General Music Chat

Craig and Paul, Ive got a question?

Is it ok for a christian to play music in a bar.

I kind of struggle with this in my own life and Im just curious what you guys think.

I don't think it's a good example to be in a bar at all. I think that bars are places made for abusing ones body. Second hand smoke, the temptations to abuse alcohol and tobacco, the general "hook up" mindset of many bars.

I would fight to the death for your right to believe as you will, & worship as you will.

My question is - would you do the same for me, knowing that I believe differently?

Absolutely. I appreciate our religious freedom. I led the Church in a prayer last night and specifically thanked God for that freedom.

I wonder, Paul. I'd bet you have some very hard & fast rules about what you'll accept, like most of us. I'm not picking on you, understand. Most of us have problems accepting the ways that others choose to live, in many cases.

We Americans brag abour our "freedom of religion" all the time, but tell me, seriously;

What if the religion in question includes scarification rites, or condones transvestism or homosexual union or polygamy, or uses possibly dangerous mind-altering substances to achieve a spiritual connection with one's ancestors or to cure ills of the body &/or spirit, or dangerous rite-of-passage tests - would you STILL fight to the death for a person's right to worship/live according to what his/her religion allows &, in some cases, DICTATES? Each of the above are allowed in different religions in different places across the globe, but not here, in America.

Tell me, folks. What are your thoughts on this? Where do you draw the line for a religion, & why?

I suspect that many, if not most of us have trouble accepting these things, & would fight to keep it OUT of America.

I think my (anybody's) rights end when they interfere with the rights of another. All of those things you mentioned, "scarification rites, or condones transvestism or homosexual union or polygamy, or uses possibly dangerous mind-altering substances to achieve a spiritual connection with one's ancestors or to cure ills of the body &/or spirit, or dangerous rite-of-passage tests " are in religions in America now. I think they contradict the bible and I think they have the right to do just that. I don't accept those practices as pleasing to God. I also think it's my responsibility to share the bible with those people. But they sure have the right to worship as they see fit. As long as they are not sacrificing babies or physically or emotionally harming others.

So, Paul, you think that these religious rites should be decriminalized?

Craig and Paul, Ive got a question?

Is it ok for a christian to play music in a bar.

I kind of struggle with this in my own life and Im just curious what you guys think.

Look brother,

You question playing music in a venue where alcohol is served. But you have no problem expressing your profound appreciation of bodacious ta ta's.

From a superficial judgement, is one any worse or better than the other?


I don't think either one is wrong, in and of itself. God designed us to find the other sex attractive. We would not procreate if this weren't true. We fell in love with our spouses, but we also likely found them attractive as well. Many churches today, go to extremes, and believe that simply being attracted to another woman is a sin. Well that's ridiculous. Finding women attractive is NOT the same as lusting after them. Jesus said that if you "lust" after a woman, you have committed adultery already, in your heart. The word he used for "lust" however, translated from the greek for us, is the same Greek word "covet". Coveting something conveys more than a passing attraction. Coveting involves..."the deliberate harboring of desire for an illicit relationship" (France 1985:121). Meditating on it, harboring a deep desire and holding it in your heart.

Attraction itself is normal, natural and in fact unavoidable in many instances. Colognes for example, often contain pheromones, like the sweat glands of pigs. It is included, because chemically, women may respond, almost unconsciously to it. Do women desire sex with pigs? Well, I mean REAL pigs? LOL - Of course not. But chemically, the pig being male, the sweat glands may create a reaction or response. As humans we have a very powerful reaction to scents. They trigger memories in us, give us feelings. Freud spoke about this (or was it Jung) when a smell triggered a childhood memory and all those feelings associated with that memory. So chemically, sometimes eventhings happen which we have little or no control over, regarding our emotions and feelings.

The sin comes from coveting, from having give and take with the initial attraction and acting it out in your heart, which is a pre-cursor to fulfilling it physically.

Is drinking alcohol a sin? For some it is, but Jesus consumed alcohol, as did most figures in the Bible. Paul even recommends it as a stomach aid.

So then, what if you are playing music in a venue devoid of alcohol? Would that be a sin? For some this would be one of the defining points. What if you have alcohol in your home? And play music there with friends? Does your home then become a venue serving alcohol?

A person of character and morals can be an example for good anywhere. In my band, much of our music has valuable and moral messages. I write songs about guys screwing relationships up, but also of them learning lessons from the experience, and having changed hearts.

What is in your heart? What is the testimony of your life?

God can use you, no matter where you are. A right word from you, even in a bar, may make the difference in someone's life. I've had very deep and involved conversations about God in bars, and everywhere else. God is a huge part of my life. I don't stop thinking about god because I am in a bar or a concert or at the supermarket. He is always on my mind. And when presented a chance, I'll share what I believe, what motivates my life.


