"Creed is not Christian Rock" I think is the crux of it. Bands who declare it openly and follow all the rules don't set off the alarm here. It's bands who (in the perception of whomever is offended) do NOT categorize themselves as such, yet attempt to influence people with their music. But it's easily one of the blurriest, hard-to-define offenses imaginable. TOTALLY subjective, 99% of the time. Bono slips in a lot of spirituality, but other members don't feel the same way. U2 = Fishrock?

Again, Meh.

It's like trying to have an argument about the easter bunny. 2 hours goes by, and no progress.

Oh yeah, I agree that when a band goes out, preaches from the stage and then says "we aren't Christian rock." That's lame. Because obviously, their purpose is to evangelize.

Then there are folks like Jason Martin from Starflyer 59 who basically has zero evangelical content in his lyrics. Yet, when interviewers ask him if SF59 is a Christian band he's like "Yeah that's fine, you can call us a Christian band. Whatever."

Diggity's right. The term "rock 'n' roll" started out as a euphemism for sex. But I'd say those "frightened adults" of the '50s had no idea about the term's origins when they'd go on tirades about "rock 'n' roll being the devil's music" - 'cuz if they did you can be damn sure they wouldn't have uttered a slang phrase for intercourse in public.

Then rock'n'roll is sex-as-music, as per the word's original meaning (which is static) and can mean nothing else to anyone.

Speaking of christian rock, Stryper is playing in Boston at the end of October. $17 a ticket though.

Yeah it may have started out like that, but it sure has changed. Now the big thing about rock n' roll today is that it's not supposed to have boundaries.

Of course it's not static. Everything mutates through a filter of mass misunderstanding. Like "grunge" and "alternative" and "punk" all eventually came to denote things fairly far removed from their own origins. But I like Elvis Costello's take on the whole thing, which was that in the late '60s "rock'n'roll" changed into "rock" when all the art school kids wanted the music to be more intellectually respectable. Paraphrasing EC: "rock 'n' roll was sex, a rock is an inanimate object" (don't blame me for EC switching verb to noun).

But, like EC, I draw a division between rock music and rock'n'roll music. Rock'n'roll is tapping into some primal impulses and finding something simple and profound. Rock music uses the same format but eschews the primal for the cerebral.

As such, I've got no problem with a band calling its music Christian rock. Now, Christian rock'n'roll is a whole 'nuther story.

Interesting perspective. But I'm assuming Christians are also sexual beings with primal impulses. They can have sex too, especially if they are married and stuff. But of course I'm just pushing it now.

Radcliffe did a MUCH better job of expressing what I was trying to get across than I did. He smart, me dumb. lol.

As far as rock 'n' roll having no boundaries, I agree. But if yer Christian you're supposed to only have sex in marriage - which by definition is a boundary. So in my mind "Christian" CANNOT equal "rock 'n' roll".

And about some Christian scenes being "whorehouses"...IMO, that would negate them being "Christian". You can't belong to the club if you don't follow the rules. It's like another scenario that annoys me - say, pro-choice Catholics. I'm pro-choice, & I grew up Catholic. But you know what? Rather than being one of those hypocrites that said "Well, I'm Catholic but I'm still pro-choice" I just friggin' stopped being Catholic.

The funny thing is, as an Atheist I'm probably about the least religious person on this BB. Don't believe in God, couldn't care less. Hope I'm wrong, cuz that whole Heaven thing sounds pretty sweet. But it just doesn't make sense to me. I know that's why they call it "faith", but I'm the type of person who needs things to make logical sense for me to buy into something.

well if you start breaking too many boundaries (4/4 time signature, standard rock drum kit, electric guitars), you're going to have a hard time convincing someone you're playing rock'n'roll as well.



then no one ever has been a christian, or a muslim, or a jew.



Then you should ditch atheism for agnosticism, because one cannot logically conclude based upon the available evidence that there is no god.

Haq, you know I honestly respect your analytical mind, but your gap-fillers are protruding from your reentry tiles.

Come on, Radcliffe - don't fall prey to the unexamined assumptions of your worldview. Unless you're just implying that I stated the case too loosely. To restate:

It is not a necessary conclusion from the available evidence that an intelligent force is not to some degree responsible for the existence of the physical universe. It is much more honest to say that however unlikely it may feel to you, such a thing is (and will probably remain) impossible to know.

If you're privy to information that negates the above, I'm all ears.

That's where I stand, Haq.

Fair enough...so if you go by the hardcore definition, maybe I'm just Agnostic ( which, BTW, I did used to consider myself ) .

Oh, I'm hardcore.

I'm saying that point is mere semantics. Yes, it's true that "it is not a necessary conclusion from the available evidence that an intelligent force is not to some degree responsible for the existence of the physical universe" - but it's similar to saying you can't prove an invisible bunny isn't living in your sock drawer. Both are a simple construct of human imagination - and, in the case of the "intelligent creator", a failure of imagination, based in a human necessity for beginnings, endings, and reasons.

As for the "unexamined assumptions of my world view" - live another 20 years, and then we'll talk about the unexamined life.

I've examined my life so much I'm fuckin' sick of lookin' at it.

Of course you know that it can be as easily characterized as a leap of imagination, and that it's a bit coy to criticize a notion as too much of both. And for an athiest whose done a good deal of examination to criticize others for requiring reasons.

And that age is no guarantee of insight, and that people who have lived as long and looked as carefully have come to opposite conclusions as hard-fought as your own. Whether your assumptions are supportable has nothing to do with whether I'm one of those people. I didn't mean to insult you, and I don't think you implied any less about me.

I'm not criticizing anyone for requiring reason. I'm saying that reason is a human necessity, limited by our slim definition of reality. So when we project a path beyond our visible horizons, we're naturally gonna pave the fugger with the same stuff we've been walking on.

Most importantly, I'm saying this idea that one cannot prove that an intelligent force did not create the known universe is an argument of semantics. It's wordplay along the lines of the ontological proof for the existence of god.


Two words: Joan Rivers.

No personal insult intended, Haq. Like I said, I respect your intellect. And your humor. Just not sure about that appreciation for Radiohead. ;)

And BTW -

[img][650:488]http://www.in.gov/statefair/fair/tickets/switchfoot.jpg[/img]