secular bands with Christian members
David Thompson
I been hearing more and more lately about secular artists with Christian
members and was wondering who out there would like to share what bands
fall into this category.
The ones I've heard of to start: (correct me if I'm wrong)
U2
King's X
Galactic Cowboys
The Alarm
The Call
The Waterboys
Sam Phillips
The Front
Extreme
Queensryke
Bruce Cockburn
--
blessings, david. <><
da...@fablink.com
http://www.fablink.com/david - Land-O-Worship
http://www.fablink.com/david/LandOWorship/row.htm - Ring Of Worship
clive
David Thompson wrote:
> I been hearing more and more lately about secular artists with Christian
> members and was wondering who out there would like to share what bands
> fall into this category.
>
> The ones I've heard of to start: (correct me if I'm wrong)
> U2
> King's X
> Galactic Cowboys
> The Alarm
> The Call
> The Waterboys
> Sam Phillips
> The Front
> Extreme
> Queensryke
queensryche
> Bruce Cockburn
i dont know what purpose this serves, but...
yes (rick wakeman)
leviathan (the singer, forget his name)
alice cooper
echolyn
kansas (in the 80s)
shadow gallery (i think)
siam
> blessings, david. <><
clive
Mark Silva
David Thompson wrote:
>
> I been hearing more and more lately about secular artists with Christian
> members and was wondering who out there would like to share what bands
> fall into this category.
>
> The ones I've heard of to start: (correct me if I'm wrong)
> U2
> King's X
> Galactic Cowboys
> The Alarm
> The Call
> The Waterboys
> Sam Phillips
> The Front
> Extreme
> Queensryke
Damien Jurado (and the million side projects)
Joe Christmas (broke up... sucks)
Megadeth
Alice Cooper
Mineral
Delta Haymax (not sure -- I've heard that one guy may be a Christian)
Over the Rhine
MxPx (just signed with A&M)
Training for Utopia
October Project (?)
His Name Is Alive
The Mountain Goats (or something like that)
Marilyn Manson (he sings about Jesus all the time!)
The Revolutionary Army of the Infant Jesus
Social Distortion (?)
Sunny Day Real Estate
Jeremy Enigk
The Aunt Bettys
Mark Silva
msi...@mail.utexas.edu
Mark Silva
just thought of a few more:
Coolidge
Poole
For Love Not Lisa
Mark Silva
msi...@mail.utexas.edu
Cheef Dan
Boston has one member who's a Christian, although he's dead.
Kenn Petty
phil Bailey w/Earth, Wind, Fire
Lou Gramm w/ Foreigner
Sammy Hagar
Andrew Gold w/10cc
Nanene Cowan
Mark Silva <msi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in article
<33CC72...@mail.utexas.edu>...
I'm pretty sure MxPx are a chritian band. They are at every christian
bookstore that I've been to.
> > Training for Utopia
> > October Project (?)
> > His Name Is Alive
> > The Mountain Goats (or something like that)
> > Marilyn Manson (he sings about Jesus all the time!)
Are you sure about this one? Why all of the protests by christians if he
is a christian. I think he's pretty open about being against christianity.
caleb
Mark Silva wrote:
>
> David Thompson wrote:
> >
> > I been hearing more and more lately about secular artists with Christian
> > members and was wondering who out there would like to share what bands
> > fall into this category.
Don't forget TROUBLE!
caleb
veronica
> Mark Silva wrote: (or it could have been)
>> > David Thompson wrote:
> >
> > MxPx (just signed with A&M)
rumors. rumors are evil.
mxpx is still on tooth and nail.
austen's dad nick
In <33CD05...@erinet.com> Dan Temmesfeld <dan...@erinet.com>
writes:
>David Thompson wrote:
>>
>> I been hearing more and more lately about secular artists with
>> Christian members and was wondering who out there would like to
>> share what bands fall into this category.
>>
>> U2
>> King's X
>> Galactic Cowboys
>> The Alarm
>> The Call
>> The Waterboys
>> Sam Phillips
>> The Front
>> Extreme
>
>> Queensryke
>
>"ch," not "k"...not sure about this one...which member?
for a while, during the _warning_ era, it was said that jeff tate, the
lead singer was a Christian. he has refuted this in print (pretty long
ago, actually), but that doesn't seem to mean much nowadays.
peace,
NiCk
soulbelly.
****************************************************************
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
****************************************************************
Nanene Cowan
David Murray <dbmu...@bogus.spam.com> wrote in article
<5qit4b$37l$3...@usenet85.supernews.com>...
>
> Nanene Cowan wrote in article
<01bc9205$10d641a0$6f7f...@nicki.nauticom.ne
> t>...
>
> >I'm pretty sure MxPx are a chritian band. They are at every christian
> >bookstore that I've been to.
>
> Well, that makes it official, then.
I just figured that if they were at Family Bookstores, for example, that
meant that they were signed to a christian label and were therefore not a
"secular band".
Sorry if you didn't like my line of reasoning.
Robert
Dan Temmesfeld
David Thompson wrote:
>
> I been hearing more and more lately about secular artists with Christian
> members and was wondering who out there would like to share what bands
> fall into this category.
>
> The ones I've heard of to start: (correct me if I'm wrong)
> U2
> King's X
> Galactic Cowboys
> The Alarm
> The Call
> The Waterboys
> Sam Phillips
> The Front
> Extreme
> Bruce Cockburn
> Queensryke
"ch," not "k"...not sure about this one...which member?
here's some additions:
echolyn
shadow gallery (yes, clive, you were correct)
atomic opera
masquerade
collective soul (perhaps)
alice cooper
flesh (now called superzero)
kansas (at one point or another)
megadeth (i'm pretty sure about freidman...as for mustaine, i doubt it.
there's gonna be an interview with dave mustaine in the next
hm mag. don't quote me on marty, but i'm about 75%. not that
it matters what i think he is/or not anyway...)
and don't forget about...
van halen (gary cherone)
Dan
---+ +---
Dan Temmesfeld - mailto:dan...@erinet.com
"Home of the Galactic Cowboys Pages"
http://www.cedarville.edu/student/s1133627/gcowboys.htm
Summer 1997 Update site:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/1853/
---+ +---
David Murray
Nanene Cowan wrote in article <01bc9205$10d641a0$6f7f...@nicki.nauticom.ne
t>...
>I'm pretty sure MxPx are a chritian band. They are at every christian
>bookstore that I've been to.
Well, that makes it official, then.
>> > Marilyn Manson (he sings about Jesus all the time!)
>Are you sure about this one? Why all of the protests by christians if he
>is a christian. I think he's pretty open about being against
christianity.
Can you say, "Troll?"
Dave Murray / db-m...@rfci.net
reply by removing the dash from the address above
visit my homepage http//www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/1005
Making hay while the sun shines
veronica
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, veronica wrote:
>
> > Mark Silva wrote: (or it could have been)
> > >
>
>
> rumors. rumors are evil.
> mxpx is still on tooth and nail.
okay. so maybe they're not still on tooth and nail.
see what i get for being a know it all?
veronica
Dan Temmesfeld
Cheef Dan wrote:
>
> Boston has one member who's a Christian, although he's dead.
um... so therefore...they _don't_ have a membewr who's a Christian...
;)
Mark Chaffee
Dan Temmesfeld wrote:
>
> Cheef Dan wrote:
> >
> > Boston has one member who's a Christian, although he's dead.
>
> um... so therefore...they _don't_ have a membewr who's a Christian...
> ;)
Could be an interesting marketing ploy... having a dead guy in your
band.
"Now on tour, the Boston reunion - featuring ALL the original members.
Even the dead ones."
Heck, I'd go see that show.
--
- Mark Chaffee
The Not The Joneses Homepage
is now @ http://www.ntj.com
Nic
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> A conundrum:
>
> 1) A secular band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY
> songs which are Godly.
>
> 2) Thus, a secular band could be expected to have songs with themes the
> Bible is specific on as being ungodly. Please, no debates over which
> themes may be considered ungodly under what circumstances etc.
>
> 3) How can a commited Christian in all honesty play songs which are
> ungodly? Of course, the band may be sympathetic to a Christian member's
> beliefs and not expect him to play certain songs, but I imagine that
> would happen only in bands composed of close friends.
>
Nic writes:
cluck, cluck, cluck.....
Patrick of Omaha
Nanene Cowan <ni...@nauticom.net> wrote in article
<01bc9205$10d641a0$6f7f...@nicki.nauticom.net>...
> > > Marilyn Manson (he sings about Jesus all the time!)
> Are you sure about this one? Why all of the protests by christians if he
> is a christian. I think he's pretty open about being against
christianity.
>
I think you missed the sarcasm that was intended in the original post.
Patrick Morrison
pa...@ix.netcom.com
Larry Seiler
Mark Chaffee wrote:
>
> Dan Temmesfeld wrote:
> >
> > Cheef Dan wrote:
> > >
> > > Boston has one member who's a Christian, although he's dead.
> >
> > um... so therefore...they _don't_ have a membewr who's a Christian...
> > ;)
>
> Could be an interesting marketing ploy... having a dead guy in your
> band.
>
> "Now on tour, the Boston reunion - featuring ALL the original members.
> Even the dead ones."
>
> Heck, I'd go see that show.
>
> --
> - Mark Chaffee
Don't know which member it would be, but it would probably start up a
whole new line of musician jokes...perhaps the one time a bass player is
called upon for a bass solo!
Larry Seiler
Jerry B. Ray
>A conundrum:
>1) A secular band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY
>songs which are Godly.
>2) Thus, a secular band could be expected to have songs with themes the
>Bible is specific on as being ungodly. Please, no debates over which
>themes may be considered ungodly under what circumstances etc.
You're missing that large area that lies between "Godly" and "Ungodly."
Example? "Happy Birthday To You." Think about it.
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"I am so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month.
I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis."
-- Zaphod Beeblebrox
Jeff Holland
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
: A conundrum:
: 1) A secular band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY
: songs which are Godly.
: 2) Thus, a secular band could be expected to have songs with themes the
: Bible is specific on as being ungodly. Please, no debates over which
: themes may be considered ungodly under what circumstances etc.
Whaaaaaa? You lost me here....
Are you saying that a secular band _cannot_ play songs that
have themes that are biblical?? Or are you saying that a secular band
_must_ have songs about things the Bible says is ungodly?
Jeff
(Huh?)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
alliamforallYouarebecausewhatineedandwhatibelieveareworldsapart
Jars of Clay- "Worlds Apart"
Jeff Holland jhol...@cc.gatech.edu http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt5276b
jcow...@hotmail.com
vap...@prism.gatech.edu (Jerry B. Ray) wrote:
> <jcow...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >2) Thus, a secular band could be expected to have songs with themes the
> >Bible is specific on as being ungodly. Please, no debates over which
> >themes may be considered ungodly under what circumstances etc.
>
> You're missing that large area that lies between "Godly" and "Ungodly."
> Example? "Happy Birthday To You." Think about it.
You're right, I didn't even think of that large area of neutrality.
Regardless of my mistake, however, I don't think that in the secular
music arena the area of neutrality would be large. Eg: what percentage of
secular band songs would say are "neutral" in all honesty? I don't
reckon anyone can truthfully claim that the vast vast vast majority of
secular bands not only admit but glorify ungodly themes, behaviour etc.