People who have had problems with "Christians" usually occurs because many people have been assailed by us, and have felt supremely judged and condemned. This is NOT God's way. When Christians try to defend this attitude of condemnation, they point to Jesus, who had fiery words for many of his listeners "You are of your father, the devil!" and so forth. But what they utterly fail to recognize, is that the object of all this scorn from Jesus is self-righteous religious leaders, who hold onto their near perfect legalistic observances as if that makes them holy or good. Jesus judge those who CLAIMED to be godly, by obeying commandments and laws, but had patience and compassion of those that were sinners, but did not pretend they were any better than they were. The adulterous woman? He told those that were ready to stone her "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone!" and one by one, they all walked away. He asked the woman "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn thee, go, and sin no more."

That's it? Go and sin no more? Where is the lavish and detailed harranguing she surely deserved? I mean, they didn't even stone her, as was "commanded" and yet, Jesus doesn't even chastise her with more than one sentence?

Maybe from the heart, Jesus understood something they didn't? Maybe this woman was sad, and feeling unloved. Maybe she was physically abused and someone had come to her. showing interest, professing love?

What Jesus surely knew, was that the adultery, was a replacement for what she really needed. Namely, God's love in her heart. A relationship with God, that would have strengthened her and fulfilled her, no matter what she was going through.

The woman needed God.

Her accusers believed they already had God.

Jesus is venemous to the latter group throughout the Gospels, but very lenient and loving and forgiving with the "greater" sinners. The ones at parties that he hung out with.

Jesus had NO tolerance for people that claimed to have God because of their appearnaces and adherence to laws and rules, when inside, their capacity for love and understanding and forgiveness, was so weak, that it betrayed, that indeed, they really didn;t have God inside at all. They had a laundry list of rules they followed, took pride in, and believed justified them. Did it? Not for Jesus it didn't. He was VENEMOUS toward them, because worse than not having the true God in their hearts, they actually claimed they REPRESENTED God, because in their judgement of others who did not follow the laws as they did, they are acting as God's judge and jury, as God's representative.

Jesus felt, how dare they? It is one thing to be lost, but another to be lost and yet claim you are found and represent the true God, and thereby mislead others into a pit of obeying the law, but missing the message and the point, and the heart.

Some of the people you are playing musi for, may never set foot in a church. God can use you there, just as easily, and maybe more so, then he can anywhere else. Jesus hung out in the very places you are playing music in. Have fun, as Jesus did, but also like Jesus, not losing your witness, not straying from God in your heart, and ever mindful, that you may very well have the key, to what many of these people may need in their lives.

Phil,

Our country tries to strike a balance between religious freedom and the individual rights, and the rights of others.

There is a religious sect on TV, every day right now, who are about to have their asses handed to them, because something like 31 of 53 children under the age of 18 are pregnant, and we will find out, that they are pregnant by 40 and 50 and 60 year old men. This cult's religious freedom, has crossed over into child abuse, and that is why most of the men in this cult have fled, because they know that a simple DNA test is going to put them in prison for awhile.

Yes, that is a religious practice of this particular group, but a child, the state determines, is not always mature enough to give consent. The state MUST look after the interest of children, because they are not legal adults, they cannot legally leave and live on their own, and the potential for abuse of children who cannot survive easily on their own, are not legally of age to do so, and do not yet have the life experience and maturity to always understand what is being done to them, must be guarded by other adults, who "DO" recognize this.

In another case, some parents have been charged with allowing their daughter to die, because they "prayed" for her health while she lay dying, instead of bringing her to an emergency room. I hope they lock the parents up. They have NO RIGHT to decide life and death for their daughter. She had a right to grow up, to make her own decisions about what she may or may not believe. They robbed her of that. And killed her.

So, Paul, you think that these religious rites should be decriminalized?

The only ones you listed that were illegal were polygamy and some of the drugs. I think those things should be legal. I still think they are sins and I wouldn't do them, but I think we should be free to make those decisions.

Paul, in this country, scarification & rites-of-passage tests will be called reckless endangerment. Homosexual acts are still illegal in some areas, as is transvestism.


Craig - just playing devil's advocate here - who determines the age of adult-hood - your church or your gov't?

I will say that it is a parent's right to determine how best to raise, protect, & otherwise care for one's own family. I'm sure this stance will be called naive, but imo, the gov't stepping in is rarely ever the answer, yes, even in the case you talked about. I believe it to be a price of freedom, if you will, to allow a person to live in his/her faith, to raise a family in that faith, without gov't interference. I hold it to be a god-given, unalienable right.

Craig - just playing devil's advocate here - who determines the age of adult-hood - your church or your gov't?

Society does. In a civil society, we come to a consensus on what we accept or don't accept.

