More music that I like. I like many styles and this one is from a hard rock band called "Pillar". They are a christian band that have uplifting lyrics, the lyrics of a band mean a lot to me. They aren't the secular "kill yourself" type that are usually associated with hard rock of which I do not like.
Here is a song that I just really like of theirs.
Here is an anthem of faith:
Here is a song about how America needs to come back to the roots of the phrase "In God we trust" (note: the first 20 secs is not the song :))
Enjoy
Well, Pillar might regard "one nation under God" as the "ways of the days of old", but I'm older than those days: the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance by Eisenhower in 1954. By the way- do you think forcing schoolkids to recite a pledge to God and the flag of the United States, before they even understand what a "pledge" is, is a good idea?
ReplyDelete"They aren't the secular "kill yourself" type that are usually associated with hard rock of which I do not like. "
ReplyDeleteDo you even listen to secular hard rock? I don't think I've heard "kill yourself" lyrics for decades now.
By the way- do you think forcing schoolkids to recite a pledge to God and the flag of the United States, before they even understand what a "pledge" is, is a good idea?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it's not a pledge to G-d, it is a pledge to the flag of a nation that is under G-d.
Do you think that pushing unproven evolution down the throats of our youth without giving all the facts is a good idea?
"Do you think that pushing unproven evolution down the throats of our youth without giving all the facts is a good idea?"
ReplyDeleteIf I thought that evolution was what you seem to think it is, then no.
Fortunately, it's not what you think it is, and calling any scientific theory, such as gravity or evolution, "unproven" is just redundant.
Proof only exists in math and alcohol.
Lastly, there's a great number of things that we teach children in schools "without giving all the facts" (because it would take an entire school year to even try to give all of the facts regarding WW2), so if that's your issue, you have an incredibly long list of things to complain about.
Lastly, I went to secular public schools, and I never had evolution pushed down my throat. In fact, it was quite the opposite; I graduated from college with very little understanding of evolution.
All of my learning of evolution came about long after graduation, and it started due to anti-evolutionist arguments. My reaction was, "there are people out there who are arguing against this? I guess I should better understand what they're arguing about."
So, creationists are to "blame" for me learning about evolution.
"Kill yourself" is secular?
ReplyDeleteYou've got a weird view of the world, DP...
Do you even listen to secular hard rock? I don't think I've heard "kill yourself" lyrics for decades now.
ReplyDeleteMusic old or new they are both listened to by everyone.
I'll mention some bands I know of and let me know what you think of their names...ok?
-Mega Death,
-Kiss (Kids In Service of Satan, as rumored)
-Slipknot
-Black Sabbath
-Incubus
etc.
I prefer more positive groups that use their music to glorify God rather than paint a sickly/deathly picture.
I remember hearing a song from a band called Bush? I think? that said something like "kill you, kill you" in the lyrics.
(I may have miss heard or taken out of context but it is known that secular hard rocker's lyrics are not the best)...I know that is a generalization.
"Kill yourself" is secular?
ReplyDeleteYou've got a weird view of the world, DP...
How about non-religious/non-christian? is that a better term that you would agree with?
I meant the music that is out there in the secular realm...and that is often not christian.
Make sense?
"Kill yourself is secular" Should be in italics
ReplyDeleteNohm: Word.
ReplyDelete--
Stan
Don't follow?
ReplyDeleteI'll mention some bands I know of and let me know what you think of their names...ok?
ReplyDelete-Mega Death,
-Kiss (Kids In Service of Satan, as rumored)
-Slipknot
-Black Sabbath
-Incubus
Megadeth, not "Mega Death," is a 'death metal' or 'thrash' band, and is hardly current. While plenty of people do indeed listen to Megadeth, I'd wager that few, if any, do so via radio (except subscription radio such as XM). Certainly, though, their style and lyrics are likely problems for you. If it's any consolation, I don't let my children listen to Megadeth (they are both under 8).