Seeya
- Jono
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Dan Temmesfeld
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> A conundrum:
>
> 1) A secular band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY
> songs which are Godly.
secular means "not sacred." it doesn't mean "unholy." it just means that
it is not for the _direct purpose_ of glorifying God. it is not good, nor
is it bad. it is temporal.
there is no such thing as a "secular band." any band can write a "religious"
song or a "secular" song. it really has no bearing on their spiritual
position. a christian can (and they do) write "secular" songs- songs that
are not sacred but not bad. nothing wrong with this. an artist in the
mainstream realm (or how you would refer to it as "secular") can write a
religious or sacred song. it happens.
my point is that your point was no point whatsoever... ;)
> 2) Thus, a secular band could be expected to have songs with themes the
> Bible is specific on as being ungodly. Please, no debates over which
> themes may be considered ungodly under what circumstances etc.
um, no, not necessarily. a "secular band" just means that they don't focus
their attention on sacred ideas all of the time. this is neither deemed
good nor bad. it doesn't mean that they are ungodly, it just means that
they write stuff that is not _always_ about God. read the lyrics for the
Galactic Cowboys, King's X, U2, Vigilantes of Love, Atomic Opera, etc, etc,
etc... they are not "sacred" songs (all of the time), but i wouldn't call
the "secular" tunes UNGODLY. get it??
> 3) How can a commited Christian in all honesty play songs which are
> ungodly? Of course, the band may be sympathetic to a Christian member's
> beliefs and not expect him to play certain songs, but I imagine that
> would happen only in bands composed of close friends.
this point is based on the other points, which really don't make sense, so
therefore, this point is negated. the "secular songs" do not = ungodly (per
se), so it has nothing to do with a commited christian writing them or not...
it's not *your* christian life that they're living.
and about a secular band with one or more members being christian... it can
happen. look at extreme. i'm sure paul and pat didn't beef about gary's or
nuno's beliefs. mike portnoy of dream theater doesn't dog anybody else in
the band (john petrucci) for being catholic (or whatever the certain case is).
it's called courtesy. even with differing views and beliefs- THERE CAN BE
HARMONY AND UNITY.
peace,
jcow...@hotmail.com
jhol...@cc.gatech.edu (Jeff Holland) wrote:
>
> Whaaaaaa? You lost me here....
>
> Are you saying that a secular band _cannot_ play songs that
> have themes that are biblical?? Or are you saying that a secular band
> _must_ have songs about things the Bible says is ungodly?
Neither! Sorry, Jeff. I just meant that, if a band is not Christian, what
motivation would they have for writing/playing only godly songs? They
would have no such motivation!
So therefore, I think we can make the assumption that, having no
motivation for only doing godly songs, they would thus play ungodly
songs.
NB!!: Where I failed to make the distinction is in the previous sentence.
The phrase "they would thus play ungodly songs" is not meant to imply
that the band would or could ONLY play ungodly songs; just that, if they
have no desire to play only godly songs, why on Earth would they restrict
themselves to only godly songs? Or even "neutral" songs as has been
pointed out to me in another post. You get my drift?
Sorry for the confusion mate!
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
> > Boston has one member who's a Christian, although he's dead.
> um... so therefore...they _don't_ have a membewr who's a Christian...
Right... for "dead christian" is an oxymoron, right. ;)
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman J.Tig...@pi.net (private)
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
>A conundrum:
>1) A secular band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY
>songs which are Godly.
Actually, they have every reason, as the invisible things of him are
clearly seen. They would be in fact without excuse otherwise. :-|
>2) Thus, a secular band could be expected to have songs with themes the
"Could be expected" is not a logical operator.
>Bible is specific on as being ungodly.
I don't think there are "ungodly themes". There might be a question
about the godlier or less godly treatment of themes, though.
>3) How can a commited Christian in all honesty play songs which are
>ungodly?
Probably a case of a difference in interpretation. Actually, I would
think that a christian in a band would severely reduce the odds of
"ungodly songs" cropping up, but maybe that's just me..
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman J.Tig...@pi.net (private)
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
> jhol...@cc.gatech.edu (Jeff Holland) wrote:
> have themes that are biblical?? Or are you saying that a secular band
>> _must_ have songs about things the Bible says is ungodly?
And how is that different?
>NB!!: Where I failed to make the distinction is in the previous sentence.
>The phrase "they would thus play ungodly songs" is not meant to imply
>that the band would or could ONLY play ungodly songs; just that, if they
>have no desire to play only godly songs, why on Earth would they restrict
>themselves to only godly songs? Or even "neutral" songs as has been
>pointed out to me in another post. You get my drift?
Yes, you are trying to confuse the issue.
>Sorry for the confusion mate!
Errr.. why the riddle, anyway?
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman J.Tig...@pi.net (private)
Dan Temmesfeld
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I just meant that, if a band is not Christian, what
> motivation would they have for writing/playing only godly songs? They
> would have no such motivation!
but the fact of the matter is that bands are not deemed as truly "christian"
or "secular." there is no way to blindly stereotype as such, because there
are some so-called "secular" bands that pose some very serious christian
themes in their music. the dichotomy fails...
i don't mind too much people using the two terms...but to say that a "secular"
artists _cannot_ write christian stuff is to just shown ignorance on the issue.
because a "secular" artist does not mean that the person is not a believer...
> So therefore, I think we can make the assumption that, having no
> motivation for only doing godly songs, they would thus play ungodly
> songs.
therefore, you're assuming on something that is false anyway. you're jumping
to conclusions before rationally thinking it through.
plus, your assumption is false *even if* your basis was true. a song that is
not directly _godly_ DOES NOT MEAN that is _ungodly_...
> NB!!: Where I failed to make the distinction is in the previous sentence.
> The phrase "they would thus play ungodly songs" is not meant to imply
> that the band would or could ONLY play ungodly songs; just that, if they
> have no desire to play only godly songs, why on Earth would they restrict
> themselves to only godly songs? Or even "neutral" songs as has been
> pointed out to me in another post. You get my drift?
what?? i'm confused...
Jerry B. Ray
In article <33D1FD...@erinet.com>,
Dan Temmesfeld <dan...@erinet.com> wrote:
>but the fact of the matter is that bands are not deemed as truly "christian"
>or "secular." there is no way to blindly stereotype as such, because there
>are some so-called "secular" bands that pose some very serious christian
>themes in their music. the dichotomy fails...
It works just fine for me. It just depends on what you're using it for,
I'd say.
Dan Temmesfeld
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> You're right, I didn't even think of that large area of neutrality.
> Regardless of my mistake, however, I don't think that in the secular
> music arena the area of neutrality would be large.
it's HUGE...
there are so many innocent little "secular" songs out that there that
aren't ungodly. i'd say that there are more of those than the ones that
*are* indeed ungodly. just my take on it...
> Eg: what percentage of
> secular band songs would say are "neutral" in all honesty? I don't
> reckon anyone can truthfully claim that the vast vast vast majority of
> secular bands not only admit but glorify ungodly themes, behaviour etc.
there's so much out there, it's unbelieveable. i think you're looking at
a small segment and saying that those represent the "secular" artists at
large. that's wrong.
stuff that kenny g does is nuetral, stuff that yanni does is nuetral (regard-
less of the new age mumbo-jumbo...instrumental music *is* nuetral). most
of U2's stuff is nuetral. even some of metallica's stuff is nuetral...of
course, they always have their one anti-god song per album, but the other
stuff is nuetral if you ask me.
an anti-war song would be nuetral...and a lot of bands do those. a parody
song (if clean context) would be nuetral. even a lot of songs on life (in
general) would be nuetral.
if you really expand your boundaries to all music, you'll find less and less
songs about pro-fornication, pro-drugs, etc, etc...
Jeff Holland
: > Whaaaaaa? You lost me here....
: >
: > Are you saying that a secular band _cannot_ play songs that
: > have themes that are biblical?? Or are you saying that a secular band
: > _must_ have songs about things the Bible says is ungodly?
: Neither! Sorry, Jeff. I just meant that, if a band is not Christian, what
: motivation would they have for writing/playing only godly songs? They
: would have no such motivation!
So, is it possible for a "secular" band to write a song that
contains an element of Truth in it? What about a "Christian" band that
likes to sing about songs with themes which are areligious?
Will McDonald likes to use a term, "Neo-Gnosticism", to describe
this desire to divide the world neatly into "Holy" and "Earthly." It's
simply not that easy.
There is a fascinating article in CCM written some two years ago
by Kerry Livgren about this debate. I wish I could dig it out. Anyone
else read it?
Jeff
Matt Laswell
Dan Temmesfeld (dan...@erinet.com) wrote:
: jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
: >
: > A conundrum:
: >
: > 1) A secular band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY
: > songs which are Godly.
: secular means "not sacred." it doesn't mean "unholy." it just means that
: it is not for the _direct purpose_ of glorifying God. it is not good, nor
: is it bad. it is temporal.
: there is no such thing as a "secular band." any band can write a "religious"
: song or a "secular" song. it really has no bearing on their spiritual
: position. a christian can (and they do) write "secular" songs- songs that
: are not sacred but not bad. nothing wrong with this. an artist in the
: mainstream realm (or how you would refer to it as "secular") can write a
: religious or sacred song. it happens.
: my point is that your point was no point whatsoever... ;)
Just to springboard off of Dan's comments, there are those who say that
the modern evangelical obsession with breaking the world up into "the
sacred" and "the secular" is simply the new gnosticism.
Or is it no longer true that "The earth is the Lord's and everything in it,
the world and all who live in it?"
- matt
jcow...@hotmail.com
Hi Dan! Hold onto your butt, it's a long one...
dan...@erinet.com wrote:
> jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > 1) A secular band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY
> > songs which are Godly.
>
> secular means "not sacred." it doesn't mean "unholy." it just means that
> it is not for the _direct purpose_ of glorifying God. it is not good, nor
> is it bad. it is temporal.
Very true. To quote a another reply to my post, "Happy Birthday to you"
fits into this area. I think you could term something neither Godly, nor
ungodly, as being "neutral".
> there is no such thing as a "secular band." any band can write a "religious"
> song or a "secular" song. it really has no bearing on their spiritual
> position. a christian can (and they do) write "secular" songs- songs that
> are not sacred but not bad. nothing wrong with this. an artist in the
> mainstream realm (or how you would refer to it as "secular") can write a
> religious or sacred song. it happens.
I think I understand how you mean that first sentence of the directly
above para, but I don't think it relates to my original argument. I
consider a secular band to be a group whose spiritual position is, well,
not Christian! In the way that you can have Christian bookshops and
non-Christian bookshops, I think you can have Christian and non-Christian
bands (or secular bands, to use my wording). In the scientific world, for
example, you could divide the Creationist and Evolutionist viewpoints
into Christian and Secular, which is what I have equivalently done with
Christian and non-Christian bands. Whoah, nice use of multiple
parallels...I'll have to chuck that into my next essay.
And I really wasn't trying to say a Christian can't write/play secular
songs, or that a secular artist can't write/play Christian songs. I was
trying to say that a Christian would have problems if expected to play
UNGODLY (_not_ simply secular) songs. And I don't see why a secular band
would have any reason to avoid ungodly songs, thus problems could easily
arise for poor stuck-in-the-middle Christian man!
> my point is that your point was no point whatsoever... ;)
I don't really get your drift... in my first para I said that "A secular
band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY songs which are
Godly". I capitalised the "only" to make sure my p.of v. was clear. I
wasn't trying to say secular = ungodly, nor to argue the definition of a
secular band or who can play what types of song :).
> > 2) Thus, a secular band could be expected to have songs with themes the
> > Bible is specific on as being ungodly. Please, no debates over which
> > themes may be considered ungodly under what circumstances etc.