I will say that it is a parent's right to determine how best to raise, protect, & otherwise care for one's own family. I'm sure this stance will be called naive, but imo, the gov't stepping in is rarely ever the answer, yes, even in the case you talked about.

Which case? I mentioned two. And it doesn't matter which you are referring to. You cannot FORCE anyone to marry someone else, and you cannot allow a child to die or be mistreated.

I believe it to be a price of freedom, if you will, to allow a person to live in his/her faith, to raise a family in that faith, without gov't interference. I hold it to be a god-given, unalienable right.

Our first right is that of "life". You cannot deny a child that right, to supposedly uphold another. Get real.

Neither can you force a child to marry or have children. It is detestable. It is against liberty.

You've got some really strange values Phil. Do these come from the "religion" whatever it is, that allegedly is more complete for you? Is this where the values of that religion lead?

As long as it has no effect on me or mine the stupid MFrs can boofoo or kill themselves all they want. as a matter of fact, I think our gov ought to post a book on How To Commit Ritual Suicide and Get it Right The First Time. Written by a Nurse who is tired of dealing with dumbasses.

No, Craig, my religion has little to do with these ideas.

It's my firm personal political & philosophical belief that being left alone by my gov't to have the choice to live as a "dumbass" or a polygamist or a complete man of faith or whatever, & to raise my own family as I see fit within the parameters of my belief, is a better & freer way to live.

I don't expect you to understand, coming from a "culture" of busybody types (as we both do).

The way we live, now, is to create as many taboos as possible through legislation, to A) wipe out those other cultural practices that we disagree with or don't understand, B) give the illusion that every human life has value over everything else, C) cause a blending of culture through forced compromise that virtually makes one's own circle of possible choices smaller & smaller until it becomes a mere "dot" & we are all made good Protestant Christian robots by proxy, D) force us all to be good consumers, 1st, & good ppl, 2nd, E) make the general populace less educated, & thus easier to control, & F) erase the traditional sexual roles in life, forcing social & human evolution through legislation.

The result of our "meddling" in ppl's personal , religious, & cultural affairs is apparant throughout our nation, & is seen to be especially damaging in areas of larger populations, as in our inner cities.

When the sanctity of marriage was left in the hands of the communities, churches, temples & synogogues, for example, it was much more difficult to obtain either a marriage (in many cases) or a divorce. Divorce was a cultural taboo that was rarely granted by the church or the state. This made ppl use a bit more discretion when they were making thier choices for potential life partner & potential parental partner, & also made them be more creative in handling thier marital problems. This discretion & creativity was taught to the children, &, in theory, should have helped them in the long run to make better choices for themselves & thier own future families.

Then the gov't gave us more "freedom" & made it easy to get married, & all you need to do to get a divorce is sign this paper, pay this fee to a lawyer & the court, & you can move on with your life & not have to deal with any of these issues in your marriage, or as a parent, as long as you're willing to pay child support &/or alimony. The result? You see it.

This action has devalued the concept of family, devalued the role of the father within the family, has created disrespect in our youth for thier elders, each other, & even thier own selves, & has taxed our social welfare system to its very limits. ( This may be an oversimplified view, as there are obviously other forces at work here to contribute to these problems, but you get the gist of my argument.)

We now have gangsters instead of fathers in many many cases filling the traditional male parental role in a child's life.

Despite your distaste for the idea of arranged marriage (" You cannot FORCE anyone to marry someone else") it has been done in virtually every religion & culture throughout the history of humanity, with varying degrees of success. I'm not saying that I agree with it, for myself, but I will say that to force ppl to tow your line, to alter thier own religious tenets to allow them to live in your "melting pot of culture" is just another way of erasing thier own culture & religion. I cannot agree with this in any nation that is supposedly a free one. ( I would also emphasize that anyone in this country has the personal right to leave any religion at any time, thus erasing the idea of being "forced" or enslaved into a marriage. Freedom of religion must also allow freedom from religion, once someone becomes of marriageable age. It is still the right of the parents to determine whatever faith that a child is raised in. )

While I can understand your view that forcing freedom on ppl is a good idea, I don't agree with it. Nor do I think it was the intention of our founding fathers. In a perfect melting pot society, every culture contained within is allowed to follow its own heart in matters best left untouched by a necessarily secular gov't, to insure thier traditions, & to keep the sanctity of thier own beliefs within thier own grasp. (In a "free" society, a gov't MUST be a secular one, for obvious reasons.)

In the case of the parents choosing to pray over thier child rather than to accept medical help, yes, that's a tough one to accept, for most of us. Still, who are we to force our own secular "miracles" of medicine on someone who thinks it is wrong to use what they believe to be "artificial" means of prolonging life? You would call them criminals. I would call them ppl of faith, praying for a miracle. They can accept that the death of thier child was "God's will," while you cannot.

