Christian prog vs secular prog - Progressive Rock Music Forum

Author

Message

Topic Search

Topic Options

King Crimson776 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779

Posted: February 16 2008 at 19:06

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

The prayers and rituals of other religions may help or hinder their believers. Some practices may prepare their membership to absorb the Gospel. However, those rituals which depend on superstitions or other errors... constitute an obstacle to salvation".

Ghandi never "absorbed the gospel". Apparently he's in hell.

Who's to say which rituals depend on superstition or other errors? Christianity is as much a superstition as anything else as it's basis is purely unverifiable stories. "Other errors"? What does that mean? Anything that goes against Catholicism or Christianity in general would be considered errors.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: February 16 2008 at 19:04

Jorvic wrote:

You seem to be against the use of music to spread a religious message in a subtle way (I assume you have no problem with out-and-out praise music where the message is plain for all to see?), seeing it as a way of surreptitiously worming a message into people's minds, maybe without them being aware.

Still don't get my point, Religious music is OK, I have no problems, unless it's used as an instrument of conversion and brainwashing, tell the people whatever you want, but advice them, don't use the excuse of making good rock to send a covered message.

That's all.

Jorvic wrote:

There is of course the old quotation from Francis Xavier, "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man". Many religions continue by raising children in the religion from an early age when they are impressionable (as you say, it is considered a duty in many religions) and before they have the faculties to think and reason and decide for themselves – using the parents' position of influence and power to bring them into the faith, rather than allowing them to arrive at the same place through their own volition, should they so choose.

About Dawkins, you said it all when you mentined he hates religion, that is all for me, he is allowed to hate religion, but not force us to act according to our doctrine.

The Sacrament of Baptism is given to a baby in the Catholic Church and the Godfather takes the compromise of guiding the God son in the path of the Catholic Church, it's part of our doctrine and we are forced to honor that compromise.

When infants are solemnly baptized, persons assist at the ceremony to make profession of the faith in the child's name. This practice comes from antiquity and is witnessed to by Tertullian, St. Basil, St. Augustine, and others. Such persons are designated sponsores, offerentes, susceptores, fidejussores, and patrini. The English term is godfather and godmother, or in Anglo-Saxon, gossip.

These sponsors, in default of the child's parents, are obliged to instruct it concerning faith and morals. One sponsor is sufficient and not more than two are allowed. In the latter case, one should be male and the other female. The object of these restrictions is the fact that the sponsor contracts a spiritual relationship to the child and its parents which would be an impediment to marriage. Sponsors must themselves be baptized persons having the use of reason and they must have been designated as sponsors by the priest or parents. During the baptism they must physically touch the child either personally or by proxy. They are required, moreover, to have the intention of really assuming the obligations of godparents. It is desirable that they should have been confirmed, but this is not absolutely necessary. Certain persons are prohibited from acting as sponsors. They are: members of religious orders, married persons in respect to each other, or parents to their children, and in general those who are objectionable on such grounds as infidelity, heresy, excommunication, or who are members of condemned secret societies, or public sinners (Sabetti, no. 663). Sponsors are also used in the solemn baptism of adults. They are never necessary in private baptism.

It's clear that according to ancestral tradition thatcomes fropm St Agustine, it's the duty of the parents and the Godfathers to instruct the children in matters of faith.

Sorry, but Mr,. Dawkins won't make me break my comproimise with God.

Now about the parents, during the marriage they have to compromise to raise their children in the catholic Church:

During the rite of the Nupitals, the priest asks the bride and groom individually if they have come of their own free will to give themselves to the other in marriage. He then asks if they will honor and love one another as husband and wife for the rest of their lives, and if they will accept children from God lovingly and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church. The couple answers each question in the affirmative.

so, what has been promissed to God, can't be broken just because Mr. Dawkins coinsiders it wrong.

BTW: The position of influence of the parents exists and it's necesary, you can't deny that, parents are forced to educate the kid, but they have the freedom to do it in the way they believe it's better for their sons, boith thedivine and human law grant us this right and duty, except in some coiuntries were Religion is banned, and which are not the best examples of freedom..