KISS is just a late 70s / 80s rock band. They produced their first studio album in ten years last year, and their music is hardly threatening. While 'Christian' conspiracy theorists have claimed the band's name stands for 'Knights in Satan's Service' (I've never heard your version), it also matches the acronym for 'Keep it Simple, Stupid.' One wonders why that version of the band's name isn't widely speculated by 'Christians'... According to Wikipedia's entry on the band, the name was due to the fact that one of the band members had previously been in a different band called 'Lips,' and thinking it amusing to call their new band 'Kiss.'
Slipknot is a current band, with which I'm not especially familiar (except for Guitar Hero III, I may not have known their name), but the name of the band is technically a simple knot as opposed to anything sinister. I'm unfamiliar with their lyrics, but per Wikipedia, one of their original members was a professing Christian, so...
Black Sabbath is even older than KISS, and their inclusion here suggests you only looked at a list of band names and picked out 'scary' sounding ones... The name stemmed from a movie by the same title, and in spite of Ozzie's 'demonic' sound, their lyrics are -- arguably, I suppose -- comically Satanic as opposed to actually Satanic.
Incubus... Amusing. I had to look up the meaning of the word to find that it was a type of demon. I should think, then, that most casual listeners are likewise unfamiliar with the meaning of the band's name. I'm pretty sure they have at least one song available in a Guitar Hero game, but otherwise I couldn't pick them out on the radio even though I'm probably familiar with one or more of their songs.
As to your list, though, two can play at that game. What of these band names?
1. Attack Attack!
2. Black Carnation
3. The Classic Crime
4. Dead Poetic
5. Demon Hunter
6. I am Terrified
7. Leviticus
8. Lust Control
etc.
These are just as questionable as far as the names go, I would say, and there should be no question that there are questionable lyrics and/or styles in many songs by so-called 'Christian' rock bands. I recall back when Stryper was catching grief for their song, "To Hell with the Devil." Today, that's probably considered quite mild, but I remember my parents warning me that their music was forbidden.
When I got to high school, of course, I didn't bother with the mild lyrics of Stryper, and went instead with Rage Against the Machine...
Anyway, the name of a band is supposed to be eye-catching and/or memorable, and the lyrics or style is generally meant to appeal to the audience, which in the case of rock means appealing to rebellious youth. It should come as no surprise, then, that those lyrics betray rebellious attitudes up to and including Satanic references. Of course, this is hardly new in and of itself -- Elvis was considered a harbinger of evil back in his day, as were The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.
--
Stan
Don't follow?
ReplyDeleteI simply meant that Nohm (Nohm's comment) was spot-on.
--
Stan
These are just as questionable as far as the names go, I would say, and there should be no question that there are questionable lyrics and/or styles in many songs by so-called 'Christian' rock bands,
ReplyDeleteYou are right, I do not endorse all "christian" bands.
And I realize a lot has to do with context when lyrics are concerned.
But there are more questionable lyrics in non-christian bands...THAT IS ONE POINT OF MY POST...can you even agree with me on something or do you just enjoy disagreeing as evidence shows?
At some work places I have worked they play "The Rock fm" and they play all rock including ACDC and heaps of others, because a band is old it does not mean that it is not mainstream.
While 'Christian' conspiracy theorists have claimed the band's name stands for 'Knights in Satan's Service' (I've never heard your version)
I've heard both :) and I too have looked them up on wiki and it says:
"The band's name has been rumored to have many hidden meanings, among them an acronym for Knights In Satan's Service or Keep It Simple Stupid."
Sheesh, I'm almost disappointed you didn't go off on Bad Religion, Da Pilgrim.
ReplyDeleteThis thread is bizarre. Are we going to cover back-masking next?
In terms of lyrical context, in many cases the actual lyrics are lost on the casual listener. If you wish to make a case that the 'message' of the lyrics gets through subconsciously even if the lyrics themselves are not consciously recognized, that would be a different subject, but yes, the context is important.
