Is ELP against christianity

Arteum wrote: Ricochet wrote: Only one song and ELP's anti-christian?I'm gonna need many more examples like that to believe... Here you go. Sidney grabbed a hatchet, buried it .... in Benny's head. The people gasped as he bled: The end of a Ted? Well, they dragged him from the wreckage of the Palais in bits. They tried to stick together all the bits that would fit. But some of him was missing and "part of him" arrived too late, So now he works for Jesus As the bouncer at St. Peter's Gate.

OK

Try this since they are all Greg Lakes:

They sold me a dream of Christmas

THey sold me a Silent Night

They told me a Fairey Story

'Till I beleived in the Isrealite

The Wizard wrote: jitu wrote: 'we pull jesus from the hat get into that get into that'.   what does it mean? The singer is comparing religon (Jesus) to magic (pulling a rabbit from a hat).

No it is not!  Think of the title of the song Karn Evil; Carnival! It is about a show.  This is one of the exhibits.  Think of the barker outside the tent to sideshow trying to get people inside. " Pulling Jesus from a hat" is just a way to get people to pay the price and come inside.  No different than "Next up on a stool is a sight to make you drool, seven virgins and a mule, keep it cool, keep it cool". Maybe Threefates would know for sure but I always thought this song was a satire on TV.

Arteum wrote: maani wrote: Arteum: Yes, it's true that many, maybe even most, Christians and other believers were brought up in faith-based households, and have thus been "indoctrinated" from an early age.  But this is not true of all. I was raised in an atheist Jewish household by two parents who were rabidly anti-faith.  My father was a political type (he had been the Controller for the American Labor Party), so for him, religion was truly "the opiate of the masses."  My mother is a scientist - and thus completely steeped in rationalist, empircism and the scientific method - and so for her God and faith and religion are just so much hooey.  My two brothers followed mostly in my father's footsteps, becoming ultra-political, and both of them are also rabid atheists. So I was not, in any way, brought up in or around God, faith or religion.  Indeed, I was raised by two atheist college professors in a very rational, intellectual, academic environment, one in which socio-politics, language, history, psychology and other subjects were the core.  And no, I did not reject that environment in favor of faith. Rather, I simply found myself a "seeker" of sorts by 15.  I wasn't looking for God, or necessarily even faith, but there was "something" in me that felt that the rational, empirical world was not all there was.  At 15, I began studying yoga and Eastern philosophy with Swami Satchidananda, with whom I studied for a little over three years (and remained an acquaintance for over a decade more).  I also undertook a self-created study in comparative religion, reading the underlying texts of every major (and many minor) religions, including the Bible, the Qur'an, the Rig-Vedas, the Shinto texts, the Egyptian and Tibetan Books of the Dead, the Zoroastrian texts, the Jainist texts, and even all available information on the Native American Great Spirit belief and the Australian aborigine Dreamtime belief.  This study was furthered by a year of Bible study and a year of comparative religions in college, and ongoing discussions and debates with priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, swamis, and other faith-based leaders.  I spent about 8 years in this study. During that time (at about 19), I became a "believer" (in God, though not yet in Christ).  It was not so much a "revelation"  or a "bolt from the blue."  Rather, it was as if someone turned on a light switch and I knew there was a God.  And no, there was nothing happening in my life at the time - psycho-emotionally or otherwise - that might have caused this from some "need" for a "crutch."  One moment I was an agnostic; the next I was a believer.  As simple as that. It took another 3 years before I was convinced ("intellectually," if not completely spiritually) that Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be, and that the Judeo-Christian "story" was the one that not only made the most sense to me, but proved itself to be the most "internally" consistent. At 22, I accepted Christ, though in retrospect it was something of a wimpy baptism: i.e., I was accepting more from my "head" than from my "heart."  Still, I did believe.  The next 10 years were essentially wasted, though there was some growth in my faith.  However, during the next ten years, I became increasingly devout, studying my Bible more...religiously (), and making more conscious concerted efforts to life a Christ-like life.  Ten years later (2002), I started my ministry after a series of events that would take too long to go into here. So you would be in error to suppose that I was raised a Christian, or that I was somehow "indoctrinated."  Indeed, not only is my faith not a "rejection" of, "reaction" to or "rebellion" against my rational, intellectual upbringing, but in fact my upbringing brings to my faith something that may be lacking, or at least minimized, in those who were raised in faith-based households.  And it is for this very reason - that I have both my rational, intellectual upbringing and my strong faith and spiritual understanding and discernment - that I am able not only to articulate my beliefs well, but do so with the same academic and intellectual "knowledge" that the "other side" (the rationalist, empirical and scientific community) has. Peace. Maani, that is an interesting story. You are probably one of the few who came to religion from secular environment. I am only wondering why you did that? Were you thinking that science and rationalism (and atheism) were too difficult for you to follow [yes, everybody knows that math is MUCH more difficult than handwaving], or you just found them wrong (incorrect)? Wrong in what? Of course, the "rational world" is not "all there is". There exists art (literature, philosophy, paiting ...) -- your resort did not have to be religion. And I see one serious problem with your education. Although you were not brainwashed as a child, you were seriously brainwashed during years of "treatment" by priests, mullas, lammas ...  and "other faith-based leaders". You were out of touch with reality for so many years! You probably have no idea about physics, do you? Or you read about its evil teachings in "Watchtower"? Did you have as many conversations with scientists and rational people in general? Now it's too late for you anyway. It will be impossible to undo the years of brainwashing. Practice shows that in many cases even a couple of years of influence of religion is incurable. One thing I learned seeing the generaous religious zeal on this forum: the attachment to prog does not depend on one's philosophy.