Iván

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: February 16 2008 at 18:39

King Crimson776 wrote:

Stop removing true posts. What I said was simply the truth. According to the bible, all non-Christians go to hell, so Ghandi went to hell. This is the book Christians base their beliefs and morals on. If you pick and choose what you believe, then it would be better to come up with your own individual path to spirituality.

Not according to Catholic Doctrine:

The fate of non-Catholics, as expressed at Vatican II:

The "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium" (1964) is one of many documents to come out of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (often referred to as "Vatican II"). The Council was held in Rome between 1962 and 1965. Lumen Gentium" contains in its Chapter 1 an essay on "The Mystery of the church." Sections 14 to 16 describe the potential for salvation of:

	Followers of the Catholic Church,
	Members of other Christian denominations, and
	Believers of non-Christian religions. ₅

The prayers and rituals of other religions may help or hinder their believers. Some practices may prepare their membership to absorb the Gospel. However, those rituals which "depend on superstitions or other errors... constitute an obstacle to salvation."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

So it's clear not all Christian denominations share his belief,

Iván

Jorvik

Forum Groupie

Joined: December 21 2007
Location: The Danelaw
Status: Offline
Points: 81

Posted: February 16 2008 at 18:23

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Well Richard Dawkins is an atheist, which is OK for him and if he wants to raise his kids in atheism is also OK, it's a free world.

But comparing religion (whatever it is) with child abuse just because you don't believe in any religion, is absurd.

Each parent is entitled to teach their kids any legal and moral religion or philosophy they want, more than that, it's a duty, I don't care if it's Cathoilic, Anglican, Baptist or Buddist, but this religions have a high moreal support and it's positive.

It's also his right to raise his kids as atheist, but is nobody to tell us what is right and what is wrong if we don't commit illegal or inmoral acts.

Iván

As this is now in general discussions, rather than the prog lounge, I'll respond.

There are different ways of raising children in an atheist manner: one would be to tell them that there is no evidence to support the existence of supernatural beings such as gods, no evidence which would require a supernatural creator for the universe etc etc. The other way would simply be to say nothing about religion at all during their upbringing, except to answer any questions and put across all points of view – more of a passive approach.

So Dawkins might not necessarily be suggesting an active approach to raising children, he might only be suggesting that there is no active approach to a child's religious upbringing, one way or another. I don't know precisely what he means.

Every parent, of course, has the right to raise their children as they see fit, providing they do nothing illegal or deemed to be neglectful.

Yes, Dawkins is an atheist, but his view on children not being raised in a religion do not necessarily follow from his being an atheist. Someone of any religion could arrive at the same conclusion, although of course it would go against the teachings of many – the duty aspect that you mention.

I realise that the phrase "child abuse" is very emotive, but then Dawkins is not a man who minces his words. I hope you can see through the exact wording and see it not as his personal attack on religious people because he hates religion, but actually as an, arguably clumsy, way of expressing a valid argument.

I've just been leafing through The God Delusion to try and find the exact quotes so that I don't misrepresent what he said. It looks like I might have vaguely already done that, but I was thinking of the overall tenor of an entire chapter of the book. Anyway, what seem to be the relevant quotes are:

"'If you were to compare the abuse of bringing up a child really to believe in hell ...how do you think that would compare in trauma terms with sexual abuse?' She [a therapist] replied: 'That's a very difficult question... I think there are a lot of similarities actually, because it is about abuse of trust; it is about denying the child the right to feel free and open and able to relate to the world in the normal way ... it's a form of denigration; it's a form of denial of hte true self in both cases.'"

I have an appalling memory, I can have forgotten half a book by the time I've finished reading it. Anyway, I think the quote I was probably thinking of is this:

"...isn't it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about?"

