Name of song
Dwimmers
Amazing Love
How can it be
That you-my king-
would die for me
amazing Love
I know it's true
It's my joy to honor you
in all I do
I honor you
I'm forgiven because you were forsaken
I'm accepted-you were condemned
I'm alive and well
Your spirit lives within me
Because you died and rose again
Joshua P. Renker
Forgiveness Through Death
Joy
Amazing Love
:)-Josh
![Mighty CheefDan![tm] Defender of Nudity![tm]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjUfSJ7o_FjUqoAliiC8_BE4KD7dOK87VrBXtdy5whL3kICFYKmdFg=s40-c)
Mighty CheefDan![tm] Defender of Nudity![tm]
>I need the name for this song please
>
>Amazing Love
>How can it be
>That you-my king-
>would die for me
Up to this point I would say it's "And Can It Be" by Charles Wesley.
But afterwards... it's not.
>amazing Love
>I know it's true
>It's my joy to honor you
>in all I do
>I honor you
>
>I'm forgiven because you were forsaken
>I'm accepted-you were condemned
>I'm alive and well
>Your spirit lives within me
>Because you died and rose again
>
>
>
--
CHEEF.COM http://cheef.com your CHEEF source of nudist info
Clubs, beaches, & other listings Free Newsletters, Chat, & Forums
USA by state & Canada by province Bookstore & Shopping (Tan-Thru
Suits!)
Winter Pool Parties (Phila. area) Christian & Single nudist info
Michial
church...
michial
snail
>the title is "amazing love"...not sure who wrote it, but we sing it in
>church...
Yep, and same here. I have a vague feeling it may originate in Oz,
hillsongs even...unfortunately it looks like you need Flash to use
their site <http://www.hillsongmusic.com.au/> which counts me out.
--
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
David Murray
>
> Michial <swir...@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
> >the title is "amazing love"...not sure who wrote it, but we sing it in
> >church...
>
> Yep, and same here. I have a vague feeling it may originate in Oz,
> hillsongs even...unfortunately it looks like you need Flash to use
> their site <http://www.hillsongmusic.com.au/> which counts me out.
It's older than Hillsongs. At least, we did an Easter cantata with it as
the main song in 1992. The cantata was at least a year old then, and of
course, cantatas don't usually contain songs until a at least a year
after their original release, so I'm thinking "Amazing Love" has to be
at least a late 1980s tune.
David Murray
Rob Devereux
recognise the bits after the first verse.
"David Murray" <dbmu...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:387274EE...@rfci.net...
mikey
Mindsize2
Bradford
Mighty CheefDan![tm] Defender of Nudity![tm] <ch...@cheef.com> wrote in
message news:84rm9t$4...@netaxs.com...
> Dwimmers <dwim...@email.msn.com> wrote in <ea4haoZV$GA.234@cpmsnbbsa02>:
>
> >I need the name for this song please
> >
> >Amazing Love
> >How can it be
> >That you-my king-
> >would die for me
>
> Up to this point I would say it's "And Can It Be" by Charles Wesley.
> But afterwards... it's not.
And what a shame, too, that they changed "That Thou, my God, shouldst die
for me!" to "That you-my king-would die for me". The original phrase is one
of THE best examples of classic hymns conveying the richest truths in the
bible. Did ANYBODY notice? There's a treasure of truth in that phrase,
containing the deepest and richest aspects of our redemption. That it could
go unnoticed (surely somebody noticed it) by many is sad testimony of the
state of Christian music today.
Mighty CheefDan![tm] Defender of Nudity![tm]
>And what a shame, too, that they changed "That Thou, my God, shouldst die
>for me!" to "That you-my king-would die for me". The original phrase is
one
>of THE best examples of classic hymns conveying the richest truths in the
>bible. Did ANYBODY notice?
I noticed.
I'm not sure it's the end of civilization as we know it, but it does indeed
lose the emphasis on the divinity of Christ.
--
CHEEF.COM http://cheef.com your CHEEF source of nudist info
Clubs, beaches, & other listings Free Newsletters, Chat, & Forums
USA by state & Canada by province Bookstore & Shopping (TanThru Suits!)
Gary
We were working on the vocals for this 2 nights ago; we're adding it
to our setlist for services. The song is called "You are My King"
(because that phrase is used in a bridge, although nowhere else...go
figure). It's by Billy James Foote, copyright 1997 worshiptogether.com
songs/EMI. You can probably go to http://www.worshiptogether.com to
get a copy of the sheet music or find it on a recording. My guess is
that it's on Passion: Better is One Day, but I'm not exactly sure
where our worship leader found it.
Dwimmers wrote:
>
> I need the name for this song please
>
> Amazing Love
> How can it be
> That you-my king-
> would die for me
> amazing Love
> I know it's true
> It's my joy to honor you
> in all I do
> I honor you
>
> I'm forgiven because you were forsaken
> I'm accepted-you were condemned
> I'm alive and well
> Your spirit lives within me
> Because you died and rose again
--
Gary R. Hook
________________________________________________________________________
A piece of canvas is only the beginning
It takes on character with every loving stroke
This thing of beauty is the passion of an artist's heart
By God's design, we are a skin kaleidoscope "Colored people", dc Talk
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> Mighty CheefDan![tm] Defender of Nudity![tm] <ch...@cheef.com> wrote in
> message news:84rm9t$4...@netaxs.com...