ReplyDeleteAs an example of context being completely misapplied, I recall purchasing an album by The Smashing Pumpkins titled "Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness" (a double-album). The CD included lyrics for all of the songs, and one song had impressed me such that I sought to show my Dad the lyrics. While he looked over the lyrics to the song in question (which I forget), he noticed the lyrics to "To Forgive," which include the following line:
Bastard son of a bastard son of a wild-eyed child of the sun...
Except my father read it as though it had been punctuated differently:
Bastard, son of a bastard, son of a wild-eyed child of the sun...
What he did is essentially what you do, and apparently have done, with respect to the music you don't like. He noted a term which he viewed as negative ("bastard"), and misunderstood the lyric as a result. The actual song is clearly sung as describing an illegitimate child, whose father was likewise an illegitimate child, whose parents in turn were mythical (or something).
Your use of a Christian 'lens' through which all things are judged is debilitating -- just because you expect non-Christian music to be anti-Christian does not mean it actually is, and just because a band's name connotes 'dark' themes does not mean it is necessarily Satanic (actually or in jest).
Really, why aren't you showing concern for far worse lyrical content, such as the degrading lyrics of various rap artists, the calls to violence by groups such as Rage Against the Machine, or the worst, the anti-literacy lyrics of country 'music'? Instead, it seems you're just making up things to fit with your apparent persecution complex.
Whatever your musical taste, I'd actually much prefer discussing "Under god" and its place on U.S. currency or in the U.S. pledge of allegiance, and whether or not it is appropriate to have children pledge their allegiance.
--
Stan
How did evolution find its way into this thread?
ReplyDeleteDa Pilgrim,
Yes, non-Christian music generally contains content that is not pro-Christian.
That's not to say that it often contains content that is specifically anti-Christian; but then anything that's not glorifying God is against God, right? So from your perspective I'm sure it seems like 'secular' music is anti-God.
I would suggest that if you don't like hard rock, you shouldn't listen to it. I don't listen to Christian rock for the same reason.
Cheers,
Me: "Kill yourself" is secular?
ReplyDeleteYou've got a weird view of the world, DP...
DP: How about non-religious/non-christian? is that a better term that you would agree with?
"Non-Christian" is the perfect phrase, yes.
Incidentally, what I found weird about your view of the world is that you implied the word "secular" is the opposite of "Christian". I suppose this kind of thinking is popular in contemporary Christianity, but it is nevertheless completely false.
ReplyDeleteSecular means hiding of any religious view from my understanding.
ReplyDeleteThat's not to say that it often contains content that is specifically anti-Christian
Ever seen a Marilyn Manson concert?
but then anything that's not glorifying God is against God, right?
Where did you get that from? I am guessing you are getting it from my stance that you atheists are against God.
When I say that I am talking about the way we live our lives and whether they are devoted to Him or not.
There are many songs that don't talk about God but will glorify God in a different way.
So from your perspective I'm sure it seems like 'secular' music is anti-God.
Where did I say that?
I mean simply that a lot of hard rockers are anti God and/or depressed, demonic.
I would suggest that if you don't like hard rock, you shouldn't listen to it. I don't listen to Christian rock for the same reason.
I like hard rock as a style as made obvious by this post but I would not listen to all stuff because of the content of a lot of bands. If someone has a name such as incubus in jest or not, I wonder what state their mind is in to even choose such a name?
Stan,
just because you expect non-Christian music to be anti-Christian does not mean it actually is
Once again, where did I say that?
I like some of U2's music and they aren't what I would call christian.
Really, why aren't you showing concern for far worse lyrical content, such as the degrading lyrics of various rap artists, the calls to violence by groups such as Rage Against the Machine,
Because this post is not about rap.
MM is shocker....I heard he sang about killing his mum or similar.