Which is expounded on later in the chapter:

"Our society, including the non-religious sector, has accepted the preposterous idea that it is normal and right to indoctrinate tiny children in the religion of their parents, and to slap religious labels on them – 'Catholic child', 'Protestant child', 'Jewish child', 'Muslim child' etc. – although no other comparable labels: no conservative children, no liberal children, no Republican children, no Democrat children."

In both cases the emphasis is mine, just to highlight what I consider to be the crux of the quote.

There is of course the old quotation from Francis Xavier, "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man". Many religions continue by raising children in the religion from an early age when they are impressionable (as you say, it is considered a duty in many religions) and before they have the faculties to think and reason and decide for themselves – using the parents' position of influence and power to bring them into the faith, rather than allowing them to arrive at the same place through their own volition, should they so choose.

You seem to be against the use of music to spread a religious message in a subtle way (I assume you have no problem with out-and-out praise music where the message is plain for all to see?), seeing it as a way of surreptitiously worming a message into people's minds, maybe without them being aware.

I think Dawkins is taking that idea just a logical stage further and saying that he feels it is wrong for parents to worm a religious meme (a unit of cultural information, a term coined by Dawkins) into the minds of their children when they are very young and impressionable. In actual fact, Dawkins is not opposed to the idea of children having a comparative religious education, i.e. being taught what Christians believe, what Hindus believe etc without any elevation of one over the others.

P.S. For some reason emoticons don't seem to be working for me at the moment, but then I'm not sure there is one for "please, none of this is meant in a nasty way, I'm just saying what some people think and why they think it".

P.P.S. By the way, morals are not the sole property of religions either. Atheists can be just as moral (or immoral) as religious people. An oft-used argument from some religious people is "How can you be moral and decent if you don't believe in god?" and it reallys annoys many atheists (myself included).

Edited by Jorvik - February 16 2008 at 18:24

I ljuset från min lykta
ser jag skuggan utav sorg
drömmar som har slocknat
ifrån ett liv som haft sin tid

King Crimson776 View Drop Down

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779

Posted: February 16 2008 at 16:20

Stop removing true posts. What I said was simply the truth. According to the bible, all non-Christians go to hell, so Ghandi went to hell. This is the book Christians base their beliefs and morals on. If you pick and choose what you believe, then it would be better to come up with your own individual path to spirituality.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: February 16 2008 at 16:19

Jorvik wrote:

I say, excuse me chaps, might one interject?

Nothing to be excused, your opinion is valuable and I mostly agree with it, the issue is complex so it's not black or white,m there are tones of gray.

With regard to only allowing one's children to be exposed only to prog that conforms to one's particular denomination of christianity, Richard Dawkins is of the view that bringing up children in any religion is a form of child abuse, best to let them make up their own minds when they are adults.

Well Richard Dawkins is an atheist, which is OK for him and if he wants to raise his kids in atheism is also OK, it's a free world.

But comparing religion (whatever it is) with child abuse just because you don't believe in any religion, is absurd.

It's also his right to raise his kids as atheist, but is nobody to tell us what is right and what is wrong if we don't commit illegal or inmoral acts.

Iván

Jorvik

Forum Groupie

Joined: December 21 2007
Location: The Danelaw
Status: Offline
Points: 81

Posted: February 16 2008 at 15:24

I say, excuse me chaps, might one interject?

I must admit to having only skimmed through a lot of the recent posts, but I'm left with the following impression.

Iván is saying that bands alone are responsible for being labelled as christian prog, as they (or their lyricist alone, but with the acquiescence of any band members that don't leave over the decision) make the conscious decision to have lyrics that step over the mark from being "good versus evil, live a good life" genericism to being openly "spreading the word".

Artguyken is saying that, since the vast majority (if not all) of prog is considered such a niche, non-mass market type of music by the record industry that it isn't marketed in any way (no deciding which radio stations, TV channels or magazines are the best places to advertise to reach the key demographics), any labelling or categorising of the music is done post-release at the consumer end of the market.

I think you're both partially right. It is neither all one nor all the other, but both things go on.