> > Dwimmers <dwim...@email.msn.com> wrote in <ea4haoZV$GA.234@cpmsnbbsa02>:
> >
> > >I need the name for this song please
> > >
> > >Amazing Love
> > >How can it be
> > >That you-my king-
> > >would die for me
> >
> > Up to this point I would say it's "And Can It Be" by Charles Wesley.
> > But afterwards... it's not.
>
> And what a shame, too, that they changed "That Thou, my God, shouldst die
> for me!" to "That you-my king-would die for me". The original phrase is one
> of THE best examples of classic hymns conveying the richest truths in the
> bible. Did ANYBODY notice? There's a treasure of truth in that phrase,
> containing the deepest and richest aspects of our redemption. That it could
> go unnoticed (surely somebody noticed it) by many is sad testimony of the
> state of Christian music today.
Welcome back Bradford!
What is the difference between there two sentences:
"That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me!"
"That you-my king-would die for me"
I don't see any difference in the message at all. Really, the only
difference is between the words "God" and "King". I guess one could say
the word "King" has a lesser impact than saying "God", but that's really
not a big deal since it's obvious the "king" is "God". One the other
hand, the new version uses modern English and drops Thou and shoulst --
words no one uses outside of the KJV -- which I personally find MUCH
more preferrable. The use of words like thee, thou, shouldst, etc. do
not better convey Biblical truths than the words you, your, or would.
They would actually cloud the truth for someone not familiar with the words.
Certainly nothing to be called a "sad testimony". I'm really missing
the difference!
Scott
David Murray
"King" doesn't convey the same meaning as "God." I wouldn't go so far as
to say it's a "sad" rewrite, but it certainly is a pointless one. I'm
all for the "thou" being converted to "you" as well as the "shouldst"
being changed to "would," but the change from "God" to "king" does
nothing to help the lyric. It's not unreasonable to ask why.
David Murray
Skaught
Greanted, there wasn't much sense in changing God to king, at least as
far as I can see. Maybe the author had some personal reason (well,
obviously they did)...I doubt it was intended to take away or lessen the
song. I don't know if Bradford's complaint included the changing of the
thou to you, but there are others who find changing old English to
modern English to be wrong, as if using a dead language someone conveys
truth more than a living one. Might as well go back to Latin and just
confuse everyone!
Scott
Dwimmers
thousand years. He is coming to set up his kingdom.
Isreal thought he if he was king the first time, we id he have to die. But
he did die but his second coming will be his kingdom to ransom Isreal.
Skaught wrote in message <387801EA...@skaught.com>...
Jason Steiner
> The term is that Jesus is returning as King to claim the earth for a
> thousand years. He is coming to set up his kingdom.
It's the year 2000. Isn't it about time to give up on feudalism?
jason
Pam V.K.
Jason, why do all atheists behave like you do?
In other words, why don't you hang out at alt.atheism and leave the nice
people here alone?
Jason Steiner
> Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
> > Dwimmers <dwim...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> > > The term is that Jesus is returning as King to claim the earth
> > > for a thousand years. He is coming to set up his kingdom.
> >
> > It's the year 2000. Isn't it about time to give up on feudalism?
>
>
> In other words, why don't you hang out at alt.atheism and leave the
> nice people here alone?
Since all the other atheists behave like me, they're not in
alt.atheism. They're here. And yes, they are nice people. ;)
jason
Pam V.K.
>Pam V.K. <pj...@iquest.net> wrote:
>> Jason, why do all atheists behave like you do?
>>
>> In other words, why don't you hang out at alt.atheism and leave the
>> nice people here alone?
>
>Since all the other atheists behave like me, they're not in
>alt.atheism. They're here. And yes, they are nice people. ;)
Very clever attempt at misdirection, but not true. Since I've been lurking,
I know you refer to yourself as the resident atheist here. And so far, you
appear to be the only atheist here: if there are others, they never post.
Besides, you know what I meant. Why not behave differently and set yourself
apart from the pack?
Brian Trosko
: Very clever attempt at misdirection, but not true. Since I've been lurking,
: appear to be the only atheist here: if there are others, they never post.
You certainly haven't been lurking for very long, then.
Jason Steiner
> Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
> >Pam V.K. <pj...@iquest.net> wrote:
> >> Jason, why do all atheists behave like you do?
> >>
> >> In other words, why don't you hang out at alt.atheism and leave
> >> the nice people here alone?
> >
> >Since all the other atheists behave like me, they're not in
> >alt.atheism. They're here. And yes, they are nice people. ;)
>
> lurking, I know you refer to yourself as the resident atheist here.
> And so far, you appear to be the only atheist here: if there are
> others, they never post.
>
> yourself apart from the pack?
Well, if they're *not* here, then I *am* acting differently, right?
After all, if they're in alt.atheism, then *that* would be the pack,
and running with them is not what you want me to do. Or wait, maybe
you do.
Oh, now you've got me confused.
jason
Pam V.K.
Never mind. If you're going to pretend to be this dumb, then there's no
point in talking to you.
Pam V.K.
