ from stavesacre.
>
> Well, this song reminds me of a drink I just had. [...] It (sortof)
> "filled me", but really just served the purpose of keeping away the
> my drink was only positive. But in terms of nutrition, it served
> very little purpose. If my diet all day consisted of that kind of
> thing, I'd be a sick man.
> BTW, I reviewed most of the lyrics found at
> http://www.stavesacre.com/lyrics.html and found them to be fairly
> lacking in spiritual content.
i just deleted a couple hundred lines of commentary i wrote because
i realized it was futile. new approach. bradford gets to define
every term explicitly.
alright. define spiritual content. exactly. no vagueness. if
it takes you thirty pages to do it, do it. say exactly what
"spiritual content" is, say exactly what made the song lack it,
and say exactly what it would take for a song to have enough of
it to not be "lacking". cite examples. explain exactly how one
is spiritually "filled" and spiritually "nourished". elaborate.
if you can't be specific, then you don't know what you believe.
there's no point in us trying to use logic and reasoning to
counter your "gut feelings" and emotions, because it's a waste
of time. i for one am tired of playing the whipping boy to
your fickle use of nondisclosure. if you honestly didn't know
what you believed or were searching for answers, you wouldn't
be so quick to pontificate, as is your custom.
--
/ <scholar and fool>
will the slamming ever slow? / sla...@failure.net
no. / <the failure network>
-the crucified / http://www.failure.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> Josh Marihugh <jmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7vnqtp$4jq$1...@ionews.ionet.net...
> Scott spun the argument. The point is not whether I defined (certain) songs
> as Christian.
WHAT? Yeah, blame me. Take responsibility for your words and quite
trying to hide behind "Scott spun the argument". It's getting old and
no one believes you anymore.
You are clearly not thinking very well.
Scott
Skaught
Noah Elliott wrote:
>
> Bradford wrote:
> >
> >
> > Scott spun the argument. The point is not whether I defined (certain)
> > songs as Christian.
>
> This whole discussion originated with the criteria you use to define
> (certain) songs as Christian.
Yeah, but I spun that. I'm a spinner. Call me Pin Wheel.
Scott...I mean, Pin Wheel.
Troy M Miller
>
> Troy M Miller <tmi...@sgi.com> wrote in message
> > Bradford wrote:
> > >
> > > Troy M Miller <tmi...@sgi.com> wrote in message
> > > Bradford wrote:
> > > > > Troy M Miller <tmi...@sgi.com> wrote in message
> > > > <snip stavesacre song>
> >
> > > > that seems a pretty meaty story to me.
> > >
> > > Well, we're far apart in our definitions of "meat", then. Still, I'm
> glad
> >
> > as skaught pointed out, the song seems to fit your aforementioned
> > definition of "christian" music.
>
then what's your problem with it? it fits your definition. that's what
you were looking for, right? if you still don't accept this song as a
viable example of your definition of christian music, you have to
either:
- show how it doens't fit your afformentioned criteria
- revise your definition
> And keep in mind, those criteria
> were not offered as a "hell vs. heaven" list. It's just a way of separating
never said they were. don't build a strawman that i wasn't arguing
against. you asked for an example that fit your definition. i gave
one.
> answer your point below, I'd define direct ministry through music as that
> which meets the criteria I gave for Christian music.)
ok. in that case, all the examples i gave you (at least the specific
songs) meet your definition, in my opinion.
> I don't think it does, but it's really just a matter of degree. I.e. "how
> hot should hot sauce be". My whole point with all this discussion is that
that's a different issue, and inherently situation independent. how
"obvious" a song is (or how "hot" the hot sauce) depends on the
listener. you may see a "classic hymn" as being obvious in it's
message. a youth of today could look at it and not have a freaking clue
what it's talking about. for example, one of the songs we recently sang
at vespers had the term "bulwart". or balwurt. or something. point
it, i had no idea what it was. it was probably obvious to whoever wrote
the song - maybe even the entire generation for whom the song was
written.
but not to me. a song like _at the moment_ is extremely explicit for
me.
<re: switchfoot>
> be critical in a negative sense. The author of this song is probably very
> young . . . at least to forty-somethings like me.
with all due respect, what the heck does that have to do with anything?
troy
Troy M Miller
>
> Very good question. To answer, you have to say "effective at what"? First,
> I'm assuming we all have the advancement of the Kingdom of God as our
> overall goal.
you assume wrong. my overall goal is the glorification of God.
bringing glory and honor to Him.
troy