Whatever your musical taste, I'd actually much prefer discussing "Under god" and its place on U.S. currency or in the U.S. pledge of allegiance, and whether or not it is appropriate to have children pledge their allegiance.
I actually don't know much about how your country is run but I agree with Pillar that we need to get back to the days of old when it was in God that people trusted more.
This thread is bizarre. Are we going to cover back-masking next?
ReplyDeleteThis thread was mainly about a particular band I liked :)
But instead people are picking on little details of statements I make and then blowing them up into big balloons.
Any actually like the "music"?
If you wish to make a case that the 'message' of the lyrics gets through subconsciously even if the lyrics themselves are not consciously recognized, that would be a different subject, but yes, the context is important.
FUNNY! I think this must be one of the few times when we agree on something.
"How did evolution find its way into this thread?
ReplyDeleteI see the reason that I don't come around here much is still here. It continually amazes me how you guys don't read what's posted before making idiotic statements.
Fortunately, it's not what you think it is, and calling any scientific theory, such as gravity or evolution, "unproven" is just redundant.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, you can't put evolution in the same group as gravity, relativity, etc.
Proof only exists in math and alcohol.
I have constantly wondered how much faith atheists have in an "unproven" idea as evolution and not except the fact that it is your religion. Now I know. It's the alcohol. Thanks for the clarification.
Da Pilgrim,
ReplyDeletePillar Rocks on the ROCK OF AGES.
Once again, Hiker Boy provides absolutely nothing of value to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteRun along, boy, the grown-ups are talking.
"First of all, you can't put evolution in the same group as gravity, relativity, etc."
ReplyDeleteWhy not? Please explain in detail, using the correct nomenclature, why it isn't.
"I have constantly wondered how much faith atheists have in an "unproven" idea as evolution"
Ok, then I'll help you out to stop the wondering: the answer is "none".
Again, all theories are unproven. Since you seemed to miss the point of the joke and focused on alcohol, I'll try again:
Proofs only exist in math.
Therefore, calling a scientific theory "unproven" is just silly. Do you get it now? Or are you one of *those people* who think that once a theory is proven it becomes a law? Because that would be my guess, but I would be happy to be shown to be wrong about that.
"and not except [sic] the fact that it is your religion."
Sigh. "Evolution" is not my, ExPatMatt's, or anyone's religion. Calling it a religion makes absolutely no sense. And please stop trying to read other people's minds, especially because you're absolutely awful at it.
"Now I know. It's the alcohol."
The straight-edge atheists might disagree with you there.
I'm sober, by the way.
Hiker Boy,
ReplyDeleteI have constantly wondered how much faith atheists have in an "unproven" idea as evolution
You nailed a point home, although some of these atheists are a little slow in understanding where Christians like us come from. We need to define terms and what is exactly meant by evolution.
Micro-evolution (slight change in species...give or take more or less) is a fact and would require someone silly to doubt it...but macro evolution or even further - evolution from slime on rocks (or similar) is what you are talking about I assume.
Yes, many dotted lines need to be filled in when it comes to believing man's ancestors are fish (or similar)...it takes an amount of faith to believe it.
People like Nohm/EPM choose to put faith in it (I assume and from my knowledge/understanding of their stance).
Pillar Rocks on the ROCK OF AGES.
Quite agree :)
DP
Hiker Boy said:
ReplyDeleteI have constantly wondered how much faith atheists have in an "unproven" idea as evolution...
To which DP replied:
You nailed a point home, although some of these atheists are a little slow in understanding where Christians like us come from.
Yet the only point I see 'nailed home' is the fact that you people have a penchant for missing the point. Evolution is a scientific theory, just like gravity, quantum mechanics, cell theory, relativity, etc. None of these is 'proven,' and indeed it is a defining characteristic of a theory that it cannot be proven.
So we're not "slow in understanding where Christians like [you] come from," but rather we are tired of the constant face-palm that results from recognizing "where Christians like [you] come from." You come from a magical place where facts need not match up with reality.