>Pam V.K. <pj...@iquest.net> writes:
>: Very clever attempt at misdirection, but not true. Since I've been lurking,
>: appear to be the only atheist here: if there are others, they never post.
>
Okay, so that makes two. Not exactly a majority, is it? And btw, when
exactly have you posted before?
snail
Um, he's posted quite a bit, particularly over the last couple of years.
I don't recall much before that, but then I don't recall much of anything
that long ago :-) I'd say his comment is a valid one.
Brian Trosko
: >You certainly haven't been lurking for very long, then.
: Okay, so that makes two.
Oh, there are a few more around.
: Not exactly a majority, is it?
I'm sorry, is that some sort of requirement? I guess only Christians are
entitled to read a newgroup with the word "christian" in the title?
: And btw, when
: exactly have you posted before?
There's a wonderful tool called DejaNews. If you try real hard, you could
probably answer that question for yourself.
Aw, hell, I'll go and do it for you, 'cause I'm just that kind of a guy.
I've got 533 unique messages posted to this 'froup. You, on the other
hand, started lurking sometime *after* 12/08/99.
snail
>Aw, hell, I'll go and do it for you, 'cause I'm just that kind of a guy.
>I've got 533 unique messages posted to this 'froup. You, on the other
>hand, started lurking sometime *after* 12/08/99.
I wasn't aware it was possible to measure lurking time ?
Pam V.K.
>
>I'm sorry, is that some sort of requirement? I guess only Christians are
>entitled to read a newgroup with the word "christian" in the title?
Jason was playing his little word games, claiming that "all the other
atheists" post here. Did you not bother to read the original note that you
felt so inclined to attack?
>: And btw, when
>: exactly have you posted before?
>
>There's a wonderful tool called DejaNews. If you try real hard, you could
>probably answer that question for yourself.
Well gee, what a surprise. A smartass comment from an atheist. Gosh, I'm
crushed.
>Aw, hell, I'll go and do it for you, 'cause I'm just that kind of a guy.
>I've got 533 unique messages posted to this 'froup. You, on the other
>hand, started lurking sometime *after* 12/08/99.
Yes, that pesky LIFE of mine just keeps getting in the way. Most of the
time I only access Usenet every 3 or 4 months. Perhaps you should post as
often as Jason does, so I won't miss your posts next time.
Or perhaps you could POLITELY point out my error, and continue on your way.
(Nah, that'd never happen.)
nobst...@my-deja.com
rock, but oh well.
tomwonder
In article <3873F812...@planetc.com>,
mikey <mik...@planetc.com> wrote:
> Anyone have any good christian emo band websites?
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jason Steiner
Ah, I'm taking the piss.
Look, if you want me to leave, just say so. And I'll just say no.
There's no use appealing to my sense of individuality. I'm enough of
an individual that I don't care what other atheists are doing, either
to join them, or react against them.
jason
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>>: Not exactly a majority, is it?
>>I'm sorry, is that some sort of requirement? I guess only Christians are
>>entitled to read a newgroup with the word "christian" in the title?
>Jason was playing his little word games, claiming that "all the other
>atheists" post here. Did you not bother to read the original note that you
>felt so inclined to attack?
That was not an answer. The fact remains that your question failed to
make any sense, your above stupid excuse notwithstanding.
>>: And btw, when exactly have you posted before?
>>There's a wonderful tool called DejaNews. If you try real hard, you could
>>probably answer that question for yourself.
>Well gee, what a surprise.
Then why did you ask?
>A smartass comment from an atheist. Gosh, I'm crushed.
Since you made the first (and the only stupid) smart ass comment
here, I'd say yeah, you are.
>>Aw, hell, I'll go and do it for you, 'cause I'm just that kind of a guy.
>>I've got 533 unique messages posted to this 'froup. You, on the other
>>hand, started lurking sometime *after* 12/08/99.
>Yes, that pesky LIFE of mine just keeps getting in the way.
Oh right, it's a newbie.
So what the hell is your point? First you imply Brian should have made
_more_ posts here to be able to have a worthwhile opinion, and now
you suggest that _because_ he has made many, he should be
ignorable or some such. So which is it, false whiner?
>Most of the time I only access Usenet every 3 or 4 months.
So, given Netiquette, that soundly disqualifies you from making any
such comments as you did, if it allows you to post here at all -
right?
>Or perhaps you could POLITELY point out my error,
(1) You don't deserve that.
(2) Given your completely out of line previous post, he was in fact
VERY polite to you, I'd say.
--
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman jtig...@casema.net (private)
Bird of Prey
unless....
he really knows there is a God.
Jason Steiner
I'm doing graduate work on the imagination of religious believers.
Not much of a specimen, are you?
jason
Pam V.K.
>[snipping incredibly rude, insulting response]
Jeroen, you really are living in your own little world. When was the last
time you went outside?
Pam V.K.
>> Never mind. If you're going to pretend to be this dumb, then there's no
>> point in talking to you.
>
>Ah, I'm taking the piss.
Ah-ha! I actually know what that means, now that I've seen The Full Monty
like, 20 times. Great movie.
>Look, if you want me to leave, just say so. And I'll just say no.