With regard to only allowing one's children to be exposed only to prog that conforms to one's particular denomination of christianity, Richard Dawkins is of the view that bringing up children in any religion is a form of child abuse, best to let them make up their own minds when they are adults.

I ljuset från min lykta
ser jag skuggan utav sorg
drömmar som har slocknat
ifrån ett liv som haft sin tid

kiwi

Forum Senior Member

Joined: January 05 2008
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 127

Posted: February 16 2008 at 14:26

I was talking with a friend yesterday who told me that listening to ELP lyrics (don't know the specific song) made her question her assumptions about life starting her on her path towards God. With an enquiring and open mind listening to lyrics might take us to unexpected places.

We, verily, have made music as a ladder for your souls, a means whereby they may be lifted up unto the realm on high.. (Baha'u'llah)

music

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: February 16 2008 at 02:08

ghost_of_morphy wrote:

I see a whole bunch of Ivan's patented blue quotes, so I know there must be an argument here, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is about.....

Don't worry, neither do I, just follow the thread as it evolves in very different issues, some barely related with the original topic.

But it's OK, most of the time is very respectful, that's why it hasn´t been closed.

Iván

ghost_of_morphy View Drop Down

Prog Reviewer

Joined: March 08 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2755

Posted: February 16 2008 at 02:03

I see a whole bunch of Ivan's patented blue quotes, so I know there must be an argument here, but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is about.....

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: February 16 2008 at 01:28

Trademark wrote:

One needs only to look back at you own posts in this thread (not to mention the many many times you've posted the same anti-protestant diatribes in other threads over the years) to know that this is not true.

I'm not anti Protestant,I said it and repeat it, I'm against using music to transmit a covered message, what I said are facts with quotes and arguments

BTW: I checked each and every single post I wrote since page 10 in which I joined ths thread, escept the mention of Luther's anti Semoitism (and accepting the Catholic Church was also anti semitic) there's not a single attack on any religion, I only talked about what I believe is brainwashing (by any formal religion Rock), corrected you when you made a wrong statement about our doctrine and pointed the attacks.

I don't believe Chroistian, Cathoilic or Jewish Rock is positive, that was my main point.

Ahhh now we get to the crux of the whole problem....Fear of competition.
You don't want someone else's "brainwashing" (your term, not mine) to interfere with the brainwashing
you do at home. A very Protestant stance.

Sorry, but raising your kids in your religion is a right and I believe a duty if you believe it's the truth, I'm sure you have or will raise your children in your religion and nobody had the right to go against your will, you are responsible for your sons, not a Christian, Jewish or even Catholic singer.

When they are old enough to understand what they are accepting they will make their Confirmation or not, that's their choice, but teaching youir faith to your sons is not brainwashing, it's your duty, one adquired when yoi married and accepted to raise your kids in your faith.

BTW: In Perú there is no competition to fear, 95% of the population is Catholic, so there's nothing to fear, it's only a principle .

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 16 2008 at 01:37

Trademark

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009

Posted: February 16 2008 at 01:11

"I expressed anything against any religion"

One needs only to look back at you own posts in this thread (not to mention the many many times you've posted the same anti-protestant diatribes in other threads over the years) to know that this is not true.

" I wouldn't like my kids (still don't have, but have nephews) listening music that encourages them to embrace a religion different than the one I decided for them as part of heir inheritance.

When they are adults they can make a reasoned cjoice, but while they are minors, I have the right and the duty to control what they listen."

Ahhh now we get to the crux of the whole problem....Fear of competition.
You don't want someone else's "brainwashing" (your term, not mine) to interfere with the brainwashing
you do at home. A very Protestant stance.

Edited by Trademark - February 16 2008 at 01:13

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: February 16 2008 at 00:57

artguyken wrote:

it is a futile exercise to respond to your points, because you continue to either misinterpret or misrepresent or omit what I have said and give extreme diatribes in response. It's so very odd that a Catholic would be so against Christian expression, far less tolerant than those who do not share belief at all.

Please don't call me intolerant, I havent expressed anything against any religion, I respect all of them equally, and I'm not the one who proclaims that only those who share my beliefs will be saved.