Hiker Boy also seemed to be under the impression that placing one scientific theory into the same category as other scientific theories is somehow disallowed, in spite of the fact that they are all scientific theories, and as such they have already been placed into the same category:
[Y]ou can't put evolution in the same group as gravity, relativity, etc.
Simply put, we have observed evolution (you would apparently say, "micro" evolution), and predictions borne out of evolutionary theory have held. This is exactly the same as observations made, say, with respect to relativity. We have observed relativistic phenomena, and predictions borne out of the theory of relativity have held.
The case of gravity is a bit different, however. In the case of gravity -- often referred to as the 'Law of Gravity' -- we have found that it doesn't hold, and that it is in fact false. What it remains, however, is a useful fiction; using the Newtonian concept of gravity, we can get to the moon and back, even if it is ultimately recognized as being wrong.
You see, the theory of evolution is far more supported by evidence than Newton's theory of universal gravitation. Yet, for one reason or another, you guys don't cry about teaching students -- from primary school straight through to university -- Newtonian mechanics. Indeed, most non-science majors never encounter the fact that gravity is only weakly understood, and even science majors may escape the difficult courses which explore relativistic/quantum models of gravity.
Why do you not cry about the teaching of gravity?
Back to the music, I listened to the three songs (finally), and I was not disappointed. They were Christian 'rock' songs. A key feature, I've found, of Christian 'rock' is that the lyrics are almost always very easy to identify.
ReplyDeleteWhy? Because the music is marketed not just to the actual listener (as is the case with non-religious music), but also to the parents and other hierarchy of the religion in general. In the case of non-religious music, the artist is not constrained to adhering to the particular tastes or sensibilities of a particular group, and as an indirect result, in many cases the lyrics are more difficult to understand.
In Christian music, however, I challenge you to discover a Christian artist who doesn't provide printed lyrics to every song, and I likewise challenge you to find a Christian artist whose lyrics are difficult to understand. Christian music veritably requires simple-to-understand lyrics, so that the powers-that-be can verify that they are actually 'on-message,' and not controversial or otherwise 'off-message.' As a general result of this, then, the limitations placed on Christian music make it generally suck. Pillar is no exception.
(Side note: Jars of Clay is typically better than most Christian music -- perhaps because their acoustic sound is more conducive to understanding the lyrics -- and although I dislike their 'message,' their music is generally tolerable.)
--
Stan
Da Pilgrim,
ReplyDelete"Micro-evolution (slight change in species...give or take more or less) is a fact and would require someone silly to doubt it...but macro evolution or even further - evolution from slime on rocks (or similar) is what you are talking about I assume."
Could you please enlighten us 'slow' atheists as to where the boundary of micro-evolution lies? How far does micro-evolution extend before it becomes macro-evolution (something you consider highly unlikely, apparently). Not that your highly scientific explanation ("give or take more or less") wasn't enough, it's just that I'm a bit slow with these things. Maybe a new blog post on this would be appropriate?
It's funny that you say;
"Yes, many dotted lines need to be filled in when it comes to believing man's ancestors are fish (or similar)...it takes an amount of faith to believe it.
People like Nohm/EPM choose to put faith in it"
When your definition of faith is;
"A logical deduction from the evidence at hand."
Don't you think?
Cheers,
Stan,
ReplyDeleteAs a general result of this, then, the limitations placed on Christian music make it generally suck. Pillar is no exception.
Funny, so it is the lyrics that you hate about christian music?
By way of mention Pillar's music has been requested by secular audiences so it cannot suck too much for being "christian".
(Side note: Jars of Clay is typically better than most Christian music -- perhaps because their acoustic sound is more conducive to understanding the lyrics -- and although I dislike their 'message,' their music is generally tolerable.)
Quite true. Jars of clay would be a christian band that I would point to where their lyrics are hard to follow but I do not agree with you that a song needs to have complex lyrics before it is good.