>There's no use appealing to my sense of individuality. I'm enough of
>an individual that I don't care what other atheists are doing, either
>to join them, or react against them.
Look, I'm not trying to censor you. All I'm saying is that if you want to
go trolling (or whatever it's called now), could you limit it to the
philosophical or religious discussions? That way, when someone posts
something about "When is album X going to be released?" the responses remain
on-topic vs. "Why do you even *like* this music?" or "Why do even believe in
Jesus?" or some such.
Actually, I probably should stop posting to this thread too, as it hasn't
been about "name of song" for quite some time now. See? I'm just looking
for some consistency here.
Jason Steiner
>
> > Look, if you want me to leave, just say so. And I'll just say no.
> > There's no use appealing to my sense of individuality. I'm enough
> > of an individual that I don't care what other atheists are doing,
> > either to join them, or react against them.
>
> Look, I'm not trying to censor you. All I'm saying is that if you
> want to go trolling (or whatever it's called now), could you limit
> it to the philosophical or religious discussions? That way, when
> someone posts something about "When is album X going to be
> released?" the responses remain on-topic vs. "Why do you even
> *like* this music?" or "Why do even believe in Jesus?" or some such.
That's exactly what I did. I only jumped in when it turned from the
name of the song, into a statement of religious belief that Jesus
was coming back to claim his kingdom any day now.
Well, what's holding him up? Is he, in the words of Elijah, on a long
journey? Perhaps he's sleeping? Pray louder! Wake him up! :)
jason
Bradford
Gary <hookN...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:387806F9...@texas.net...
> Ah-ha! It finally registers.
>
> We were working on the vocals for this 2 nights ago; we're adding it
> to our setlist for services. The song is called "You are My King"
> (because that phrase is used in a bridge, although nowhere else...go
> figure). It's by Billy James Foote, copyright 1997 worshiptogether.com
> songs/EMI. You can probably go to http://www.worshiptogether.com to
> get a copy of the sheet music or find it on a recording. My guess is
> that it's on Passion: Better is One Day, but I'm not exactly sure
> where our worship leader found it.
>
Well, okay, I couldn't easily find the words on that site, so I can't say
absolutely that it was a terrible thing.
I really don't like it though. Even if that song emphasizes the kingship
aspect of the Lord, I hate to see Wesley's hymn used that way. If you
identified the 10 top examples of the best aspects of the New Testament's
teaching embodied in music, Wesley's statement, "that Thou, My God should
die for me" would have to be included. In fact, I wonder how long most
Christians would have to scratch their heads to come up with one song that
states Christ's divinity. I wonder, too, how many Christian musicians could
recite ONE verse that supports the divinity of Christ.
BTW, this is really, really ON topic - is it not?
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>>[snipping incredibly rude, insulting response]
We seem to disagree on the assessment.
>Jeroen, you really are living in your own little world.
>When was the last time you went outside?
What exactly is the constructive contribution in the
above supposed to be?
Noah Elliott
>
> I wonder, too, how many Christian musicians could
> recite ONE verse that supports the divinity of Christ.
Why don't you ask them?
--noah
Bradford
Noah Elliott <mrn...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:387D3FD4...@concentric.net...
Impractical. BTW, can YOU?
>
>
> --noah
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Bradford <Br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I wonder, too, how many Christian musicians could
>>> recite ONE verse that supports the divinity of Christ.
>> Why don't you ask them?
>Impractical. BTW, can YOU?
Wait, so you prefer to muse about their ability to cite scriptures
(which doesn't really prove much anyway), and based on what you've
revealed of yourself in your prior stints here, thereby tacitly
cast aspersions on their faith, behind their backs in a public
forum, because it's "impractical" for you to confront them in person?
That hardly seems scriptural to me.
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"All the blue light reflections that color my mind when I sleep
And the lovesick rejections that accompany the company I keep..."
-- Counting Crows, "Mrs. Potter's Lullaby" --
Skaught
Bradford wrote:
>
> Noah Elliott <mrn...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:387D3FD4...@concentric.net...
> > Bradford wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder, too, how many Christian musicians could
> > > recite ONE verse that supports the divinity of Christ.
> >
> > Why don't you ask them?
>
> Impractical. BTW, can YOU?
Oh Bradford, please, not this again.
Bradford
Jerry B. Ray, Jr. <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:85ldb6$e...@catapult.gatech.edu...
> In article <85l57...@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> Bradford <Br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I wonder, too, how many Christian musicians could
> >>> recite ONE verse that supports the divinity of Christ.
>
> >> Why don't you ask them?
>
> >Impractical. BTW, can YOU?
>
> (which doesn't really prove much anyway),
True . . . musing is just musing.
> and based on what you've
> revealed of yourself in your prior stints here, thereby tacitly
> cast aspersions on their faith,
I think that's a just a little harsh . . . I haven't been too aspersionary.
> behind their backs in a public
> forum, because it's "impractical" for you to confront them in person?
> That hardly seems scriptural to me.
Come now. These are very public people. If I went to a political newsgroup
and said, "I wonder if Senator so&so can name the leaders of five countries
in the Middle East?", would one consider my antics, "behind their backs" and
improper?
Bradford
Skaught <ska...@skaught.com> wrote in message
news:387E5A47...@skaught.com...