Despite this respect, when it comes to calling things by their name, I try to do it. But seems your believe for freedom of expression only works when supporting what you believe in.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 16 2008 at 00:59

artguyken

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 05 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 187

Posted: February 16 2008 at 00:39

it is a futile exercise to respond to your points, because you continue to either misinterpret or misrepresent or omit what I have said and give extreme diatribes in response. It's so very odd that a Catholic would be so against Christian expression, far less tolerant than those who do not share belief at all.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: February 16 2008 at 00:32

artguyken wrote:

Fine, Ivan, you are beating a dead horse.

We understand you believe in strict restrictions on religious expression. Some of us believe in freedom of expression. Just as I may not care for or agree with all world views expressed in music, I believe that the artists have a right to sing about whatever they want.

Seems you avoid some issues but doesn't matter, at last we agree in something, everybody is free to sing about whatever they want, but we are free to disagree and express our disagreement.

Iván

BTW: I'm a Glass Hammer fan, I find them moderate and not preachy, most of their lyrics are about a fight of good against evil, but they don't try to force us to embrace anything and of course I respect their beliefs as any other artist belief.

In their case I don't know if the CPR label is accurate.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 16 2008 at 00:33

artguyken

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 05 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 187

Posted: February 16 2008 at 00:18

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

artguyken wrote:

No, I'm not mixing things Artguyken, you seem to ignore my points systematically, every band that preaches Christian Music is Chroistian Rock (from which Christian Prog is part, being Prog a Rock genre), for example Neal Morse is clear in his interview:

Neal: We're doing this church service tour and it's just phenomenal, I feel like the Spirit of the Lord is really growing and touching people as we go. Every time we come it seems like the Lord is getting stronger and it's just really exciting. People are getting saved and filled with the Holy Ghost, it's just incredible. We're gonna finish up this church service tour and go home and get some rest. I also just did this Christian folk song album called 'Songs From The Highway' that's probably not going to be available in stores unless something happens and somebody wants to pick it up because it's not a prog album - it won't being going through my usual outlets but you can get it at radiantrecords.com. it's a very unusual album for me. It's like nothing else I've ever done, it's just acoustic guitar and vocals and it's almost like an early Bob Dylan album or something with a lot of words and simple songs with a lot of verses. Some people think it's the best thing I've ever done so I like to tell people about that in case they would be blessed by it. Anyway we'll just be onto the next thing - whatever the Lord has for us.

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/Neal_Morse_Martin_Luther_Sola_Scriptura__A_Progressive_Rock_Concept_Album/26784/p1/

Seems he's not ashamed or uncomfortable with the Christian music label, it's what he is playing

BTW: The label Christian Prog is supportedd by some of this artists:

Neal Morse, Ajalon, Glass Hammer on new Christian progressive rock compilation.

A TWO CD album has been released in the States showcasing Christian involvement in progressive rock music. The album, 'CPR Vol 1', has been released by Threshing Floor Records and features such acts as Neal Morse, Ajalon, Glass Hammer, Everlasting Arms, Theophonic Cloud and Salem Hill.

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/news/Christian_Prog_Rock/12853/p1/

They are the ones labeling themselves releasing an album about CHRISTIAN PROGRESSIVE ROCK COMPILATION.

The CProg label is what I am talking about, but if you would read a bit further in my post, I also talked about how most prog isn't sold in stores, but is mostly an internet phenomenon anyway. Still, the question I raised was simply whether the label was helpful or harmful.

The label is an accurate description IMO and it's better to know what kind of music they play and what messages are sent, if people requests advertising about the lyrical content, I also believe that non Protestants deserve to know what message is being given to their kids.

I wouldn't like my kids (still don't have, but have nephews) listening music that encourages them to embrace a religion different than the one I decided for them as part of heir inheritance.

When they are adults they can make a reasoned cjoice, but while they are minors, I have the right and the duty to control what they listen.

