Christian prog vs secular prog

^^ haha, owned. seriously kiwi, organized religion is one of the main problems with the world. Just look at those poor delusional f**kers in the Middle East. They think they're going to have 70 or something virgins when they blow themselves up. An individual path to spirituality is the only way to go. It's non-violent and not sheeplike mindless following of something because a bunch of other people believe it. And, there's no offense and no violence because everyone is different. Religion can help the weak minded cope with life, but it's caused way more trouble than it's worth. Either be spiritual, or not (athiest), or just plain open-minded (agnostic, like me), but the mass bullsh*t is a cause for many of the worlds problems. People are going to be materialistic with religion or not.

Jorvik wrote: kiwi wrote: An athiest has faith that there is no God.  I wish people would stop regurgitating this falsehood: atheism is not a belief that there is no god or gods. It is a lack of belief due to there being no evidence. As the quote goes, "to say that atheism is a belief is like calling bald a hair colour". I'm also getting increasingly fed up of the constant attacks on capitalism and materialism -- this isn't directed at PA in particular, it seems to be going on in all media of late . ETA: If there was no capitalism or materialism we probably wouldn't have the music technology that we have today (especially the information and distribution of underground music thanks to the internet), nor the music that he have (and love), either.

I am sorry to have offended you. I checked out Wikipedia which offers this definition.
"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods^[1] or rejects theism.^[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,^[3] alternatively called nontheism.<sup>[4]"

I guess that makes atheists materialists in that they only accept what is materially evident.

My concern with materialism and consumerism is that it has got out of balance. I enjoy the fruits of technology. For example this interaction is only possible because of the net - I love it. I am also confident that technology and science will ultimately enable us to live in a better balance with the planet in a more sustainable way.

Our civilisations have made great progress when the material and spiritual are in balance. The twentieth century has been called a "failed secular experiment". While we enjoy wealth at levels unimagined by our forebears, the ignorant have used technology to wreak unparalleled havoc on the world.

Science and Religion can be regarded as the two wings of a bird. Science without religion results in materialism and religion without science leaves us with equally bad superstition.

He rides majestic
Past homes of men
Who care not or gaze with joy
To see reflected there
The trees, the sky, the lily fair. (Genesis)</sup>



Edited by kiwi - February 14 2008 at 19:41

kiwi wrote: An athiest has faith that there is no God.

 I wish people would stop regurgitating this falsehood: atheism is not a belief that there is no god or gods. It is a lack of belief due to there being no evidence.

As the quote goes, "to say that atheism is a belief is like calling bald a hair colour".

I'm also getting increasingly fed up of the constant attacks on capitalism and materialism -- this isn't directed at PA in particular, it seems to be going on in all media of late . ETA: If there was no capitalism or materialism we probably wouldn't have the music technology that we have today (especially the information and distribution of underground music thanks to the internet), nor the music that he have (and love), either.


Edited by Jorvik - February 14 2008 at 18:47

"this is what Mormons believe...if you're not a member of the LDS church, you're not going to the highest heaven. (Actually they believe in three levels of heaven, non-Mormons will end up in one of the lower spiritual Echelons)"

The Mormons are a Pseudo-Christian cult (not unlike the Branch Davidians and the followers at Jonestown) and have no standing whatever in any discussion about Christianity.

Now then, as to Christian Prog/ Rock/ or any other type of Christian music's right to exist:
The Great Commission( Matthew 28:16-20) states:  Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

This is not just a suggestion from a nice guy.  It is a command from the Lord Jesus Christ to his disciples and by proxy to all of his followers forever.  What he does not tell us is exactly HOW we should go about it; but nowhere in scripture does it say "Do not use music".  So it follows that if you are both a musician and a believer in Christ that all your musical efforts should then serve the purpose of The Great Commission (Bach is a prime example); and this is what I see in Neal's recent work.  Every thing he does is geared (as Scripture commands it to be) towards evangelism, but then you seem to feel that evangelism and brainwashing are synonyms.  Strange position for a practicing Christian to take.

Anyone who has felt the touch of the Holy Spirit can't help but want everyone else to know the good news.  It's not brainwashing its' sharing in the hope that others will "taste and see".  Not really unlike sharing a great recipe with a friend.  If I sent you my favorite recipe for Ceviche, or worse yet, wrote about it in a song, I doubt you'd be coming at me with the brainwashing accusation, even if I said other versions of Ceviche were prepared incorrectly.

The way I see your issues here Ivan, is that you don't like being told what is right and what is wrong.  You want to research and reason things out and come to your own conclusions (correct me if this is wrong) . This I see from  nearly two years of reading your posts and, on occasion, debating them passionately with you). This seems funny coming from someone who has placed himself under the authority of a Pope (in effect leaving the thinking to someone else).  But if I remember correctly from other threads you do not actually agree with the Pope on some issues (abortion, if I remember right), and actually advocated strongly for an "anti-Catholic"  position on the issue. 

In doing this do you not defy the Pope?  Are you not contesting his infallibility by disagreeing with him?  I don't know Catholic doctrine well enough to understand how this might work.  For that matter how do you justify change in Papal doctrine over time?  If, to make an extreme example, the next Pope removes the ban on Birth control or abortion, how can both he and the previous Popes who upheld those policies ALL be infallible.  Do we just wink and say God changed his mind?

Please understand that I am not trying to make a personal attack on you Ivan.  It just seems to me that there are inconsistencies in your logic where some of these issues are concerned and I would like to understand where you are coming from as someone whom I respect.  Your vehemence towards Sola Scriptura seems really odd to me.  Yes,  John Paul II asked forgiveness for those sins of the past and, as a Christian, I certainly grant that forgiveness.  The Protestant Churches have made many similar statements of past wrong-doing over the years (being fragmented as we are, there is no one blanket statement to cover all churches at all times).  Do you see all Protestant denominations as being engaged in an ongoing attack on the Catholic Church?  Is that what you see Neal Morse doing?  I don't.