>
> um, no, not necessarily. a "secular band" just means that they don't focus
> their attention on sacred ideas all of the time. this is neither deemed
> good nor bad. it doesn't mean that they are ungodly, it just means that
> they write stuff that is not _always_ about God. read the lyrics for the
> Galactic Cowboys, King's X, U2, Vigilantes of Love, Atomic Opera, etc, etc,
> etc... they are not "sacred" songs (all of the time), but i wouldn't call
> the "secular" tunes UNGODLY. get it??
I know what you mean! But I wasn't really trying to make the themes in
your last para my argument. Secular does NOT automatically = ungodly,
that is a ridiculous statement that even a drongo (Dron-go, a bit of
historical hysterical Aus culture) like me wouldn't make.
My point is: Every single secular band I know about has
themes/songs/filmclips or whatever that are not merely neutral, but
ungodly. This is because they would have no reason for avoiding ungodly
songs. Even if there is only one example of these per secular band, my
argument remains unrefuted (In my mind at least! hehehhe), as far as I
wrote and intended it. To use your example of U2 as an illustration: the
sexual connotations of the "Pop" (?) filmclip. Biblically, this is
clearly ungodly. If a committed Christian, how could you be involved in
that project, _regardless of whether the band does, did or will cover
Christian or Godly songs_? If involved, you are helping spread sin, and
quite seriously (if indirectly) through the impressions you are making on
people about Christianity.
(Incidentally, I personally consider King's X a Christian band, after
reading all their lyrics that I have access to. Are they actually a
non-Christian band? I'm interested to know.)
> > 3) How can a commited Christian in all honesty play songs which are
> > ungodly? Of course, the band may be sympathetic to a Christian member's
> > beliefs and not expect him to play certain songs, but I imagine that
> > would happen only in bands composed of close friends.
>
> this point is based on the other points, which really don't make sense, so
> therefore, this point is negated. the "secular songs" do not = ungodly (per
> se), so it has nothing to do with a commited christian writing them or not...
> it's not *your* christian life that they're living.
I can see how this last point of mine was weak. However, I won't bother
arguing this point at great length because I'm getting tired, losing my
concentration (I have chronic fatigue syndrome, and it's a luxury to be
able to go to TAFE [college-school affair] and check out r.m.c. on the
same day) and I have to go to bed to sleep.
So, briefly: It is most likely that a given secular band will play songs
which are ungodly. I don't think this statement is sweeping, as it is
based on the logical fact that a secular band would have no reason to
avoid ungodly songs. Since it is thus logically likely they will play
ungodly songs, a Christian in the band is likely to come across problems
at one time or another. That is the start and end of my original
argument, though I imagine no-one else likes my logic...hehe
> and about a secular band with one or more members being christian... it can
> happen. look at extreme. i'm sure paul and pat didn't beef about gary's or
> nuno's beliefs. mike portnoy of dream theater doesn't dog anybody else in
> the band (john petrucci) for being catholic (or whatever the certain case is).
> it's called courtesy. even with differing views and beliefs- THERE CAN BE
> HARMONY AND UNITY.
I agree with you. It's identical to the way you can be a Christian and
work with non-Christians. Again, my whole argument was about how, if a
Christian in a non-Christian band, you would be under the extremely
likely pressure, at _least_ once in your career, of playing songs which
conflicted with your spiritual beliefs.
Yours is the third negative reply I've had on this. What's the big deal
anyway?! I was simply presenting a personal perspective on what I think
is an important topic.
Seeya!
Will McDonald
In <8694878...@dejanews.com> jcow...@hotmail.com writes:
>
>Hi Dan! Hold onto your butt, it's a long one...
>
> dan...@erinet.com wrote:
>> jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snippo grande]
>And I really wasn't trying to say a Christian can't write/play secular
>songs, or that a secular artist can't write/play Christian songs. I
was
>trying to say that a Christian would have problems if expected to play
>UNGODLY (_not_ simply secular) songs. And I don't see why a secular
band
>would have any reason to avoid ungodly songs, thus problems could
easily
>arise for poor stuck-in-the-middle Christian man!
There are lots of reasons why a non-Christian would avoid "ungodly"
music. You appear to presume that non-Christians have no sense of
morality or propriety. That is patently false. Some of the most
traditionally moral and likable people I have known have been
unbelievers (even a little hostile to the gospel). Some "Christians" I
have known (especially Christian leaders) have been some of the
sorriest
examples of humanity that I have ever encountered.
>My point is: Every single secular band I know about has
>themes/songs/filmclips or whatever that are not merely neutral, but
>ungodly.
Maybe you need to listen to different music!
>This is because they would have no reason for avoiding ungodly
>songs. Even if there is only one example of these per secular band, my
>argument remains unrefuted (In my mind at least! hehehhe), as far as I
>wrote and intended it. To use your example of U2 as an illustration:
the
>sexual connotations of the "Pop" (?) filmclip.
Huh? There's no particular "Pop" clip. Are you possibly referring to
"Discotheque?" In any case, "sexual connotations" are not necessarily
"ungodly."
>Biblically, this is clearly ungodly.
You should have said, "In my opinion, this is clearly ungodly." Since
I'm not sure what you are talking about, I won't try to comment further
on the specifics.
Here's a question for you. Should Steven Spielburg have made the film
"Schindler's List?" It depicted all sorts of "ungodly" behavior. By
almost anyone's standards, genocide is evil.
>If a committed Christian, how could you be involved in
>that project, _regardless of whether the band does, did or will cover
>Christian or Godly songs_? If involved, you are helping spread sin,
and
>quite seriously (if indirectly) through the impressions you are making
on
>people about Christianity.
Yeah, people might think Christianity is something other than blind
legalism... :-)
[snip]
>So, briefly: It is most likely that a given secular band will play
songs
>which are ungodly. I don't think this statement is sweeping, as it is
>based on the logical fact that a secular band would have no reason to
>avoid ungodly songs. Since it is thus logically likely they will play
>ungodly songs, a Christian in the band is likely to come across
problems
>at one time or another. That is the start and end of my original
>argument, though I imagine no-one else likes my logic...hehe
Your logic is based upon too many false assumptions to be considered a
valid guide.
>Yours is the third negative reply I've had on this. What's the big
deal
>anyway?! I was simply presenting a personal perspective on what I
think
>is an important topic.
This will be at least the fourth... :-) It is fine you are sharing
your personal perspective. (I'm glad you're here!) Just don't expect
your opinions to go unchallenged. Mine are routinely challenged even
by
some of my closest 'net friends. We can all learn something from
another perspective.
Will
--
"If the Christian subculture exists primarily to condemn the world,
you can be sure that Jesus is not having any part of it."
-- John Fischer
Will McDonald
In <33D15E...@erinet.com> Dan Temmesfeld <dan...@erinet.com>
writes:
>there is no such thing as a "secular band." any band can write a
"religious"
>song or a "secular" song. it really has no bearing on their spiritual
>position. a christian can (and they do) write "secular" songs- songs
that
>are not sacred but not bad.
I have been told (I hope it is not a Christian urban legend like the
"Phil Keaggy" rumors!) that Chris Christian wrote "Get Physical" that
Olivia Newton John made famous is the early eighties. In that case, it
was a Christian writing a "secular" song with interesting implications.
(If anyone will admit to an Olivia Newton John album, please check the
credits and confirm this information.)
jcow...@hotmail.com
J.Tig...@pi.net (Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman) wrote:
>
> jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > jhol...@cc.gatech.edu (Jeff Holland) wrote:
> > have themes that are biblical?? Or are you saying that a secular band
> >> _must_ have songs about things the Bible says is ungodly?
>
> And how is that different?
Is this directed at me, or Jeff Holland?
> >themselves to only godly songs? Or even "neutral" songs as has been
> >pointed out to me in another post. You get my drift?
>
> Yes, you are trying to confuse the issue.
Thanks for that
> Errr.. why the riddle, anyway?
Riddle?
jcow...@hotmail.com
dan...@erinet.com wrote:
> but the fact of the matter is that bands are not deemed as truly "christian"
> or "secular." there is no way to blindly stereotype as such, because there
> are some so-called "secular" bands that pose some very serious christian
> themes in their music. the dichotomy fails...
I never denied that secular bands can play Christian songs. I don't see
how your statement relates to the basis of my argument: A given
non-Christian band would have no motivation to play only Godly songs, and
so a Christian in that band would likely come to a crisis at some point
over the ungodliness of the (likelihood of) certain songs.
> i don't mind too much people using the two terms...but to say that a "secular"
> artists _cannot_ write christian stuff is to just shown ignorance on the issue.
> because a "secular" artist does not mean that the person is not a believer...
But I never said a secular artist cannot write Christian stuff. That
doesn't even make sense! Just what is it you are trying to refute in my
argument?
> > So therefore, I think we can make the assumption that, having no
> > motivation for only doing godly songs, they would thus play ungodly
> > songs.
>
> therefore, you're assuming on something that is false anyway.
Why???
>you're jumping
> to conclusions before rationally thinking it through.
Thanks
> plus, your assumption is false *even if* your basis was true. a song that is
> not directly _godly_ DOES NOT MEAN that is _ungodly_...
I never asserted, nor tried to assert, any such thing. Again, that sort
of thinking doesn't even make sense.
[snip]
> > pointed out to me in another post. You get my drift?
>
> what?? i'm confused...
1) Picture a band. It's a non-Christian band. 2) Picture what the band
members are thinking about their next song. They ain't thinking, "Let's
write a song glorifying the one true and living God!" 3) Now, how likely
is it that the band will have at least some songs in it's repertoire
which are ungodly? More likely that only having songs which are "neutral"
or Godly... After all, the Bible tells us that things that come from the
heart of man are sinful (Cannot remember verse or actual quote).
- Jono
jcow...@hotmail.com
Hi Jeroen,
J.Tig...@pi.net (Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman) wrote:
> jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >A conundrum:
> >1) A secular band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY
> >songs which are Godly.
>
> Actually, they have every reason, as the invisible things of him are
> clearly seen. They would be in fact without excuse otherwise. :-|
I don't really follow you? If I personally was a non-Christian musician,
I think I would be playing what raked in the money, which sadly happens
to be just about anything _except_ Christianity.
> >2) Thus, a secular band could be expected to have songs with themes the
>
> "Could be expected" is not a logical operator.
Ok, but you know what I meant, right? hehehe
> >Bible is specific on as being ungodly.
>
> I don't think there are "ungodly themes". There might be a question
> about the godlier or less godly treatment of themes, though.
Yes, you're right. When I mentioned "ungodly themes" I was referring to
themes which glorify ungodliness, Ie: "ungodly" being the descriptive of
theme _treatment_. Eg: theme of Satanism. "Godly" theme = against, while
"ungodly" theme = neutral or for.
> >3) How can a commited Christian in all honesty play songs which are
> >ungodly?
>
> Probably a case of a difference in interpretation.
I guess it could be, in various situations. But I don't think that an
anti-Christ Marilyn Mansen (sp?) ditty could be interpreted by a
Christian in another way than the song was obviously intended. Yes, a
very extreme example, but at least it shows there is more than one side
to the story (As you have pointed out).
>Actually, I would
> think that a christian in a band would severely reduce the odds of
> "ungodly songs" cropping up, but maybe that's just me..
I didn't think of that... I believe you could be right, but I'm sure this
whole argument/topic would in real life depend heavily on circumstance.
Seeya later
jcow...@hotmail.com
dan...@erinet.com wrote:
> there are so many innocent little "secular" songs out that there that
> aren't ungodly. i'd say that there are more of those than the ones that
> *are* indeed ungodly. just my take on it...