>
>
> Bradford wrote:
> >
> > Noah Elliott <mrn...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> > news:387D3FD4...@concentric.net...
> > > >
> > > > I wonder, too, how many Christian musicians could
> > > > recite ONE verse that supports the divinity of Christ.
> > >
> > > Why don't you ask them?
> >
> > Impractical. BTW, can YOU?
>
>
Not what? Suggesting that someone who calls themselves a Christian might
actually be somewhat equipped to tell about the One whose name he bears? By
this forum's definition, someone purporting to have constructive input on
relevant topics should know these things.
Noah Elliott
> > >
> > > I wonder, too, how many Christian musicians could
> > > recite ONE verse that supports the divinity of Christ.
> >
> > Why don't you ask them?
>
> Impractical.
Sure, it's more practical to question without basis the scriptural
knowledge of an entire group of people that you don't know, but that
doesn't make it right. It's not as if it's impossible to communicate
with Christian musicians. If you have reason to have a legitimate
concern about how much Bible a certain artist knows, then you ought to
make an effort to find out if that concern is valid.
> BTW, can YOU?
Yes. Though the fact that I can says little about my spiritual
condition. If I can fathom all mysteries and knowledge, but have not
love, I am nothing.
--noah
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>> for you to confront them in person? That hardly seems
>> scriptural to me.
While the above may be considered a little harsh, I am
with Jerry here.
>Come now. These are very public people.
I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Where do
you get an exception for socalled "public" people from?
I would say that the point here was precisely that this is
an odd qualifier in this context.
>If I went to a political newsgroup and said, "I wonder if
>Senator so&so can name the leaders of five countries
>in the Middle East?", would one consider my antics,
>"behind their backs" and improper?
The example is not very similar, since you would specifically
address one person rather than make a sweeping suggestive
generalization. Even so, stricly considered I would consider
that improper (though I might give you a break were I to read
such a newsgroup, probably ;-)).
Bradford
> Bradford wrote:
> >
> > Noah Elliott <mrn...@concentric.net> wrote
> > > Bradford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I wonder, too, how many Christian musicians could
> > > > recite ONE verse that supports the divinity of Christ.
> > >
> > > Why don't you ask them?
> >
> > Impractical.
>
> Sure, it's more practical to question without basis the scriptural
> knowledge of an entire group of people that you don't know, but that
> doesn't make it right.
I don't understand this sentence.
> It's not as if it's impossible to communicate
> with Christian musicians. If you have reason to have a legitimate
> concern about how much Bible a certain artist knows, then you ought to
> make an effort to find out if that concern is valid.
No problem with this. But does that mean that a ng such as this is NO place
for generalizations?
>
> > BTW, can YOU?
>
> Yes. Though the fact that I can says little about my spiritual
> condition.
No, but if you *couldn't*, and you consider yourself in serious Christian
music ministry, there's a big problem. Sure, knowing scriptures does not
ensure spiritual health, but NOT knowing pretty much ensures spiritual lack.
See my response to Jeroen below.
>If I can fathom all mysteries and knowledge, but have not
> love, I am nothing.
That's true. It's also true that, without knowledge of the scriptures, one
will neither fathom mysteries and knowledge, or have (in the long-term)
love.
>
>
> --noah
Bradford
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman <jtig...@casema.net> wrote in message
news:387edc82...@news.casema.net...
Okay, change the above to "the Democrat Senators on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee", or maybe just "the Democrats in Congress". The "name
the leaders" challenge is simply my expression of frustration at what I
believe to be a lack of real substance with the Democrats' policy,
arguments, knowledge, etc. Are you saying (perhaps Jerry also?) that this
is likened to me sneaking around here at work critisizing the company
management team . . . behind their back?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say about "sweeping generalizations".
To me, ng's such as this are not a bad place for them. If someone posts to
a sports ng saying, "I'm tired of all the NFL players dancing around after
every touchdown or sack, etc.", I think that's quite acceptable. Nobody
assumes the poster is accusing each and every player in the NFL. It's just
an opening of discussion. Then I join in and cite an interesting anecdote,
etc. Then you post about some proposed rules you heard about. Right? What
am I missing?
Noah Elliott
>
> No problem with this. But does that mean that a ng such as this is NO
> place for generalizations?
I wouldn't say that there is no place for generalizations, but
generalizations without any grounding in specific facts are not worth
much.
> > Yes. Though the fact that I can says little about my spiritual
> > condition.
>
> No, but if you *couldn't*, and you consider yourself in serious
> Christian music ministry, there's a big problem.
Do you think that there are people who consider themselves in serious
Christian music ministry but don't know a _single_ verse about the
divinity of Jesus? Who are these people? What basis do you have to
think this about them?
--noah
Noah Elliott
>
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say about "sweeping
> generalizations". To me, ng's such as this are not a bad place for
> them. If someone posts to a sports ng saying, "I'm tired of all the
> NFL players dancing around after every touchdown or sack, etc.", I
> think that's quite acceptable. Nobody assumes the poster is accusing
> each and every player in the NFL. It's just an opening of discussion.
> Then I join in and cite an interesting anecdote, etc. Then you post
> about some proposed rules you heard about. Right? What am I missing?