Luther never wanted to be "Lutheran".  He never wanted to leave the Catholic Church, but he could not accept certain practices that the Church was sanctioning.  His excommunication was probably a terrifying experience for him.  He likely believed that he was absolutely, positively Hell-bound as a result, and still he stood for what he believed and faced those dire consequences.  His denounciation of the specific doctrines in the 95 Theses (anti- semitism was not one of them, it was a point upon which he and the Church agreed at the time)  and his subsequent persecution by the Church is what Sola Scriptura is all about.  The fact that the Church has admitted to wrong-doing in some of these areas should not mean that they cannot be talked about anymore.  Is that what you are saying; that because forgiveness was asked for and given  350 years after the fact that the story should never again be told?  If that is the case we disagree.

Again, this is not meant as an attack on you personally or on Catholics in general, and I am absolutely not trying to offend you.  These are questions that may address what  seems to be flawed logic and an unusual position for a Christian man.


Edited by Trademark - February 14 2008 at 17:21

artguyken wrote: kiwi wrote: Does any one remember the comic who said that if you play one of Black Sabbath's songs backwards the lyrics say "Pray with your family. Go to church on Sundays.   I don't, but that's funny. I remember spinning Elmo's "Fire on High" LP backwards to hear what subversive thing they said at the beginning of that piece. They said: "The music is reversible, but time is not. Turn back! Turn back! Turn back!"

After following the Cristian vs Secular thread my enduring thought is that there is no philosophical vacuum. An athiest has faith that there is no God. I haven't been able to express it clearly. Ivan talks about brainwashing, but look at how our society privileges consumerism. Its not just the marketing industry - and lets face it most of the new rich - like Google are essentially advertisers. Much of popular culture deifies a Godless  materialism. Look at the pressure there is on children to become mindless consumers. "The corrosion of ungodliness is eating into the vitals of human society".

Aristotle talks about the three elements of persuasion, logos, pathos and ethos (logic, emotion and ethic (mana)). Much of our communication is persuasion and I see it as a positive. I can watch a Gillette 3M add that suggests that if I use their product I will be like a test pilot or whatever. More fool me if I get sucked in.

A lot of TV drama puts out a message that you have to be young and beautiful and self-absorbed.

I am not a Christians but most Christians I know are very nice people and are concerned about their fellow man. If they want to take action on this and attempt to persuade - good on them. It their communication is congruent and if they can present their message with logic, emotion and ethic and help people to get closer to their Creator that's great. On the other hand if they get involved in internal Christian politics or seek to discredit others their credibility will be rapidly eroded.

kiwi wrote: Does any one remember the comic who said that if you play one of Black Sabbath's songs backwards the lyrics say "Pray with your family. Go to church on Sundays.

I don't, but that's funny. I remember spinning ELO's "Fire on High" LP backwards to hear what subversive thing they said at the beginning of that piece. They said: "The music is reversible, but time is not. Turn back! Turn back! Turn back!"

artguyken wrote: Utah Man wrote: profanatio wrote: I happen to be a christian What "flavor" of ? profanatio wrote: I despise mainstream christian music. So do I... it all sounds the same.  "Contemporary Christian Music" artists have no creative skills - Oddly enough the very first verse in the bible teaches the doctrine of creativity (if one could call it that ).  Most CCM artists just copy / paste all the sounds of secular pop songs then add anemic religious lyrics.  + Most are poor musicians to begin with. profanatio wrote: there are actually christian prog bands. Personal opinion...They aren't authentic Christians...and it's not authentic prog. profanatio wrote: but I do know that no matter how much they glorify God lyrically, if I dont like the music I wont listen to it. Again...if all they're doing is mimicking secular material then dumping in thoughtless "Christian lyrics"...then it is NOT any honor to God at all. How does shallowness, "copy-catting", and poor musicianship bring any honor whatsoever to God (assuming that one is attempting to do so in the first place )? . Man, harsh words.

Sì, assolutamente

.

Utah Man wrote: profanatio wrote: I happen to be a christian What "flavor" of ? profanatio wrote: I despise mainstream christian music. So do I... it all sounds the same.  "Contemporary Christian Music" artists have no creative skills - Oddly enough the very first verse in the bible teaches the doctrine of creativity (if one could call it that ).  Most CCM artists just copy / paste all the sounds of secular pop songs then add anemic religious lyrics.  + Most are poor musicians to begin with. profanatio wrote: there are actually christian prog bands. Personal opinion...They aren't authentic Christians...and it's not authentic prog. profanatio wrote: but I do know that no matter how much they glorify God lyrically, if I dont like the music I wont listen to it. Again...if all they're doing is mimicking secular material then dumping in thoughtless "Christian lyrics"...then it is NOT any honor to God at all. How does shallowness, "copy-catting", and poor musicianship bring any honor whatsoever to God (assuming that one is attempting to do so in the first place )? .

Man, harsh words.

I would have to disagree with your blanket generalizations and seemingly prejudicial remarks. Just as there are mediocre musicians in the secular market, there are mediocre musicians in the Christian market. I don't disagree with you there. However, there are also musicians of excellence to be found in both places.

As to your accusation of "thoughtless Christian lyrics" being dumped into copy-catted music, you've obviously not spent time with the better artists, though certainly this accusation of copycatism could be thrown at any musical genre.

How many bands are truly original? Even within the world of prog the innovators are few, the implementers are many. Does this mean they are all copycats? If so, you'd better throw out about 90% of your music collection.

Found it.  From AllMusic, "when Rick Wakeman first heard them in 1996, he signed them to his label, Hope Records".