Here is a song that makes you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfxNDc8baE0
and the lyrics are here:
6. Good Monsters
All the good monsters open their eyes,
To see the wasteland where the home fires rise,
And the people shouting why, why, why...
Do you know what you are?
Do you know what you are?
All of the giants wake from their sleep,
And roll outside of safety's keep,
And the pain makes them feel so alive
Do you know what you are?
Do you know what you are?
And we are bored of all the things we know
Do you know what you are?
Do you know what you are?
Not all monsters are bad, but the ones who are good
Never do what they could, never do what they could
All the good monsters rattle their chains,
And dance around the open flames,
And they make a lot of empty noise.
While all of the bright eyes turn away,
As if there wasn't anything to say,
About the justice and the mystery.
Do you know what you are?
Do you know what you are?
And we are bored of all the things we know
And we are forms of everything we love, we love.
If good won't show it's ugly face,
Evil won't you take your place
Nothing ever changes,
Nothing ever changes...
By itself.
Yeah....yeah...aaah
We are bored of all the things we know
Do you know what you are
'Cause we are, we are so in love with ourselves
And we are forms of all the things we love.
EPM,
ReplyDeleteCould you please enlighten us 'slow' atheists as to where the boundary of micro-evolution lies? How far does micro-evolution extend before it becomes macro-evolution (something you consider highly unlikely, apparently). Not that your highly scientific explanation ("give or take more or less") wasn't enough, it's just that I'm a bit slow with these things. Maybe a new blog post on this would be appropriate?
maybe an new blog post would help but another time maybe.
Basically macro evolution involves the past and micro is more observable.
It's funny that you say;
"Yes, many dotted lines need to be filled in when it comes to believing man's ancestors are fish (or similar)...it takes an amount of faith to believe it.
People like Nohm/EPM choose to put faith in it"
When your definition of faith is;
"A logical deduction from the evidence at hand."
Don't you think?
Um no?
I do not deny that there is evidence for everything having common ancestor/ancestors but to actually gather together the evidence and state a belief in it as being true as a whole is faith.
Dan
From wiki about some Pillar songs being popular outside christianity:
ReplyDeleteNot only did Christian shows and stations play "Bring Me Down", it was requested heavily on secular stations as well. "Bring Me Down" was also featured on the sound track for Mx vs ATV: Unleashed.
and
ESPN used the new Pillar song, "For the Love of the Game," during montages highlighting the 2007 World Series on its program, Baseball Tonight.
just a point of interest...
Funny, so it is the lyrics that you hate about christian music?
ReplyDeleteNo, it's the way the lyrics are so prominent (in general). If you took from my description of Christian music that I dislike it because of its lyrical content, then you didn't get what I was saying. It's the unspoken 'requirement' of Christian music that its lyrics be easily understood that I dislike -- I like not only good lyrics, but good music, and the levels (sound levels, that is) need to be appropriate, which does not necessarily mean the lyrics should drown out all other aspects of the song.
By way of mention Pillar's music has been requested by secular audiences so it cannot suck too much for being "christian".
Uhh. No. Garth Brooks has been requested in many bars, but it still sucks. The popularity of a particular band and/or genre says nothing to whether or not I think it sucks... The Jonas Brothers have been requested by children quite often, but they suck, too...
I do not agree with you that a song needs to have complex lyrics before it is good.
Again you've misunderstood; lyrics needn't be complex. It's the way Christian music makes their lyrics so completely understandable -- by causing them to generally drown out the music -- that typically ruins it. Louie, Louie is a song with immensely simple lyrics, yet it kicks ass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfxNDc8baE0
That video is no longer online due to an objection by Sony... I looked it up, though, and I wasn't especially impressed. I have enjoyed Jars of Clay songs in the past, however, and few bands can produce all 'winners.'