What you are missing is the anecdote.
If someone makes a general comment about how they don't like the
behavior of football players, it is because they have observed specific
instances of behavior that they don't like. They can tell you about
what they saw a certain player do, and why they think it is bad. People
will have a specific point of reference from which they can discuss the
issue.
The issue you brought up is the scriptural knowledge, or lack thereof,
among Christian musicians. If you make a generalization that implies
that there are Christian musicians who know not one verse about the
divinity of Jesus, but you can't name a specific instance of a Christian
musician who displays this lack of knowledge, then you don't really have
a basis for your generalization. You ought to re-examine whether it is
a valid generalization, or investigate to find out what the truth really
is.
--noah
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>The "name the leaders" challenge is simply my expression
>of frustration at what I believe to be a lack of real substance
>with the Democrats' policy, arguments, knowledge, etc.
That was obvious to me.
>Are you saying (perhaps Jerry also?) that this is likened to me
>sneaking around here at work critisizing the company
>management team . . . behind their back?
What I am saying is (1) that such an expression of frustration does
no good to improve anything; (2) that it places some people in
a negative light for no apparent reason, where it is unreasonable
to suppose they could do anything to counter that vague impression;
and (3) that it is so undirected as to make it rather hopeless for
anyone to address, as well as that it can't make too much specific
sense at all.
I can see a likeness to criticising the company management team
behind their back, but I personally wouldn't say that was a primary
analogy.
I would say that in general it is not very constructive to make vague
assertions about some group problem (where you loosely define the
group first). If you want to solve a problem, it is preferable you
identify the problem, identify who you could personally address on
that issue, and address him personally about the problem.
>I'm not sure what you are trying to say about "sweeping generalizations".
I think that making vague, negative suggestions about as large and
diverse a group as "christian musicians" is rather silly. I would
prefer a clearer, better directed, complaint.
>To me, ng's such as this are not a bad place for them. If someone posts
>to a sports ng saying, "I'm tired of all the NFL players dancing around after
>every touchdown or sack, etc.", I think that's quite acceptable.
These are not necessarily clearly delineated black-and-white issues.
I would say, though, that this would be an expression of exasperation
at some type of display, which is not necessarily well comparable to
an expression of doubt on someone's _ability_ of something that you
suggest at the same time would be a bare _requirement_.
>Nobody assumes the poster is accusing each and every player in the NFL.
>It's just an opening of discussion. Then I join in and cite an interesting
>anecdote, etc. Then you post about some proposed rules you heard about.
>Right? What am I missing?
Several things, I believe. Apart from the aspect I mentioned above,
you also added the statement as a sideline rather than an opener of
discussion, it appeared to me, and it appears to me also that we
already had the discussion it would open recently (and I wouldn't
describe as too fruitful).
Not that I would have responded quite as harshly, but I do find the
rather regular insertion of such sentiments exaspertaing, especially
where I see no good way to turn to a fruitful discussion from them.
bradfo...@my-deja.com
>
> >Are you saying (perhaps Jerry also?) that this is likened to me
> >sneaking around here at work critisizing the company
> >management team . . . behind their back?
>
> What I am saying is (1) that such an expression of frustration does
> no good to improve anything; (2) that it places some people in
> a negative light for no apparent reason, where it is unreasonable
> to suppose they could do anything to counter that vague impression;
> and (3) that it is so undirected as to make it rather hopeless for
> anyone to address, as well as that it can't make too much specific
> sense at all.
>
First of all, such expressions bring about awareness, at least of a
possiblility. I can't be expected to make a legal case. After all,
this whole arena is somewhat recreational. Sure, the reader has
no "proof", unless I supply it. But if my generalization is very true,
it may "click" in certain readers' minds. All kinds of discussions
could get started. What if a Christian musician asks himself if he can
support with scripture the deity of Christ. I think that's good. On
the other hand, someone may mention a group that has taken pains to
include all the crucial tenets of the N.T. faith in their songs.
That's interesting and helpful.
>
> I would say that in general it is not very constructive to make vague
> assertions about some group problem (where you loosely define the
> group first). If you want to solve a problem, it is preferable you
> identify the problem, identify who you could personally address on
> that issue, and address him personally about the problem.
>
> >I'm not sure what you are trying to say about "sweeping
generalizations".
>
> I think that making vague, negative suggestions about as large and
> diverse a group as "christian musicians" is rather silly. I would
> prefer a clearer, better directed, complaint.
Sure. I'd like to be able to support every complaint I make with a
lengthy article or book, but that's not practical. That said, I do
agree that focus and specifics are always helpful, if you have the time.
Another example. Suppose you state generally that the democrats in
Congress are incredibly deficient in their knowledge of the Internal
Revenue Code. I know that may or may not be true, but just by the fact
that you made that statement I know that there is ONE person who
believes it to be true. If I know you and respect your judgment, that
counts for something. Perhaps next time I see my Democrat Senator,
I'll pose a question or two to him that he should be able to answer -
just to see for myself if MY senator knows the basics of the tax code.
Spin One80
>> them. If someone posts to a sports ng saying, "I'm tired of all the
>> NFL players dancing around after every touchdown or sack, etc.", I
>> each and every player in the NFL. It's just an opening of discussion.