A good reason as to why "years of brainwashing is incurable" is because after that time usually the person has felt alot and that feeling has taught him something a science book could never teach or explain.

I highly suggest you try religion somehow or another and atleast try to open you mind atleast once in your life enough to accept somekind of religion if your going to critizise it. Like in prog, don't evaluate and critizise an album without listening to it, and not just once but many times, this is the same with religion. It is very immature and ignorant to dismiss or ridicule religion if you have not even tried it. See what it is like to believe in God for a little while and study it before you say that it is all bad and wrong.

Zargus wrote:  thats yust somthing i cant understand. if he realy existed shuldent he do somthing?

It says in the bible, not to get in a biblical war here, that what man did that was meant for evil, God made it happen for good, God did do somehting, it may seem bad to you but to God is was meant for good.

Arteum wrote: DallasBryan wrote: Of course ELP is anti-christian, not satanist(black as such) but lucifierian(false light), much more powerful in deception. ELP preaches blasphemy, occultism, gnositic, druidism and heresy. Young christians should be aware because you flow the leader into the house of fun and you could be in for a big surprise. You should be aware ELP is a band that as well as Yes, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull and the Moody Blues, preaches a philosophy involving the fall of man. They are the preachers of the horned gods religion. At least in the 70's they where the church service for the dark side. We have the internet and other media for that promotion today. signed veteran cosmic rocker,   So, all Christians, don't listen to prog. Better listen to the the Christian Rock matra: "Jesus, you're my Lord I don't need another one, You came to save me, I am meek and humble, I know you love me, etc etc" That's what I always say about it: prog is an atheist's rock music.

Prog is not an atheist's rock music, I listen to it and I'm not atheist one bit so your statement can't be true. Pink Floyd was not a church service for the "darkside" either. I can find mabey one instance where they use the church as a symbol of greed, and hypocracy and that was in Animals. They weren't disagreeing with the bible, Jesus, or teachings of God, they were disagreeing with the greed and hypocracy that heavily influenced the church. Everyone knows that the church for a long time in history and sometimes today are still that very symbol.

Wizard:

Same here!  Hyperspace is one of the 10 best "hard science" books I've ever read.

Prog1611:

Although you did not directly tie the two (which would have made it much clearer), I am glad that you pointed out that when Jesus talked about bringing "a sword," He was not talking about a physical sword, which represents violence and war, but rather a "sword of contention": i.e., that He knew that belief in Him and His message would "divide" families, friends, etc.  It is worth quoting the full passage in this regard:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth.  I did not come to bring peace but a sword.  For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.  And a man's enemies will be those of his own household." (Matt 10-34-36).

Golden Spiral:

While it is true that simply quoting Scripture (even in context) can be "off-putting" for non-believers - and that there are perhaps better ways to go about spreading the Gospel and message of Christ (the best way, of course, being the example of our own lives...) - the Scriptures are our "playbook," and should not be shied away from.