You seem set on an anti-Christian music crusade. We all get it, you're against Christian music. You don't like music that sings the praises of God, unless severe restrictions are placed on how it can be used, performed, broadcast or sold. Now that we all understand your position, do you think we could move on?

Anti nothing, but I believe everything has a place, the place for religious music is in the Churches or in the houses of those who want to listen it consciously knowing what they are listening, doesn't matter if it's Christian, Catholic or Buddhist.

When I have kids they are going to study in a Catholic school as I did and they will praise the Lord there and pray at home, but I have the right to know what they are listening.

Iván

Fine, Ivan, you are beating a dead horse.

We understand you believe in strict restrictions on religious expression. Some of us believe in freedom of expression. Just as I may not care for or agree with all world views expressed in music, I believe that the artists have a right to sing about whatever they want.

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: February 16 2008 at 00:09

artguyken wrote:

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/Neal_Morse_Martin_Luther_Sola_Scriptura__A_Progressive_Rock_Concept_Album/26784/p1/

Seems he's not ashamed or uncomfortable with the Christian music label, it's what he is playing

BTW: The label Christian Prog is supportedd by some of this artists:

Neal Morse, Ajalon, Glass Hammer on new Christian progressive rock compilation.

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/news/Christian_Prog_Rock/12853/p1/

They are the ones labeling themselves releasing an album about CHRISTIAN PROGRESSIVE ROCK COMPILATION.

Please Artguyken, the album is called CPR (Christian Progressive Rock Vol I)

...So who is labeling them except themselves?

The CProg label is what I am talking about, but if you would read a bit further in my post, I also talked about how most prog isn't sold in stores, but is mostly an internet phenomenon anyway. Still, the question I raised was simply whether the label was helpful or harmful.

I wouldn't like my kids (still don't have, but have nephews) listening music that encourages them to embrace a religion different than the one I decided for them as part of heir inheritance.

BTW: Most Ptog is sold by the Net, but it's very unlikely to release an album called Christian Progressive Rock Vol I anfd not be labeled as Christian Prog.

When I have kids they are going to study in a Catholic school as I did and they will praise the Lord there and pray at home, but I have the right to know what they are listening.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 16 2008 at 00:16

Failcore

Forum Senior Member

Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625

Posted: February 15 2008 at 23:07

All philosophies are religion and all religions are philosophies. That being said it does make since to market christian prog separately, as there are many Christians in the western world.

artguyken

Forum Senior Member

Joined: November 05 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 187

Posted: February 15 2008 at 22:46

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Garion81 wrote:

The thing is most of the bands Ken mentioned in this thread do not want to be labelled as Christian Bands or Christian anything.

Hi Garion, I don't just replied to a post by Artguyken who literally said:

I don't like the term Christian Prog. It's set apart purely on the basis of lyrical content -- what other religion or philosophy has their own pigeon hole?

This implies that non Christians lump all music WITH CHRISTIAN LYRIC CONTENT into Christian Rock or Prog, and my point is that nobody is doing nothing, the concept of Christian Rock to identify Rock with Evangelist purpose was created by Christian musicians, he didn't quoted any band, he just talked in general terms.

You're mixing two different things, Ivan. I am talking about prog. That's what this site is about. It's what this thread is about. I am NOT talking about the marketing of Christian music in general, which, as Garion pointed out, is marketed to Christians.

The CProg label is what I am talking about, but if you would read a bit further in my post, I also talked about how most prog isn't sold in stores, but is mostly an internet phenomenon anyway. Still, the question I raised was simply whether the label was helpful or harmful.

You seem set on an anti-Christian music crusade. We all get it, you're against Christian music. You don't like music that sings the praises of God, unless severe restrictions are placed on how it can be used, performed, broadcast or sold. Now that we all understand your position, do you think we could move on?

Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down

Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535

Posted: February 15 2008 at 20:58

Garion81 wrote:

The thing is most of the bands Ken mentioned in this thread do not want to be labelled as Christian Bands or Christian anything.