>> Then I join in and cite an interesting anecdote, etc. Then you post
>> about some proposed rules you heard about. Right? What am I missing?
>
>
disdain towards anyone who would make any statements that seem judgemental in
nature towards their behavior ect... but that's just my opinion.
NP:Fold Zan-debut
Bradford
>
> If someone makes a general comment about how they don't like the
> behavior of football players, it is because they have observed specific
> instances of behavior that they don't like. They can tell you about
> what they saw a certain player do, and why they think it is bad
Well I can't. I've seen so much of that activity that it somewhat dilutes
my desire to even watch. But I can't name the players. Maybe if I sit here
and think real hard I can. I make that assertion based on an accumulation
of casual observations. When so&so's end zone antics frustrated me 10 weeks
ago, I didn't write down his number and name and file it into an evidence
log. But the impression was made, an it isn't groundless. Same applies to
general, overall impressions of many in the Christian music industry.
Interviews are heard and read, lyrics are considered, and impressions made.
I just don't see an internet ng having the "burden of proof" that a law
court does. Eventually the "jury" is simply the interest of the readers.
If a poster continually makes baseless, ridiculous complaints or charges,
the readers will eventually ignore that person. This whole exercise, to me,
is at least 50% entertainment. I'm happy to be challenged if I make
illogical or unreasonable assertions. I'm glad to be corrected. But I'm
also happy to be able to "vent" even though I don't have a case that is
ready for trial.
>
> The issue you brought up is the scriptural knowledge, or lack thereof,
> among Christian musicians. If you make a generalization that implies
> that there are Christian musicians who know not one verse about the
> divinity of Jesus, but you can't name a specific instance of a Christian
> musician who displays this lack of knowledge, then you don't really have
> a basis for your generalization.
Well, see above. But there is a little more. I would have some safety in
making that assertion simply because most Christians can't give scriptural
support for the divinity of Jesus. I just think, from my life's
observations, that most in Christian music ministry are simply too busy with
the outward aspects of their ministry to know these things. Of *course*
there are refreshing exceptions, but I believe they are few. I think just
the scarcity of lyrics that address this matter is evidence in itself.
>You ought to re-examine whether it is
> a valid generalization,
One one hand, I don't need to. I don't lie to myself about what I've seen
and observed over many years. On the other hand, I AM posting to a ng with
many readers who may have different observations. I'll read and consider
all their posts.
> or investigate to find out what the truth really
> is.
To the extent time allows, sure. Just keep in mind that everyone, including
yourself, makes scores of decisions based upon evidence that would fall well
short of that required in a law court. But that does not mean that the
evidence isn't real or accurate.
Bradford
Spin One80 <spin...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000115161022...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> >
> What your missing is an understanding that the "Christian" community has a
> disdain towards anyone who would make any statements that seem judgemental
in
> nature towards their behavior ect... but that's just my opinion.
> NP:Fold Zan-debut
I agree. The Christian community has been too influenced by the secular . .
. with their hypersensitivity to judging. "Judge not" is the mantra of the
day, with all the other many, many verses suggesting a proper context for
judging and spiritual discernment ignored or just not known, the Bible being
shelved in place of TV, movie, and, among other things, Christian CD's.
That said, this is just some venting, and isn't directed at Noah's comments.
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>many verses suggesting a proper context for judging and
>spiritual discernment ignored or just not known,
I think you are now glossing over an interesting distinction,
when you amend the "judging" of the first half to "judging
AND SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT" in the second.
Those two clauses are not equal. Furthermore, I have seen
interesting explanations how the actual Greek verns in all
these verses differ every now and again, notwithstanding
this propernsity to translate the lot to "judge". I would say
that the nuances would be very relevant.
I would also say that it is not our place to condemn others,
but it is quite necessary to evaluate possible lines of
behavior. Context is everyhing.
The standard Matthew 7 context suggests you don't set
yourself up as superior. Not so much because you
couldn't _be_ that, but because if you were, you wouldn't
have to. Truth is in fact quite recognizable. An 'other'
context as in I Cor 6 would suggest that you do not call
on external judgement, more precisely that if there is a
group matter you don't turn for resolution outside the group,
but resolve it in context, because who would know better
than the ones in the relevant context? Which is in fact quite
in accord with the idea that you don't need self-proclaimed
spiritual (or other) leaders, but things should be resolved
locally, which is quite in accord with the idea that you
can't tell whether someone else is 'alright' -- that's outside
your authority. Guard the context that touches you/that you
are in. Express what you believe is true. But don't try to
establish some exclusivist ideology everyone should conform
to on your authority. And don't trust yourself to speak for a
higher authority, except in a subdued, advisory way.
>the Bible being shelved in place of TV, movie, and, among
>other things, Christian CD's. That said, this is just some venting,
>and isn't directed at Noah's comments.
I suggest it would be more useful to explain the matter rather
than paint it with broad brush strokes and go venting against
the 'secular' world (when we really should know external
dichotomies such as that one aren't particularly useful). But
maybe that's just me.
Bradford
> "Bradford" <Br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I agree. The Christian community has been too influenced
> >by the secular . .. with their hypersensitivity to judging.