I appreciate your point, but to be truthful I was referring not merely to
the percentage of _songs that are ungodly_, but to the percentage of
_bands who play songs that are ungodly_. Taken this way, the percentage
is much greater. For example, using my percentile method just described,
there is a massive amount of bands that I would consider a Christian
having problems playing with.
Of course, listening to the band's songs is totally different, as you can
be selective as to what you listen to. Ie: you can skip the "ungodly"
songs on a CD.
> > Eg: what percentage of
> > secular band songs would say are "neutral" in all honesty? I don't
> > reckon anyone can truthfully claim that the vast vast vast majority of
> > secular bands not only admit but glorify ungodly themes, behaviour etc.
>
> there's so much out there, it's unbelieveable. i think you're looking at
> a small segment and saying that those represent the "secular" artists at
> large. that's wrong.
No, I think it's just that I we are defining things on different levels
(See my 1st para in this post, and apply it to your above para. I'm not
concerned about the definition of seperate songs, but of whole bands).
Even if a band/artist does just a single song which, to quote myself,
"admit... glorify ungodly themes, behaviour etc.", (IE: ungodly) the band
can be included in my metaphorical "too hard box" as one a Christian
would have problems with playing in.
> stuff that kenny g does is nuetral, stuff that yanni does is nuetral (regard-
> less of the new age mumbo-jumbo...instrumental music *is* nuetral).
Yup.
> most
> of U2's stuff is nuetral. even some of metallica's stuff is nuetral...of
> course, they always have their one anti-god song per album, but the other
> stuff is nuetral if you ask me.
The percentage or number of neutral, ungodly or godly songs that a band
covers is, in my original argument, beside the point. The fact that the
band covers such songs at all is my basis on the assertion that a
Christian involved would likely run into problems.
> an anti-war song would be nuetral...and a lot of bands do those. a parody
> song (if clean context) would be nuetral. even a lot of songs on life (in
> general) would be nuetral.
Yes, but as I pointed out this is irrelevant to my argument.
> if you really expand your boundaries to all music, you'll find less and less
> songs about pro-fornication, pro-drugs, etc, etc...
I must admit, though, that I never considered such bizarre concepts as
South American Bongo Music, Mozart or Hawaiian Dance Music in my
arguments (Ie: expanding my boundaries)... but surely they shouldn't
count in this case (I hope, as they would demolish my "percentages"
system of band definition!)
clive
Dan Temmesfeld
> jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > A conundrum:
> >
> > 1) A secular band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY
> > songs which are Godly.
why not?. "godly" seems to be a very nebulous concept when applied
to music..
> > 2) Thus, a secular band could be expected to have songs with themes the
> > Bible is specific on as being ungodly. Please, no debates over which
> > themes may be considered ungodly under what circumstances etc.
so this division of christian/secular is merely a convenient way
of describing what you expect to get?.. this is a very dubious
judgement process.
> > 3) How can a commited Christian in all honesty play songs which are
> > ungodly? Of course, the band may be sympathetic to a Christian member's
> > beliefs and not expect him to play certain songs, but I imagine that
> > would happen only in bands composed of close friends.
well i think it would be hard to be in a band if everyone didnt
get along...
> and about a secular band with one or more members being christian... it can
> happen. look at extreme. i'm sure paul and pat didn't beef about gary's or
> nuno's beliefs. mike portnoy of dream theater doesn't dog anybody else in
> the band (john petrucci) for being catholic (or whatever the certain case is).
> it's called courtesy. even with differing views and beliefs- THERE CAN BE
> HARMONY AND UNITY.
music can be a unifier. and from what i have seen, the fact that
all members in a band might be christian, doesnt appear to stop
break-ups, theological arguments, and general friction among band
members.. try to imagine living in northern ireland, and composing
a band of catholics and protestants to write songs with "religious
themes"...
if you write honestly, it will reflect the transcendent nature
of your experience... who cares if it follows the dogma?
> peace,
> Dan
clive
jcow...@hotmail.com
jhol...@cc.gatech.edu (Jeff Holland) wrote:
> So, is it possible for a "secular" band to write a song that
> contains an element of Truth in it? What about a "Christian" band that
> likes to sing about songs with themes which are areligious?
Yes, and Yes. I wasn't trying to say otherwise, simply that a secular
band would have no reason to write _only_ godly songs, and draw a loose
conclusion on the probs a Christian band member may face thus.
> Will McDonald likes to use a term, "Neo-Gnosticism", to describe
> this desire to divide the world neatly into "Holy" and "Earthly." It's
> simply not that easy.
I don't think it's that easy either. But to be fair, I wasn't trying to
do that. I was simply offering a comment on the problems which are likely
to face a Christian in a non-Christian band.
clive
Dan Temmesfeld wrote:
> jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > You're right, I didn't even think of that large area of neutrality.
> > Regardless of my mistake, however, I don't think that in the secular
> > music arena the area of neutrality would be large.
>
> it's HUGE...
yes.
> > Eg: what percentage of
> > secular band songs would say are "neutral" in all honesty? I don't
> > reckon anyone can truthfully claim that the vast vast vast majority of
> > secular bands not only admit but glorify ungodly themes, behaviour etc.
i think your perpective is misplaced...
> even some of metallica's stuff is nuetral...
is this some new american way of spelling "neutral"?.. :)
> of course, they always have their one anti-god song per album,
?????.. i think this highly debateable. i think most people
point to "the god that failed" as being anti-god.. but that's
a matter of misinterpretation (wrong perspective).. RtL, MoP,
and AJFA tackle much different themes.. for example, the song
"master of puppets" is about drugs.. does this make it "ungodly"?..
i dont think so.
> an anti-war song would be nuetral...and a lot of bands do those.
ah, you mean like "for whom the bell tolls", or "disposeable heroes".
;)
or perhaps "holy wars" by megadeth... (part of that song is
about northern ireland! ;))..
"stop the hate" by lillian axe... and more and more and... ;)
> a parody song (if clean context) would be nuetral.
what would be a "clean context"?.. or was that meant to be 'content'..
;)
it appears to me, that a lot of parody and satire is misunderstood
anyway.. carcass' "buried dreams" is a good example.. "welcome to
a world of hate...."
> even a lot of songs on life (in general) would be nuetral.
does experience have some kind of neutrality?. ;)
> if you really expand your boundaries to all music, you'll find
> less and less songs about pro-fornication, pro-drugs, etc, etc...
maybe they should start listening to heavy/power/prog metal... ;)
although i think the majority of the evangelical movement fears
sensualism..
> Dan
clive
clive
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
> dan...@erinet.com wrote:
> > there are so many innocent little "secular" songs out that there that
> > aren't ungodly. i'd say that there are more of those than the ones
> > that *are* indeed ungodly. just my take on it...
>
> I appreciate your point, but to be truthful I was referring
> not merely to the percentage of _songs that are ungodly_, but
> to the percentage of _bands who play songs that are ungodly_.
> Taken this way, the percentage is much greater. For example,
> using my percentile method just described, there is a massive
> amount of bands that I would consider a Christian
> having problems playing with.
christians dont seem to have "problems" with 'christian' bands...
and some of that stuff is much worse!
> No, I think it's just that I we are defining things on different levels
> (See my 1st para in this post, and apply it to your above para. I'm not
> concerned about the definition of seperate songs, but of whole bands).
and how do you judge whole bands, if not by their *catalogue* of
work?.. is one or two songs enough for an overall perspective?
> > an anti-war song would be nuetral...and a lot of bands do
> > those. a parody song (if clean context) would be nuetral.
> > even a lot of songs on life (in general) would be nuetral.
>
> Yes, but as I pointed out this is irrelevant to my argument.
i think you mean your argument is irrelevant.
> > if you really expand your boundaries to all music, you'll
> > find less and less songs about pro-fornication, pro-drugs, etc, etc...
>
> I must admit, though, that I never considered such bizarre concepts as
> South American Bongo Music, Mozart or Hawaiian Dance Music in my
> arguments (Ie: expanding my boundaries)... but surely they shouldn't
> count in this case (I hope, as they would demolish my "percentages"
> system of band definition!)
you don't even need to go to such "bizarre concepts"....
> - Jono
clive
Jeff Holland
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
: dan...@erinet.com wrote:
: > but the fact of the matter is that bands are not deemed as truly "christian"
: > or "secular." there is no way to blindly stereotype as such, because there
: > are some so-called "secular" bands that pose some very serious christian
: > themes in their music. the dichotomy fails...
: I never denied that secular bands can play Christian songs. I don't see
: how your statement relates to the basis of my argument: A given
: non-Christian band would have no motivation to play only Godly songs, and
: so a Christian in that band would likely come to a crisis at some point
: over the ungodliness of the (likelihood of) certain songs.
This does happen, though sometimes its the non-Christian members
of the band that come to a crisis about Godly lyrics. As always, I must
recommend Kerry Livgren's "Seeds of Change" for a good read about a
Christian in a band in which all the members are not Christians.
Mitchell K Dwyer
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
: You're right, I didn't even think of that large area of neutrality.
: Regardless of my mistake, however, I don't think that in the secular
: music arena the area of neutrality would be large. Eg: what percentage of
: secular band songs would say are "neutral" in all honesty? I don't
: reckon anyone can truthfully claim that the vast vast vast majority of
: secular bands not only admit but glorify ungodly themes, behaviour etc.
hm. do you watch television? isn't watching television as equally
participatory as BEING on tv? is everything you watch on tv "godly," as
you put it? if not, you're guilty of whatever it is you're accusing
christian musicians in secular bands of.
Dan Temmesfeld
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 1) Picture a band.
ok.
> It's a non-Christian band.
doesn't exist in my thinking. a band is a band.
> 2) Picture what the band
> members are thinking about their next song. They ain't thinking, "Let's
> write a song glorifying the one true and living God!"
you're silly...
> 3) Now, how likely
> is it that the band will have at least some songs in it's repertoire
> which are ungodly?
just becuase they don't write any or all "godly" songs, doesn't mean that
they will write any "ungodly" songs either.
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Hi Jeroen,
Hi! :-)
>> >1) A secular band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY
>> >songs which are Godly.
>> Actually, they have every reason, as the invisible things of him are
>> clearly seen. They would be in fact without excuse otherwise. :-|
>I don't really follow you?
An alternative way of saying "you don't have to be a christian to have
a sense of morality". It's really just a rephrase of a couple of
verses in Romans 1.
>If I personally was a non-Christian musician, I think I would be playing what
>raked in the money, which sadly happens to be just about anything _except_
>Christianity.
I am disappointed in you. I don't think all that many bands are
playing to rake in money (oh, most of the ones you see most on t.v.
possibly...). Now, I am a computer professional and not a musician,
but I am not picking a job to make an enormous amount of money. It's
much more important to me that I like what I am doing, and the
environment in which I am doing it. I don't see much reason to assume
that that has anything to with the profession in question [or faith in
God, or lack thereof, for that matter].
(Talking about making money.. I can't shake the feeling that labelling
music as 'christian music", and demonizing all that doesn't get the
approval stamp could be a damn clever way to make money... Sure, it
would just be a fringe market, but then again it would be yet another
fringe market, and you might hit on a steady stream of money coming
your way.. Hmmm..)
>> >2) Thus, a secular band could be expected to have songs with themes the
>> "Could be expected" is not a logical operator.
>Ok, but you know what I meant, right? hehehe
No, actually I didn't. It seemed like a convoluted phrase with
connatations of "could have" and "should be expected" mixed up.