Hi Garion, I don't just replied to a post by Artguyken who literally said:

I don't like the term Christian Prog. It's set apart purely on the basis of lyrical content -- what other religion or philosophy has their own pigeon hole?

If I go to the Catholic station and find a bunch of Catholic kids performing music with Cathoilic preaching, its' Catholic Rock, that's all. In the same way any band who plays in CFest is a Christian Rock band, nobody gave them that title, they choosed it.

They happen to be in bands that have members that are practicing Christian and some that are not. In some cases that happens to be the guy who writes the lyrics is a Christian.

Then the non Christian Rocker can and should leave if he doesn't agree I believe you remember this Steve Walsh interview:

K2K: I understood that the reason you actually left the band originally, and then ultimately why Kerry left, was due mostly to religious reasons, or differences.

SW: Yes. I would say that it was due to religious beliefs. I do have religious beliefs, but it was the way that they were being...

K2K: So is that part of the reason why he quit the band?

SW: The reason was that the lyrics were just getting... Kerry, at that point when he was writing "Dust In The Wind" and "The Wall" and "Carry On My Wayward Son" and all, he was on a journey, man. I was along because he wrote some great stuff. But, once he found himself, I just couldn't empathize with the salvation that he was trying to get me to put across to masses and masses of people. It just didn't fly.

http://www.kaos2000.net/interviews/stevewalsh/

So, despite at least Steve Walsh and Robby Steindhardt (at least) didn't wanted to be part of a Christian band, Kerry started to turn Kansas into a Christian Rock band, so both simply left, they didn't wanted to be part of it, and it was an honest decision.

We all know Neal Morse is making Christian Rock even when Mike Portnoy is a Jewish born musician, the fact that he is not Christian doesn't stop him from being part of a Chreistian band, maybe for friendshiop or maybe because he likes the music, I don't know,

But if an evangelist form of Rock exists and a band starts to preach, they can't blame anybody for being labeled as Christian Rock.

You can't play two different sets of cards, promnote a religion, make religious lyrics for their audience, but refuse to be called a religious band to avoid being rejeceted by people who are not Christian Rockers, either you are or you are not part of a Christian Rock band.

That is really the whole point. It is us that are labeling it that and are we labeling it Christian prog because of the lyrics alone?

If a band had Christian lyrics, preaches and tries to convince people that they should search for salvation in Christianity, we are talking about a Christian Rock band,

Genesis did lyrics about the Revelation, but nobody will label them as Christian Rock because they were not preaching, the same goes for The Strawbs, despite I believe they are Catholics or Aphrodite's Child who did a conceptual album about the Book of Revelation.

Lets be honest, if somebody is labeled as Christian Rocker, is because he/she/they want to be there.

If my vice president of my division of the company happens to be Muslim does that make our whole division Muslim? Or if the President is Jewish does that make it a Jewish company? Of course not.

No, but if your company stops working Friday at 6 PM to celebrate the Sabbath while writting articles in favour of Judaism and prohibits the workers to eat pork meat, it turns into a Jewsh company, and the people that work there despite their religion are working in a company that promotes Jewish Religion.

But the case is different and you know, the Christian Rocker is PREACHING CHRISTIANITY, if a member doesn't agree, he can leave as Steve and Robby did, if they stay with the band, they are being part of this evangelism despite their personal beliefs.

This music is not used in worship services it is not marketed strictly to Christians and it is prog in every sense of the word. Do we label Rush "Humanist prog" because for the point of view Neal Pert takes? Of course not. So why is this one point of view the only one we do?

The music for worshiping is RELIGIOUS MUSIC Garion, here or in China, you can call it anyway, you can change the name, but oif their goal is to transmit the message of a Christian Church, it's Christian Rock.

Christian Rock was a label created by Christians, nobody did it except them, so if they don't want to be labeled as Christoian Rock musicians, they should stop preaching.

Now, a band formed by Christians that plays secular music, it's not a Christian band, but as soon they start to preach, it´s Chrsitian Prog, because their goal is not art exclusively, it's also Christian propaganda.

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 15 2008 at 21:10