Christianity is "exclusivist."  Indeed, all faiths and beliefs are.  They all have some form of tenets or texts or basic belief systems that one is expected to adhere to in practicing them.  What is different about Christianity is that it is the most "inclusive" exclusivist faith.  It does not require one to wear certain clothes, go to particular buildings to worship or pray, pray a certain number of times a day facing in a particular direction, abstain from certain foods, learn and repeat mantras or other intonements, or any number of other things associated with Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, or any of the other "great" religions.  It has three precepts only.

One, your body is the "temple" of the spirit given to you by God, so take care of it.  Two, Jesus was "God made flesh," and sacrificed Himself for all sin for all time, so honor that sacrifice by believing in it and thanking Him for it.  Three, Jesus was resurrected so that, in believing in His sacrifice and resurrection, your own spirit will find "salvation" (freedom from sin) and eternal life (i.e., the spirit remaining in God's presence after the physical body has died).

The rest of the New Testament is helpful guidelines for living a Christ-like life to the best of one's ability.  However, even if one does not do so, if one has honestly and humbly agreed to the three critical precepts above, one has earned salvation, which can never be taken away.

There is no other faith on earth that is so "inclusively exclusivist."  The changes required to convert to Judaism, Islam, "formal" Buddhism, etc. are far more intensive.

Atom Heart Mother:

Your intentions are good, but to suggest that someone "try religion somehow" or "see what it is like to believe in God for a little while" is ultimately moot.  One cannot simply "try religion" or pretend to believe in God.  Either one does, or one doesn't.  Either one's inner spirit "connects" with God, or it does not.  Either the "light switch" is turned on or it is not.  It is fruitless to hope that non-believers will simply "try" to be believers.  They cannot.

This does not mean they never will.  As noted, I had the light switch turned on for me at 19.  And although it is true that I was already a spiritual "seeker" of sorts, I could no more have believed in God simply because I "wanted" to than I could have jumped off a cliff and defied the laws of gravity simply because I wanted to.  It had to happen.  However, I firmly believe that even the most adamant atheist could have the light switch turned on at some point.

In the meantime, all we can do is try to show, by example - by our words, our actions, our lives, etc. - what it means to be "Christian": not what it has become through its politicization via the mainstream, heirarchical, "organized" Church.  But rather what Jesus actually taught, and how He actually lived.  We will not win hearts and minds (and souls...) by "hoping" that non-believers will "try" religion.  The only way we will win hearts and minds (and souls) is by showing non-believers that Christianity - true, essential, "primitive" Christianity - is not what they believe it to be as a result of its co-opting by religio-political forces and the apostasy they have brought to it.  But rather that, although it is indeed "exclusivist" in some ways, it is not only extremely inclusive, but is based on moral and other precepts that everyone - believers and hard-core atheists alike - would agree are excellent fundamentals for living in a human community.

Peace.

Arteum wrote: AtomHeartMother wrote: I highly suggest you try religion somehow or another and atleast try to open you mind atleast once in your life enough to accept somekind of religion if your going to critizise it. Like in prog, don't evaluate and critizise an album without listening to it, and not just once but many times, this is the same with religion. It is very immature and ignorant to dismiss or ridicule religion if you have not even tried it. See what it is like to believe in God for a little while and study it before you say that it is all bad and wrong. Like what? Let's suppose that miracles happen. Let's suppose that 2 + 2 is not 4. Let's suppose that there is a clear demarcation line between good and evil. Let's suppose that world is ruled by some supernatural deity with fantastic superpowers who is never going to reveal or manifest itself. Now, where do we go from here? You know, I might as well believe in trolls and elves ...

So typical. You avoided the very clear point I made, that you cannot just citizise religion and all others if you don't know about them. You cannot simply just read about religion and know about it either, you have to EXPERIENCE it. Religion is not somehting that can be felt or explained simply in a book, it must be practiced. I assume you know a good deal about many religions and know that they all revolve around a God that you refuse to believe in. Mabey so, but don't argue with others that have experieced it just because you read about it and decided it was crap. If you tried it and got nothing out of it that is one thing, but to look at it and not try it and still say it is fake and wrong, that is immature and ignorant.