I'd assert the former, but not the latter. (And of course the former
is pretty much meaningless.)
>> >Bible is specific on as being ungodly.
>> I don't think there are "ungodly themes". There might be a question
>> about the godlier or less godly treatment of themes, though.
>Yes, you're right. When I mentioned "ungodly themes" I was referring to
>themes which glorify ungodliness, Ie: "ungodly" being the descriptive of
But themes are things you are going on about. They do not of
themselves present a point of view, and the point of view still isn't
the intention, and the intention isn't necessarily what comes
across... (and what comes across may be meant as a warning). :-|
>> >3) How can a commited Christian in all honesty play songs which are
>> >ungodly?
>> Probably a case of a difference in interpretation.
>I guess it could be, in various situations. But I don't think that an
>anti-Christ Marilyn Mansen (sp?) ditty could be interpreted by a
>Christian in another way than the song was obviously intended. Yes, a
I believe the spelling is Marilyn Manson, though I've never either
heard or read anything by this band, so i cannot readily comment. I've
heard they are rather unmistakable, though. :-|
>very extreme example, but at least it shows there is more than one side
>to the story (As you have pointed out).
Now that is usually the case. ;-)
>>Actually, I would think that a christian in a band would severely reduce
>>the odds of "ungodly songs" cropping up, but maybe that's just me..
>I didn't think of that... I believe you could be right, but I'm sure this
>whole argument/topic would in real life depend heavily on circumstance.
Oh, for sure we missed a couple more variables..
>Seeya later
Ciao! :-)
>- Jono
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman J.Tig...@pi.net (private)
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
>1) Picture a band. It's a non-Christian band. 2) Picture what the band
>members are thinking about their next song. They ain't thinking, "Let's
What does 2) have to do with 1)???
*evil grin*
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman J.Tig...@pi.net (private)
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
Zane Young <za...@geocities.com> wrote:
>> (Talking about making money.. I can't shake the feeling that labelling
>> music as 'christian music", and demonizing all that doesn't get the
>> approval stamp could be a damn clever way to make money... Sure, it
>music' market, at least here in Australia where record stores don't sell
That's okay. For the record, I was not so much thinking of artists as
of marketeers there.
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman J.Tig...@pi.net (private)
Jerry B. Ray
In article <01bc9d13$a40d3640$28e9cccf@mark>,
Mark DeShazo <mdes...@chickasaw.com> wrote:
>> Very true. To quote a another reply to my post, "Happy Birthday to you"
>> fits into this area. I think you could term something neither Godly, nor
>> ungodly, as being "neutral".
>I just had to jump in here. I find it hard to believe that _anything_ we
>do or say can be labeled "neutral." Either it glorifies God, or it
>doesn't. Think about "Happy Birthday." This is an act of wishing someone
>well. It is celebrating life and sharing a special moment with some you
>love or at least care about. I would say that was a "Godly" song.
I would say that if you have to jump through so many hoops to wrangle
the song into the "Godly" camp or the "unGodly" camp that it might
as well be "neutral" when you get down to it. What about, say,
"Itsy Bitsy Spider" or something like that?
Is it even Biblical to try to divide STUFF into Godly and unGodly?
Mark DeShazo
> dan...@erinet.com wrote:
> > jcow...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > 1) A secular band would have no reason on Earth to play or write ONLY
> > > songs which are Godly.
> >
> > secular means "not sacred." it doesn't mean "unholy." it just means
that
> > it is not for the _direct purpose_ of glorifying God. it is not good,
nor
> > is it bad. it is temporal.
>
> Very true. To quote a another reply to my post, "Happy Birthday to you"
> fits into this area. I think you could term something neither Godly, nor
> ungodly, as being "neutral".
I just had to jump in here. I find it hard to believe that _anything_ we
do or say can be labeled "neutral." Either it glorifies God, or it
doesn't. Think about "Happy Birthday." This is an act of wishing someone
well. It is celebrating life and sharing a special moment with some you
love or at least care about. I would say that was a "Godly" song. I do
suppose that you could sing "Happy Birthday" in a manner that would be
perceived as "wrong" or evil...if you know what I mean. :-> There are a
lot of songs that appear to be "gray" upon an initial listen, but if you
think about the message then you will find that you CAN put them into one
category or another. I guess it is possible that some people may differ
over the same song, but usually that has to do more with the experiences
and spiritual position of the individuals.
If anything, I try to keep this attitude about life and the music I listen
to. For every action I take and song I listen to, I ask God, "Father, is
this what You want me to do?" It keeps my relationship with Him close.
Keep the change.
--
Mark DeShazo
mdes...@chickasaw.com
JCIL
Mark DeShazo
Jeff Holland <jhol...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in article
<5qtuud$3...@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>...
> : > Whaaaaaa? You lost me here....
> : >
> : > have themes that are biblical?? Or are you saying that a secular
band
> : > _must_ have songs about things the Bible says is ungodly?
>
what
> : motivation would they have for writing/playing only godly songs? They
> : would have no such motivation!
>
> contains an element of Truth in it? What about a "Christian" band that
> likes to sing about songs with themes which are areligious?
I know this is an old thread, but thought I'd throw out the question: What
about Triumph? They were never considered a "Christian" group, but many of
the lyrics were positive and seemed to even suggest a truth from the Bible.
I know this is rare, but would you consider Triumph a "good secular group"
or a "watered down Christian group?"
--
Mark DeShazo "Taking time to catch up on the news...there is news in all."
mdes...@chickasaw.com
JCIL
Alan Siu
In article <5romht$o...@acmey.gatech.edu>,
Jerry B. Ray <vap...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Is it even Biblical to try to divide STUFF into Godly and unGodly?
i would say, as a general rule, no. i don't see jesus wasting his time
sorting out songs to see which is so-called godly or ungodly. that's not
to say everything's neutral or that we should never discern whether
something is good for us or not or sounds good or says good or bad things.
but i don't think we should go about trying to divide everything into two
groups, godly and ungodly. before you know it, we'd start wondering
whether our clothes are godly or ungodly-- "is green glorifying to god? is
it edifying? maybe i should wear blue..."
Alan Siu
>over the same song, but usually that has to do more with the experiences
>and spiritual position of the individuals.
aren't you really saying, especially with the example of "happy birthday"
(said example that i deleted), that songs can be neutral but they can't be
neutral in how they fit into our lives? that the song in a vacuum can be
neutral, but how we use it and think about it makes the song to the glory
of god or not? you said happy birthday was wishing people well. so it
really has to do with how you use the song, not the song itself. so if i
used happy birthday as an anthem to kill people ritually it would be not
to the glory of god, right?
>If anything, I try to keep this attitude about life and the music I listen
>to. For every action I take and song I listen to, I ask God, "Father, is
>this what You want me to do?" It keeps my relationship with Him close.
hm... i might, maybe, maybe, might understand every song you listen to
checking it out, but every ACTION? EVERY action? um... you realize the
implications of this, right?
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
"Mark DeShazo" <mdes...@chickasaw.com> wrote:
>I just had to jump in here. I find it hard to believe that _anything_ we
>do or say can be labeled "neutral." Either it glorifies God, or it
>doesn't. Think about "Happy Birthday." This is an act of wishing someone
>well. It is celebrating life and sharing a special moment with some you
>love or at least care about. I would say that was a "Godly" song. I do
I would say that using it for that purpose was "Godly", but that this
didn't imply that the song was.
>perceived as "wrong" or evil...if you know what I mean. :-> There are a
>lot of songs that appear to be "gray" upon an initial listen, but if you
>think about the message then you will find that you CAN put them into one
>category or another. I guess it is possible that some people may differ
Or into both. That is mostly a matter of interpretation, and I don't
see how this "categorization" helps. It certainly isn't an apriori
thing.
>If anything, I try to keep this attitude about life and the music I listen
>to. For every action I take and song I listen to, I ask God, "Father, is
>this what You want me to do?" It keeps my relationship with Him close.
:)
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman J.Tig...@pi.net (private)
Dan Temmesfeld
Mark DeShazo wrote:
> I just had to jump in here. I find it hard to believe that _anything_ we
> do or say can be labeled "neutral." Either it glorifies God, or it
> doesn't.
when we were speaking neutral, we were distinguishing between "godly
lyrics" and "lyrics that were ungodly." with this breakdown, there
is neutrality. and, i believe, even the neutral stuff can be used
to glorify god...
> Think about "Happy Birthday." This is an act of wishing someone
> well. It is celebrating life and sharing a special moment with some you
> love or at least care about. I would say that was a "Godly" song.
um. ok, but i really don't see that as a "godly song," but rather quite
neutral...
> I do
> suppose that you could sing "Happy Birthday" in a manner that would be
> perceived as "wrong" or evil...if you know what I mean. :-> There are a
> lot of songs that appear to be "gray" upon an initial listen, but if you
> think about the message then you will find that you CAN put them into one
> category or another.
hence, neutral. they can go either way.
> I guess it is possible that some people may differ
> over the same song, but usually that has to do more with the experiences
> and spiritual position of the individuals.
correct.
Jerry B. Ray
In article <5rotcq$u15$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
Alan Siu <as...@login6.fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>Is it even Biblical to try to divide STUFF into Godly and unGodly?
>i would say, as a general rule, no. i don't see jesus wasting his time
>sorting out songs to see which is so-called godly or ungodly. that's not
>to say everything's neutral or that we should never discern whether
>something is good for us or not or sounds good or says good or bad things.
Yes, of course-there are things that are edifying and beneficial and
things that aren't-the Bible seems clear on that, at least. I wasn't
trying to deny that there _are_ messages and activities and what have
you that are "proper" for me as a Christian, and some that aren't.
>but i don't think we should go about trying to divide everything into two
>groups, godly and ungodly. before you know it, we'd start wondering
>whether our clothes are godly or ungodly-- "is green glorifying to god? is
>it edifying? maybe i should wear blue..."
Yep, that's the sort of thinking that I had in mind as a bad thing.
Star2gaze
All I can say is that sometimes, there is a grey area. It's neither good
nor bad, nor hot nor cold, nor happy, nor sad. Not everything is black
and white. When you start forcing things into catagories of right and
wrong, and other things, you start inferring and assuming. Sometimes,
things just ARE.
Saying, "I went out to eat yesterday" neither glorifies God, nor does it
go against God, it's just an observation. So I say, if you hear a song on
the radio that isn't Christian, but also doesn't go against Christian
principles, it just IS. It's just life.
Star*
Diakon II
Mark DeShazo writes:
>I find it hard to believe that _anything_ we
>do or say can be labeled "neutral." Either it glorifies God, or it
>doesn't. Think about "Happy Birthday." This is an act of wishing
someone
>well. It is celebrating life and sharing a special moment with some you
>love or at least care about. I would say that was a "Godly" song. I do
>suppose that you could sing "Happy Birthday" in a manner that would be
>perceived as "wrong" or evil...if you know what I mean. :->
Anyone ever consider how egocentric the "Happy Birthday" anthem is in
its construct? Cake & celebration et.al. are not at the invitation of our
Creator, but from a social fusion that the day of your birth should
celebrate you. Yet, He knew us from before... Songs that help us miss the
point of life as our God sees it can tend to re-define "good" or "neutral"
for us.
Marshall II
Spooky
Mark DeShazo wrote:
>
> Star2gaze <star...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19970801212...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> resume the point I was trying to make. Even in our everyday routine we
> glorify God. You can look at a sunset and say "God made a beautiful
> sunset." He is the creator of the sunset and it glorifies Him. He also
> created life and our everyday "living" glorifies Him. Perhaps I should
> ask: "Did Jesus do anything 'neutral?'" For Jesus NOT to sin he had to
> live every moment of his life glorifying the Father. Am I wrong? Again,
> we should view _everything_ we do with the attitude: What Would Jesus Do?