> >"Judge not" is the mantra of the day, with all the other many,
> >many verses suggesting a proper context for judging and
> >spiritual discernment ignored or just not known,
>
> I think you are now glossing over an interesting distinction,
> when you amend the "judging" of the first half to "judging
> AND SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT" in the second.
I commend you for noticing. Perhaps a "for that matter" after "spiritual
discernment" would have helped. It is a matter closely related though.
What ends up happening sometimes, is one makes comments or conversation that
really should be considered in the category of spiritual discernment. But
some jump too quickly and call it judging.
>
> Those two clauses are not equal. Furthermore, I have seen
> interesting explanations how the actual Greek verns in all
> these verses differ every now and again, notwithstanding
> this propernsity to translate the lot to "judge". I would say
> that the nuances would be very relevant.
>
> I would also say that it is not our place to condemn
Ah, now *you're* bringing in a new word. <g> One with a much greater
distance from "judge", than "spiritual discernment".
> others,
> but it is quite necessary to evaluate possible lines of
> behavior.
For the purpose of evaluating, among other things, greater vs. lessor??
Surely *that's* okay???
> Context is everyhing.
>
> The standard Matthew 7 context suggests you don't set
> yourself up as superior. Not so much because you
> couldn't _be_ that, but because if you were, you wouldn't
> have to. Truth is in fact quite recognizable. An 'other'
> context as in I Cor 6 would suggest that you do not call
> on external judgement, more precisely that if there is a
> group matter you don't turn for resolution outside the group,
> but resolve it in context, because who would know better
> than the ones in the relevant context? Which is in fact quite
> in accord with the idea that you don't need self-proclaimed
> spiritual (or other) leaders, but things should be resolved
> locally, which is quite in accord with the idea that you
> can't tell whether someone else is 'alright' -- that's outside
> your authority.
Wait. I don't think such an idea is "in accord" with not needing leaders.
Just because you (seem to) reject the leaders externally does not
automatically presuppose that the "internal" resolution just "happens".
What if there are differences internally? Who decides? If they do, are
they not "tell(ing) whether someone else is 'alright', and thus, outside
their authority?
> Guard the context that touches you/that you
> are in. Express what you believe is true. But don't try to
> establish some exclusivist ideology everyone should conform
> to on your authority.
Yes. But do you "allow" for spiritual authority in the N.T. practice, given
your statements above and further above in the Matt. 7 paragraph?
>And don't trust yourself to speak for a
> higher authority, except in a subdued, advisory way.
Yes. One shouldn't flaunt his "speaking for God", but that doesn't mean he
couldn't, most definitely, speak for God. Right? Now, I *will* say that
the true amount of any individual's collective experience of "speaking for
God" seems to be in inverse proportion to his claim of same.
>
> >the Bible being shelved in place of TV, movie, and, among
> >other things, Christian CD's. That said, this is just some venting,
> >and isn't directed at Noah's comments.
>
> I suggest it would be more useful to explain the matter rather
> than paint it with broad brush strokes and go venting against
> the 'secular' world (when we really should know external
> dichotomies such as that one aren't particularly useful). But
> maybe that's just me.
You may be right. FWIW, however, I was venting about Christians, not the
secular world.
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
>> I would also say that it is not our place to condemn
>Ah, now *you're* bringing in a new word. <g> One with a
>much greater distance from "judge", than "spiritual
>discernment".
My purpose was to indicate the width of the spectrum loosely
associated with "judge" by indicating two polar opposites.
>> others, but it is quite necessary to evaluate possible lines
>> of behavior.
>For the purpose of evaluating, among other things, greater vs.
>lessor?? Surely *that's* okay???
I said it was even _necessary_.
>> context as in I Cor 6 would suggest that you do not call
>> on external judgement, more precisely that if there is a
>> group matter you don't turn for resolution outside the group,
>> but resolve it in context, because who would know better
>> than the ones in the relevant context? Which is in fact quite
>> in accord with the idea that you don't need self-proclaimed
>> spiritual (or other) leaders, but things should be resolved
>> locally, which is quite in accord with the idea that you
>> can't tell whether someone else is 'alright' -- that's outside
>> your authority.
>Wait. I don't think such an idea is "in accord" with not needing
>leaders.
But then, that is not quite what I said, is it? ;-)
>Just because you (seem to) reject the leaders externally does
>not automatically presuppose that the "internal" resolution just
>"happens".
I didn't want to suggest it did.
>What if there are differences internally? Who decides? If they do,
>are they not "tell(ing) whether someone else is 'alright', and thus,
>outside their authority?
Are you assuming now that one would take the lead exclusively and
of necessity would _not_ be checked? I'd call that quite an assumption
if we are talking about a functioning spiritual community..
>Yes. But do you "allow" for spiritual authority in the N.T. practice, given
>your statements above and further above in the Matt. 7 paragraph?
I am not sure what your question is. I certainly believe in 'spiritual
authority'.
>Yes. One shouldn't flaunt his "speaking for God", but that doesn't mean he
>couldn't, most definitely, speak for God. Right? Now, I *will* say that
Right.
>the true amount of any individual's collective experience of "speaking for
>God" seems to be in inverse proportion to his claim of same.
It looks like that, yeah.