Here, then, are two bands who apparently can produce all 'winners':
Tool: "Forty-Six and Two"
Radiohead: "Go to Sleep"
Tool: "Eulogy" (warning, some explicit lyrics)
Lastly, as another two examples of true quality in music, I offer the following:
Dave Brubeck Quartet: "Take Five"
Dave Brubeck Quartet: "Blue Rondo à la Turk"
If you hadn't noticed, the first Tool piece and the two Brubeck pieces each feature odd time signatures -- 7/8, 5/4, and 9/8, respectively -- which is something which very much captures my musical interest. All of these offerings feature 'syncopation,' which is forbidden according to the Fundamental Evangelistic Association...
They're also all very good examples of quality music (in my not-so-humble opinion).
--
Stan
Da Pilgrim,
ReplyDeleteOn you calling our acceptance of evolution as being based on faith (where you've defined faith as being a reasonable conclusion base don evidence), you said;
"I do not deny that there is evidence for everything having common ancestor/ancestors but to actually gather together the evidence and state a belief in it as being true as a whole is a logical deduction based on the available evidence."
I've replaced the word 'faith' with your definition of it. Read that sentence again and you'll see why I'm having trouble understanding what your problem is with accepting evolution!
Anyway, as you said, we'll leave it for another post.
Cheers,
Stan,
ReplyDeleteYeah I think I misunderstood ya :)
I personally like clear lyrics but then people like Jars of clay are good for keeping you wondering sometimes. I actually don't like that good monsters song but I gave it as an illustration.
So you like Jazz? Not my favourite type although I can appreciate all music depending on the moment, though I recognize it is a skillful genre and is fun to play (I went to grade 6 piano). I even quite like some classical, opera, ska and reggae..not so much rap although Pillar is an exception, they seem to be rap/hard rock.
I listen tested "Tool: "Forty-Six and Two"" but for me the chorus sounded the best :) almost like "Creed" a bit?
However the first bit I did not like the imbalance between the singer and the music.
Also listen tested this one:
Radiohead: "Go to Sleep".
I don't know what the songs were about but the music sound I liked...very similar to Jars of Clay's new album or Coldplay type sound.
Matt,
I've replaced the word 'faith' with your definition of it. Read that sentence again and you'll see why I'm having trouble understanding what your problem is with accepting evolution!
Well, faith is also a choice.
If I walk along a track and it splits into two paths. One path has some evidence for it being the right way and the other path also has evidence of it being the right way to go.
One way needs to be chosen.
You can see the evidence for macro-evolution and you choose to accept it as true. I am still unsure and need more evidence (or effort to look for more evidence) to convince me to have faith that it is the right path of belief to take.
I realize you do not accept evolution just because you accept evolution but some people accept some truths (with evidence) faster (or slower) than others.
Does that help?
Da Pilgrim,
ReplyDeleteNo problem with that at all, mate. Like I said in the latest thread, I just think that if you're going to use a buzzword like 'faith' which can be taken many different ways, you need to be careful how you phrase it and, if necessary, provide a quick definition to make sure.
By the way, mention Radiohead and Coldplay again in the same breath, as if Radiohead have a Coldplayish sound, and I may have to hurt somebody.....
[big Radiohead fan here!]
Somewhere I still have the LP of Take Five. That was a groundbreaking album, especially rhythmically. One of my current musical projects is playing medieval tunes on my psaltery-harp and tweaking them into unusual rhythms, mostly sevens and elevens, with accompaniment in some other rhythm, usually four or twelve. It's not ready for the stage yet, but it's keeping my fingers- and my brain- busy.
ReplyDeleteLOL, sounds interesting.
ReplyDeleteCool man,
I love music ay...lots of styles.
I studied Joe Morello's Take Five solo for a long time, Zilch. Odd time signatures and the ability to make them sound smooth / natural is something I strive for.
ReplyDeleteHere's a live clip of the song. Sounds more lively than the album version...
ReplyDelete