> Maybe I over-analyze, but I do sing certain songs or do certain things just
> because I enjoy them. I think it does glorify God because I am enjoying
> the life He has blessed me with and now I can share that with you.
> Remember, Jesus came to do the will of the Father. See John 5:19-20.
> Jesus said he could only do what the Father showed him to do. Sometimes
> that was sleeping, sometimes eating, maybe even dancing (dancing is only my
> speculation). Anyway, whether or not you agree I hope you see my point.
> Don't let it poke ya. (Sorry Bob).
Alan Wilder of Depeche Mode has publicly owned his Christianity...Does
that put Christians ahead, of should it bother us by the fact that
Depeche Mode has produced some sexually-exploitive tunes in its day?
Mark DeShazo
Mark DeShazo
Diakon II <diak...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970803065...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Mark DeShazo writes:
> >I find it hard to believe that _anything_ we
> >do or say can be labeled "neutral." Either it glorifies God, or it
> >doesn't. Think about "Happy Birthday." This is an act of wishing
someone
> >well. It is celebrating life and sharing a special moment with some you
> >love or at least care about. I would say that was a "Godly" song. I do
> >suppose that you could sing "Happy Birthday" in a manner that would be
> >perceived as "wrong" or evil...if you know what I mean. :->
>
> Anyone ever consider how egocentric the "Happy Birthday" anthem is in
> its construct? Cake & celebration et.al. are not at the invitation of our
> Creator, but from a social fusion that the day of your birth should
> celebrate you.
I don't think I would call it egocentric...unless you were throwing a party
for yourself. Usually birthday parties are thrown for other people. For
some people, it is a ritual. For others, they are genuinely sharing their
love for the person who is celebrating a special day...and if God is love,
then they are sharing God. Just more to chew on.
Spooky
topics discussed: Depeche Mode, U2, Scaterd Few, Klank...
> Spooky wrote:
> > Alan Wilder of Depeche Mode has publicly owned his Christianity...Does
> > that put Christians ahead, of should it bother us by the fact that
> > Depeche Mode has produced some sexually-exploitive tunes in its day?
>
> has the band put out questionable lyrics since then?
Actually, I spoke incorrectly. It was Andrew Fletcher of DM, not Alan
Wilder. But he was included in an Mtv story on Christians in music some
years ago. Since then, DM has published songs containing lyrics like "I
give in to sin because I like to practice what I preach," on the same
album (Music for the Masses) that had songs accompanied by sexual
breathing with the theme, "I want you now." DM's other lyrics include,
"I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors but I think that God's got
a sick sense of humor and when I die, I expect to find him laughing..."
and an entire song celebrating Master/Servant sexuality. Granted,
Flethcer has contributed nothing to these lyrics. But he is part of the
music group and helps create the songs themselves.
> My reason for wanting to know what bands have Christian members is just
> to try and gauge whether or not I may find their lyrics to be
> inoffensive to me since I have wasted alot of money in the past buying
> CDs that I ended up getting rid of because of some lyrical content.
> Depeche Mode was one such band. I really loved the music for the disc
> that had several versions of Personal Jesus, but after accepting Christ
> I found that I couldn't reconcile that world view with new beliefs.
What about bands like U2 that have claimed to be Christian in the past,
but still include occasional swear words, and still exalt themselves?
> So, IMO, if a band has one or more Christian members then it may be ( no
> guarantee ) that the lyrics are going acceptable to me. Personally, if
> I were in a band I would make sure that the lyrics didn't oppose my
> beliefs or I would be forced to leave. I'm sure that would be a hard
> choice to make, but for me it would be a necessary one.
Such was the case with Scaterd Few, a Christian punk band that was sold
exclusively in Christian stores with every other praise band, but
included non-Christian musicians backing the Christian singer. Or what
about Klank, an industrial musician who sells in Christian bookstores?
Klank has backed Christian bands like Argyle Park/Circle of Dust in the
past, but his solo album includes not one reference to God or Jesus. On
the contrary, he growls that he has "nothing but hate to give this
world," and "if I had my choice I'd rather be dead."
> But even when someone declares that they are Christian even that doesn't
> necessarily say much. I know that there are some who believe that they
> are Christian because they were born into a Christian family or have
> some belief in God. There are plenty of folks around who would call
> themselves Christian even though there is no difference in their life or
> lifestyle because of Christ and who have no real relationship with
> Jesus. Bottom line is that you can't really know what is in someone
> else's heart and/or whether they are really saved, but you can see
> whether there is any fruit being produced in their life.
> So, I would say that if I don't find the lyrics acceptable I won't
> listen regardless how many Christians are in the band. Case in point,
> VOL. I didn't find their lyrics to be edifying so I didn't keep the
> CDs. I don't really need to listen to analogies to pricks and sexual
> innuendo. Now, I'm not going to get all up in arms about it, it's just
> not something that I care to be listening to. I also don't think it is
> necessary to use profanity as some bands with Christian members feel
> that it is . . . I just don't want to listen to it.
David Thompson
Spooky wrote:
> Alan Wilder of Depeche Mode has publicly owned his Christianity...Does
> that put Christians ahead, of should it bother us by the fact that
> Depeche Mode has produced some sexually-exploitive tunes in its day?
What does "owned his Christianity" mean? When did he accept Christ and
has the band put out questionable lyrics since then?
My reason for wanting to know what bands have Christian members is just
to try and gauge whether or not I may find their lyrics to be
inoffensive to me since I have wasted alot of money in the past buying
CDs that I ended up getting rid of because of some lyrical content.
Depeche Mode was one such band. I really loved the music for the disc
that had several versions of Personal Jesus, but after accepting Christ
I found that I couldn't reconcile that world view with new beliefs.
So, IMO, if a band has one or more Christian members then it may be ( no
guarantee ) that the lyrics are going acceptable to me. Personally, if
I were in a band I would make sure that the lyrics didn't oppose my
beliefs or I would be forced to leave. I'm sure that would be a hard
choice to make, but for me it would be a necessary one.
But even when someone declares that they are Christian even that doesn't
necessarily say much. I know that there are some who believe that they
are Christian because they were born into a Christian family or have
some belief in God. There are plenty of folks around who would call
themselves Christian even though there is no difference in their life or
lifestyle because of Christ and who have no real relationship with
Jesus. Bottom line is that you can't really know what is in someone
else's heart and/or whether they are really saved, but you can see
whether there is any fruit being produced in their life.
So, I would say that if I don't find the lyrics acceptable I won't
listen regardless how many Christians are in the band. Case in point,
VOL. I didn't find their lyrics to be edifying so I didn't keep the
CDs. I don't really need to listen to analogies to pricks and sexual
innuendo. Now, I'm not going to get all up in arms about it, it's just
not something that I care to be listening to. I also don't think it is
necessary to use profanity as some bands with Christian members feel
that it is . . . I just don't want to listen to it.
--
blessings, david. <><
da...@fablink.com
http://www.fablink.com/david - Land-O-Worship
http://www.fablink.com/david/LandOWorship/row.htm - Ring Of Worship
Jerry B. Ray
In article <33F2233E...@fablink.com>,
David Thompson <da...@fablink.com> wrote:
>So, I would say that if I don't find the lyrics acceptable I won't
>listen regardless how many Christians are in the band. Case in point,
>VOL. I didn't find their lyrics to be edifying so I didn't keep the
>CDs. I don't really need to listen to analogies to pricks and sexual
>innuendo.
I think there's a bit more to VoL than that, if you listen beyond
"Love Cocoon," which isn't too much more racy than "Song Of Solomon"
or something...
the krying muse
loserboy wrote:
> "[chorus]:
> inside i feel the burning, somehow i know you're there
> outside my life is turning, can't believe for me you care
>
> i want to understand how this came to be
> what's my part in this? where do i fit?
> my senses go numb everything seems vain
> nothing seems to last except for you
>
> [chorus]
>
> at times i feel alone still i'm not afraid
> always carry on despite the pain
> deep down inside my heart i still believe
> i know you exist but where are you?
>
> [chorus]"
>
> i'm not sure what the "you" in the song could refer to, except for God.
> that last line in particular sounds to me like a classic cry to Him for
> help. there also, is for good measure, a reference to Christ in
> "woodensoul": "my savior bleeds; caloused hands with fury's need to break
> my wooden soul". so basically, i think your assertions are quite untrue.
i am not overly familiar with Klank, i wandered past their booth at
CStone but was on my way to something and didn't stop. the lyrics you
quoted (including the ones i snipped) remind me of Ecclesiastes...maybe
i'll have to make a greater effort to find something of his to listen
to...
--
the krying muse
http://www.niagara.com/~muse
~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~
The meaning of things is often obscure. But don't you find it
a relief to know that some things are unavoidable and have just
got to be endured, even though we can't see the purpose
behind it all? - Bonhoeffer, Letters from Prison
~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~*~唦*~
loserboy
the krying muse <mu...@niagara.com> wrote:
>
>i am not overly familiar with Klank, i wandered past their booth at
>CStone but was on my way to something and didn't stop. the lyrics you
>quoted (including the ones i snipped) remind me of Ecclesiastes...maybe
>i'll have to make a greater effort to find something of his to listen
>to...
if you're into heavy industrial-ish stuff, then _still suffering_ is
definitely worth checking out. it reminds of a slightly less complex,
heavier circle of dust.
glenn
--
"one day when the bottom drops out we'll lay this thing to rest;
the truth sleeps like dynamite inside this paper flesh" - VoL
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt1636b
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
Spooky <matthew.g....@ou.edu> wrote:
>"I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors but I think that God's got
>a sick sense of humor and when I die, I expect to find him laughing..."
Actually, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the statement
of not understanding. Certainly, as we recently discussed with the
topic of Job, we shouldn't want to judge God, but actually the
statement doesn't sound judgemental mostly confused.
Which is understandable in light of
"Girl of 16, whole life ahead of her
Slashed her wrists bored with life
Can't succeed -- thank the Lord"
and
"Girl of 18, fell in love with everything
Found new life in Jesus Christ
Hit by a car -- ended up
On a life support machine"
>and an entire song celebrating Master/Servant sexuality. Granted,
The main topic of the song as I read it, is _not_ celebrating
master/servant sexuality. It's drawing a parallel between games in bed
and the way people treat each other in real life. The conclusion is
drawn that if we can treat each other like that in real life, why
couldn't we do so in bed where we may assume [that it's consensual
and] much more satisfying to both parties. I'd say that's mostly an
ironical view of life, and doesn't even have to be interpreted as
really positive about s&m and such at all.
"Domination's the name of the game
In bed or in life -- they're both jsut the same
Except in one you're fulfilled at the end of the day
Let's play master and servant"
Actually, I always thought it was just meant heavily ironical because
"There's a new game, we'd like to play you see
A game with added reality
You treat me like a dog, get me down on my knees"
didn't sound like it was truly enjoyed _at all_. A matter of
interpretation, I suppose.. :-|
Not to mention the irony in
"It's a lot like life -- and that's what appealing
If you despise that throwaway feeling
From disposable fun.... then this is the one."
Oh well. :-)
>Flethcer has contributed nothing to these lyrics. But he is part of the
Nope, Martin Gore wrote them, all alone. :-|
>music group and helps create the songs themselves.
I would say that we have thought-provoking stuff here, and I don't
really see anything wrong with the above..
(BTW, used to listen to DM a dozen years or so ago, in case you didn't
expect me to react to something so nonmetal -- above quotes from the
1984 album "Some great reward".)
>> Depeche Mode was one such band. I really loved the music for the disc
>> that had several versions of Personal Jesus, but after accepting Christ
>> I found that I couldn't reconcile that world view with new beliefs.
Don't have that album, so won't comment. (Actually, I don't have SGR
either, but I do have an album with those singles.)
>What about bands like U2 that have claimed to be Christian in the past,
>but still include occasional swear words, and still exalt themselves?
What do "socalled "swear words" have to do with anything? Exalt??
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman J.Tig...@pi.net (private)
loserboy
Spooky <matthew.g....@ou.edu> wrote:
>
>Or what about Klank, an industrial musician who sells in Christian
>bookstores?
minor nitpick: his music *is sold* in a Christian bookstore...the image i
get of a tall, long-haired dude with a goatee hawking his cds in a cbs is
rather comical.
>Klank has backed Christian bands like Argyle Park/Circle of
>Dust in the past, but his solo album includes not one reference to God or
>Jesus. On the contrary, he growls that he has "nothing but hate to give
>this world," and "if I had my choice I'd rather be dead."
er, i can't seem to find that first quote you refer to. as for the
second, allow me to quote the entire song:
"why must we suffer in this life we live in?
press forward for nothing, destruction we gain
endless confusion led by the system
lets us lay helpless in torment and pain
when will it end
i hate this world and all it has to offer;
if i had a choice i'd rather be dead
so much for living, this dark world misleading
the utmost of hatred to this world i show." - Klank, "animosity"
now if you think any of these sentiments are unbiblical, i suggest you
check out, first of all, ecclesiastes, and then philippians 1:21-23, with
a special emphasis on v. 23, and after that, james 4:4 (in context, of
course).
second, your assertion that no mention is made of Christ or God is
patently false; to be truthful, it's kinda hard to miss the song "burning"
in the midst of all the angst. lyrics:
"[chorus]:
inside i feel the burning, somehow i know you're there
outside my life is turning, can't believe for me you care
i want to understand how this came to be
what's my part in this? where do i fit?
my senses go numb everything seems vain
nothing seems to last except for you
[chorus]
at times i feel alone still i'm not afraid
always carry on despite the pain
deep down inside my heart i still believe
i know you exist but where are you?
[chorus]"
i'm not sure what the "you" in the song could refer to, except for God.
that last line in particular sounds to me like a classic cry to Him for
help. there also, is for good measure, a reference to Christ in
"woodensoul": "my savior bleeds; caloused hands with fury's need to break
my wooden soul". so basically, i think your assertions are quite untrue.
glenn
John Matlock
Let's not forget about the Evans brothers Harry and Harv and their cool band
POOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JJM
the krying muse
loserboy wrote:
>
> if you're into heavy industrial-ish stuff, then _still suffering_ is
> definitely worth checking out. it reminds of a slightly less complex,
> heavier circle of dust.
hmmm .. what if i'm into blues and rock?
:)
loserboy
>
>hmmm .. what if i'm into blues and rock? :)
er...then you should prolly demo it.
David Murray
loserboy wrote in article <5t7n86$m...@acmex.gatech.edu>...
>Spooky <matthew.g....@ou.edu> wrote:
>>Klank has backed Christian bands like Argyle Park/Circle of
>>Dust in the past, but his solo album includes not one reference to God or
>>Jesus. On the contrary, he growls that he has "nothing but hate to give
>>this world," and "if I had my choice I'd rather be dead."
>
>er, i can't seem to find that first quote you refer to. as for the
>second, allow me to quote the entire song:
>
>"why must we suffer in this life we live in?
> press forward for nothing, destruction we gain
> endless confusion led by the system
> lets us lay helpless in torment and pain
John 16: 20-22 addresses this query, although Klank just asks the question
and leaves it with no answer.
>
> when will it end
>
> i hate this world and all it has to offer;
Ah ha! There's a close approximation of that first quote Spooky mentioned.
Close enough to recognize, anyway.
> if i had a choice i'd rather be dead
> so much for living, this dark world misleading
> the utmost of hatred to this world i show." - Klank, "animosity"
What a great Christian message. Let's all kill ourselves and get rid of the
despised world.
Isn't it ironic that God loved this same world so much He allowed His one
and only Son to die so that its inhabitants could live forever in Heaven?
Klank's lyrics aren't compatible with John 3:16, the foundational scripture
passage for Christianity. They are actually in direct opposition.
As far as Ecclesiastes is concerned, that book is a cry of despair over the
apparant uselessness of living and dying, IMO, not bitter outrage on par
with Klank. A comparison is moot. IMO, of course.
If Klank's reason for hating the world and wanting to be dead is because
he's looking forward to Heaven, I could somewhat understand and almost
justify Klank's lyrics. But he doesn't state or even imply that.
Dave Murray / db-m...@rfci.net
reply by removing the dash from the address above
visit my homepage http//www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/1005
Making hay while the sun shines
David Murray
loserboy wrote in article <5u34f1$8...@acmex.gatech.edu>...
>David Murray <dbmu...@bogus.spam.com> wrote:
>>loserboy wrote in article <5t7n86$m...@acmex.gatech.edu>...
>>>"why must we suffer in this life we live in?
>>> press forward for nothing, destruction we gain
>>> endless confusion led by the system
>>> lets us lay helpless in torment and pain
>>
>>John 16: 20-22 addresses this query, although Klank just asks the question
>>and leaves it with no answer.
>
>the verses you quoted are a non-sequitor to the question at hand. saying
>everything's gonna turn out good does nothing to answer the question "why
>are things so bad right now?". scripturally, that question isn't
>addressed in a straight-forward manner. when Jesus was asked about it, he
>said "so that things can work out to give glory to God".
No, but Klank's lyrics conflict with the answer of Christ, nonetheless.
Klank says, "press forward for nothing, destruction we gain," when actually
Christ says we'll have ultimately have joy. I don't see "joy" co-existing
with "destruction."
>>> i hate this world and all it has to offer;
>>> if i had a choice i'd rather be dead
>>> so much for living, this dark world misleading
>>> the utmost of hatred to this world i show." - Klank, "animosity"
>>
>>What a great Christian message. Let's all kill ourselves and get rid of
the
>>despised world.
>
>burn, strawman, burn. you tell me how you think the words "if i had a
>choice" qualify that second line. i say again: this is extremely similar
>to phillipians 1:23.
Point taken on that line, even though it isn't clear. But you've justified
it, regardless.
>>Isn't it ironic that God loved this same world so much He allowed His one
>>and only Son to die so that its inhabitants could live forever in Heaven?
>
>er, how does this oppose the lyrics quoted?
Maybe it's just me. Saying, "the utmost of hatred to this world i show" sort
of says to me that this hatred goes beyond that concept of not being a
"friend of the world" just a teeny bit.
>really? stating that all the pleasures this world has to offer are
>meaningless sounds pretty bitter to me.
Not at all. I don't take Ecclesiastes as a bitter book on the whole. There's
frustration with the mundaness of the world, but there's several places that
encourage one to take joy in one's work, the Lord's work, etc.
>it's certainly not something i
>expect to hear from a happy, or even indifferent, person. for more bile,
>turn to job 19. it seems to fit along with _Still Suffering_ pretty darn
>well. (and before you ask about the last five verses, take a look at the
>lyrics to "burning".)
I don't have the lyrics to "burning," unless that was the other song you
quoted. I've lost the original post, and it's been deleted from my server. I
didn't have any objections to it. It sounded like "Place In This World" in
content. What does a separate song have to do with "animosity?" Are you
saying the entire _Still Suffering_ album should be taken as a suite of
songs? If so, I'll bail out of this discussion. Sorry. I don't have a copy.
>hating the world is
>perfectly acceptable biblical doctrine (friendship with the world is
>hatred towards God, james 4:4, and the passage doesn't mention looking
>forward to heaven as a reason).
Not befriending the world isn't the same thing as hating it. I don't
befriend people I know to be thieves as a general rule, but I don't, by that
definition, necessarily hate them.
My "looking forward to heaven" comment was directed toward the "I'd rather
be dead" line alone, BTW, not the overall "hatred of the world" idea in
Klank's lyric to which you applied James 4:4.
>as for wanting to be dead, that sounds
>to me like job wishing he had never been born. heck, job wasn't looking
>forward to heaven as his justification for such feelings, either. (in job
>14:14, he even questions the possibility of a resurrection.) so i'm not
>seeing why klank has to give much in the way of justification for his
>feelings.
I didn't say he should justify his feelings. The secular market should
certainly be able to empathize with his feelings. I just don't see how the
message of "animosity" taken alone (I hate the world. I'd rather be dead.
end of song. no hope attached.) is compatible with Christianity, because
Christianity certainly emphasizes hope, grace, ultimate joy, etc. If
"animosity" is to be taken as one segment of a suite, along with other
lyrics I haven't seen, I shouldn't have gotten into this to start with, and
I'm sorry.
David Murray
John v
Once upon a time, "David Murray" <dbmu...@bogus.spam.com> wrote:
>loserboy wrote in article <5u34f1$8...@acmex.gatech.edu>...
>>it's certainly not something i
>>expect to hear from a happy, or even indifferent, person. for more bile,
>>turn to job 19. it seems to fit along with _Still Suffering_ pretty darn
>>well. (and before you ask about the last five verses, take a look at the
>>lyrics to "burning".)
>
>I don't have the lyrics to "burning," unless that was the other song you
>quoted. I've lost the original post, and it's been deleted from my server. I
>didn't have any objections to it. It sounded like "Place In This World" in
>content. What does a separate song have to do with "animosity?" Are you
>saying the entire _Still Suffering_ album should be taken as a suite of
>songs? If so, I'll bail out of this discussion. Sorry. I don't have a copy.
Um, yeah, _Still Suffering_ is to a certain extant a loose concept album ...
From what I gather it treats his personal experiences with child abuse, in
much the same way the Argyle Park treats church splits with _misguided_
John v.
"Just because a bunch of athiests are better writers than the guys who wrote
the Bible, doesn't necessarily make them right!"
-John Irving _A Prayer for Owen Meany_
DMurphy II
There are quite a few bands with Christian members. The first one that
comes to mind is Kansas with Kerry Livegreen, John & Dino Elefante. Dann &
David Huff have done a lot of secular studio recordings. They both started
out in Whiteheart. Lincoln Brewster toured with Steve Perry (from
Journey). Lincoln is not that well known yet, but very talented and very
active in his church. Russ Taff has gone into the Country music field and
has played for several secular bands. You might find him on stage when
watching award shows, along with Chris Rodrigues. There are many more, but
that is all I can think of for now.
Bill Hammell
Here are a few more:
Glenn Hughes
Ken Hensley
Rick Wakeman
Lou Gramm
Steve Perry
Steve Winwood
Aaron Neville ?
David Pack
Burleigh Drummond
John Tesh
Nathan East
Phillip Bailey
Salt (from Salt & Pepa)
R. Kelly
Tonio K
Ty Tabor
Michael McDonald
Gary Cherone
Galactic Cowboys
Vigilantes Of Love
Stevie Wonder
Jim Peterik
David Foster
Tommy Funderburk
Sheila E. (Escovedo)
Of course only God knows their hearts for certain, but I have read that
these musicians are Christians.
Bill
P.S. it's Livgren not Livgreen :)
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Bill Hammell - bi...@progrock.org /_/
_/ Mgr: Livgren/Elefante, Wakeman, Yes, Procol Harum Email Lists /_/
_/ Kerry Livgren: http://progrock.org/livgren/ /_/
_/ John Elefante: http://progrock.org/elefante/ /_/
_/ irc.progrock.org - channel #livgren Livgren IRC Chat /_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
DMurphy II <dmur...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970901231...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
Jerry B. Ray
In article <19970902133...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Neiby <ne...@aol.com> wrote:
>Are Steve Perry and Gary Cherone christians? Or does the previous post
>simply mean they've collaborated with christians at some point?
Gary has professed to be, definitely. As for Steve, I'm not sure.
I seem to remember hearing rumors along those lines, and there were
some interesting lyrics on the new Journey album that seemed to point
in that direction, too.
m...@avana.net
Who knows if any of the guys are true believers but you will
know them by their fruit
Skip Benicky
m...@avana.net
Jerry B. Ray
>> Gary has professed to be, definitely. As for Steve, I'm not sure.
>> I seem to remember hearing rumors along those lines, and there were
>> some interesting lyrics on the new Journey album that seemed to point
>> in that direction, too.
>Who knows if any of the guys are true believers but you will
>know them by their fruit
A question: what fruit, exactly, are we supposed to know these famous
people, who most of us will never have contact with, by?
Neiby
Are Steve Perry and Gary Cherone christians? Or does the previous post
simply mean they've collaborated with christians at some point?
I'm very curious about this, especially Steve Perry. I know Tim Miner
co-wrote a song or two and sang on Steve's latest, but I wasn't aware if
Steve had gotten saved. If he were, that would make my week!
Pete Juvinall
Bill Hammell (bill@[remove_to_reply]progrock.org) wrote:
: Nathan East
That rules. Where did you hear that?
Bill Hammell
Here's something I dug up from Deja News on Steve Perry. It's not earth
shattering mind you but it is more evidence I guess.
Subject: Re: What artists?
From: "Christopher E. Lang" <cl...@ou.edu>
Date: 1997/01/12
Message-Id: <32D9AC...@ou.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
[More Headers]
Matthew Liffengren wrote:
> Steve Perry has visited my church and I was told he's a christian.
I've heard that to be true as well. Tim Miner produced his last solo
album, and claimed to witness to him.
Chris Lang (cl...@ou.edu)
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Bill Hammell - bi...@progrock.org /_/
_/ Mgr: Livgren/Elefante, Wakeman, Yes, Procol Harum Email Lists /_/
_/ Kerry Livgren: http://progrock.org/livgren/ /_/
_/ John Elefante: http://progrock.org/elefante/ /_/
_/ irc.progrock.org - channel #livgren Livgren IRC Chat /_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Neiby <ne...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970902133...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Lisa Reid
Jeff Holland wrote:
>
> Here's something to add fuel to the fire. This is from
> the AOL online chat directly with Steve Perry...
>
> Question:
> Is your vocal range strictly God given or do you require massive
> training and workouts prior to a show? P.S. My wife and I are HUGE fans!
>
> PERRYLIVE:
> I definitely have to warm up but I am a tenor. Since I was a child
> I was a tenor. But I believe all things are God given. Thanks!
>
I can't vouch for his <christianese> personal relationship with Jesus
Christ </christianese>, but I can tell you that Steve Perry is a really
nice guy. Several years ago (10? 15?), his mother was in the hospital
in Houston, and my mother-in-law was the head nurse on the floor. He
used to order dinner for the nurses, and one night he went down to the
nearest record store, bought a huge pile of his latest album (on vinyl,
I believe), and signed them for all the nurses. My mother-in-law had to
ask my husband who Steve was -- to her, he was just "this nice boy with
long hair".
I think Robert's ex-girlfriend has the signed album now, but it still
makes an interesting story ...
Lisa
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman
gt1...@prism.gatech.edu (loserboy) wrote:
>David Murray <dbmu...@bogus.spam.com> wrote:
>>> i hate this world and all it has to offer;
>>> if i had a choice i'd rather be dead
>>> so much for living, this dark world misleading
>>> the utmost of hatred to this world i show." - Klank, "animosity"
>>What a great Christian message. Let's all kill ourselves and get rid of the
>>despised world.
>burn, strawman, burn. you tell me how you think the words "if i had a
>choice" qualify that second line. i say again: this is extremely similar
>to phillipians 1:23.
It could at least be read that way. What I find more disturbing is the
last line. I don't think a show of "the utmost of hatred" can do any
good. I think that that is way out of balance, that that is in itself
not a good message. It suggest to me being extremely ill at ease,
being in a state of extreme polarization and close to despair of the
world. Yet I don't think it makes sense to discard what was created
because it is in a bad state. It wasn't created for nothing. I can see
how you turn away from the state it is in, but beither turning away
from it, nor showing it hatred are going to do anything to make things
better. So as a message I think it fails. Now, if we were to look at
it as an expression of feeling, as an explanation of a mindset, I
could see some value here. It feels empty, though, and doesn't appeal
to me. But beyond that, I think it's quite true that there is _no
answer_ there. So, while this might evoke quite good feelings, I
wouldn't think you'd try to defend the song as a message itself.
Did I make that clear? :-|
>>Isn't it ironic that God loved this same world so much He allowed His one
>>and only Son to die so that its inhabitants could live forever in Heaven?
>er, how does this oppose the lyrics quoted?
It does, if we (1) believe in the "so" connection there [which I
don't] and (2) assume that the song seeks to be a message of itself
rather than leading up to one. For what it says is that the world is
worth nothing and only fit to be lashed out to, which is clearly in
opposition, isn't it?
>>As far as Ecclesiastes is concerned, that book is a cry of despair over the
>>apparant uselessness of living and dying, IMO, not bitter outrage on par
>>with Klank. A comparison is moot. IMO, of course.
>really? stating that all the pleasures this world has to offer are
>meaningless sounds pretty bitter to me. it's certainly not something i
>expect to hear from a happy, or even indifferent, person. for more bile,
>turn to job 19. it seems to fit along with _Still Suffering_ pretty darn
But Job doesn't seem to be out to show _hatred_ to the world, does he?
Actually, while he is bitter, he doesn't seem to be showing _hate_ in
any direction. Also, I think that an indifference towards _pleasures_
(things, occurrences) doesn't imply that there is no value in _life_.
But maybe that's me..
>>If Klank's reason for hating the world and wanting to be dead is because
>>he's looking forward to Heaven, I could somewhat understand and almost
>>justify Klank's lyrics. But he doesn't state or even imply that.
I don't see it would be your job to "justify" any lyrics. I don't
think people are bound to supply answers, especially if they don't
have them. The book of Job seems to say that that is in fact a bad
thing to do, while crying out in despair is not.
>instead, he writes like a man looking for answers. hating the world is
>perfectly acceptable biblical doctrine (friendship with the world is
>hatred towards God, james 4:4, and the passage doesn't mention looking
I doubt that. I can see that friendship with the world is hatred
towards God, but I think that the inversion thereof is a
misapplication of logic. Isn't the whole point that following somthing
that's wrong is going to bring you into direct collision with
everything, but following what is right should not imply any collision
whatsoever? I see how willfully going into the wrong direction can be
seen as hatred, but a collision brought about a refusal to go along on
a bad path I wouldn't qualify as such.
Perhaps it goes too far to make a lot of fuss about the choice of a
single word, though..
>forward to heaven as a reason). as for wanting to be dead, that sounds
I would agree that that addition is unnecessary and possibly
misleading.
>to me like job wishing he had never been born. heck, job wasn't looking
>forward to heaven as his justification for such feelings, either. (in job
>14:14, he even questions the possibility of a resurrection.) so i'm not
>seeing why klank has to give much in the way of justification for his
>feelings.
Agreed.
--Jeroen--------------------------------------------------
Tiggelman J.Tig...@pi.net (private)
loserboy
Jeroen J.-W. Tiggelman <J.Tig...@pi.net> wrote:
>gt1...@prism.gatech.edu (loserboy) wrote:
>>
>>burn, strawman, burn. you tell me how you think the words "if i had a
>>choice" qualify that second line. i say again: this is extremely similar
>>to phillipians 1:23.
>
>It could at least be read that way. What I find more disturbing is the
>last line. I don't think a show of "the utmost of hatred" can do any
>good. I think that that is way out of balance, that that is in itself
>not a good message. It suggest to me being extremely ill at ease,
>being in a state of extreme polarization and close to despair of the
>world.
it is an extreme statement, but i've always interpreted it more of a
general antipathy for the "things of this world" [tm]. what's always
dissatisfied me with such statements is how the speaker defines
"world"...it seems to me to be a rather non-specific term without much
relevance to daily actions. but anyway, the whole album has struck me as
an extreme response to a rather extreme situation, and as such i tend to
take much of it with a grain of salt.
[snippage of points of elaboration]
>Now, if we were to look at it as an expression of feeling, as an
>explanation of a mindset, I could see some value here.
that's how i think much of the album was meant to be taken...
>It feels empty, though, and doesn't appeal to me.
i don't know...there have definitely been some particular instances for me
where i've thought "bugger all this for a lark"...but it passes, and i
learn not to let myself be so controlled by my emotions.
>But beyond that, I think it's quite true that there is _no
>answer_ there. So, while this might evoke quite good feelings, I
>wouldn't think you'd try to defend the song as a message itself.
in the context of the album, the song fits well...i just see it as
bitterness magnified somewhat, which is an emotional stage i can identify
with.
>Did I make that clear? :-|
all except the above facial expression...
>>really? stating that all the pleasures this world has to offer are
>>meaningless sounds pretty bitter to me. it's certainly not something i
>>expect to hear from a happy, or even indifferent, person. for more bile,
>>turn to job 19. it seems to fit along with _Still Suffering_ pretty darn
>
>But Job doesn't seem to be out to show _hatred_ to the world, does he?
>Actually, while he is bitter, he doesn't seem to be showing _hate_ in
>any direction.
i think this is more a question of the degree of anger expressed, rather
than the persuasion. the two are pretty much in the same ballpark.
>Also, I think that an indifference towards _pleasures_ (things,
>occurrences)
i'm not sure the teacher was expressing *indifference* so much as ruing
that he was ensnared by such pursuits.
>doesn't imply that there is no value in _life_. But maybe that's me..
i agree, but again, i think passing through such hatred is constructive,
even if it is just to see how wrong such thinking is...the whole album
seems to be more catharsis than anything, and, yeah, it's not for
everyone, but i fail to see the harm in pushing it in the christian
market.
>Isn't the whole point that following something that's wrong is going to
>bring you into direct collision with everything, but following what is
>right should not imply any collision whatsoever? I see how willfully
>going into the wrong direction can be seen as hatred, but a collision
>brought about a refusal to go along on a bad path I wouldn't qualify as
>such.
point taken.
>Perhaps it goes too far to make a lot of fuss about the choice of a
>single word, though..
i've never really cared about the magnitude of such emotions so much as
the orientation of them. to be truthful, the diction of the song/album
has never struck me as that big of a deal...sort of a loose sequel to
_misguided_, imo.
Geoff Taylor
I have only just joined this newsgroup and did not see how this subject
originated. I was wondering about the opinion of most people about
Christian musicians playing in secular bands. I am a bass player and
lead singer in a secular rock and roll band, and also a Salvation Army
soldier. What are the views on that as far as this NG goes?
Geoff..
--
MAKE IT SO!
www.halenet.com.au/~maverick/
Check out my Bro..
www.powerup.com.au/~mathewt/