While it is argueable that any child in such a situation could be your returning messiah, I would counter that the child in question could just as easily be your anti-christ. These decisions are perhaps best left in God's hands, in some ppl's minds, & yes, as barbaric as it sounds to you, I can accept it without feeling the need to criminalize them for it, in spite of how I may choose to act in such a situation.

Many ppl view our "culture" & our modern medical miracles & social practices to be the source of innumerable new problems - the proliferation of STD's is a classic example of this. I can see why certain ppl would choose to go back to the old ways of handling health problems, & would allow them to do so, in the name of freedom.

On the other hand, we have this "religion" that has allowed a 15 yr old girl to be chained in the basement, repeatedly raped by her relatives, & forced to bear 15 children over a 23 yr period. Yeah, it's immoral & inhumane & evil, & ppl need to be prosecuted. Lots of ppl, evidently.

No, I do not accept this slavery as an allowable rite within a viable, working religion, in any culture. That would be ridiculous.

For me, the only possible excuse for slavery is in the case of ppl who physically hurt & kill others. In my mind, those that destroy property, or steal, or cause physical damage to another, should be made to pay in slavery until thier debt to thier victim(s) is paid in full. If you take a life or maim another in a criminal act, your life should be used to make up for whatever was lost by your actions, for the rest of your life. ( This would cut down on the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths & accidents, gang-related deaths, & even crimes of passion far better than our present system, imho, but I digress. )

Phil,

I have band practice tonight, and we're auditioning a potential bass player for us, so I'm not going to go through line by line on this, and just hit some main points for now...


We agree and disagree on some of things you posted. And let me just say, you are a fascinating individual, or else schizophrenic! LOL

You come across as a bleeding liberal in other threads, and you sound like a conservative wacko in some of this thread. Geez. I would actually say that maybe we have more in common after all, accept you take your liberalism and conservatism to extremes, whereas I believe in balance.

Nevertheless, you are certainly an interesting individual. And I don't mean that as a slight.

On secular government, we pretty much agree. The government has no place putting the Ten Commandments on government buildings and making religious displays during holiday seasons. Supporting one religion over another threatens ALL religions. However, they don't necessarily need to go to extremes either. In God We Trust. It is on the one dollar bill, but there are also references to God in our founding documents. Are we going to change those as well? As recognition of historical facts, I see nothing wrong with leaving those in place.

On the issue of children, you cannot be more wrong!

Hiding behind religious freedom is NOT an excuse for child abuse, or forced marriages. We make exceptions for the sake of children and the benefit of society all the time. That is not wrong. To allow a child to die is inexcusable. Take her to the emergency room and pray for her there. Parents are not God, and they have NO RIGHT to decide life and death for their children, who have a RIGHT to grow up and make these decisions for themselves. Period.

Some religions believe in human sacrifice. Are we going to allow that? Some religious people are convinced that doctors who perform abortions are murderers, and as such believe it to be their God given responsibility to seek vengeance. Are we going to allow doctors to be gunned down?

I have personally known people that tested their faith in extreme ways, such as not eating unless someone offered them food. If they were to practice this ritual on their children, and no one gave the child food, they would starve to death. Is that a religious practice you support? Starving a child to death? In the past, and maybe even now in some place, children are murdered when they are believed to be evil or marked by satan. Will we allow that, in the name of religious freedom?

There MUST be a balance, where individual rights and the rights of others in society are not violated. It is not always possible to FULLY accommodate both, and therefore, a happy medium is required.

Pray for your child at the emergency room, and when they are 18 if they want to end their life by not seeking medical intervention then so be it. As an adult, they can make that choice freely, and hopefully have had time to consider all the consequences and have a better understanding of what they may believe as adults.

I typically vote Republican, and lower taxes and smaller government, which are principles in that party's platform, are usually the main reasons why. So, we can agree on limited government. Republicans don't go far enough for me, as drugs should be a matter of choice, for example.

But to claim that children should be allowed to die, or else religious freedom is threatened? That is just beyond the pale.

btw.....


The religions you mention, which believe that medical intervention is a sin, or blood transfusions, generally practice things like healthy eating to maintain good health. Isn't that virtually a form of self-medication? Healthy foods contain vitamins and antioxidants, etc... Isn't it the medical community which has allowed us to know which foods are safer than others, and which diets are best for sound health? Would they not believe those reports and possibly eat more of a certain food that is found to be beneficial for certain ailments? If they came across someone in a fire, dying of smoke inhalation, would they not bring them outside to get fresh air and save their lives? That is human interference in supposedly natural events. If they learned the Heimlich Maneuver from a medical show or first aid class in school, would they not use it to save someone?

They can still find all their little loopholes and reasons why such a practice is ok, while others are not (like instruments in church) but alas, it is not worthy of a child's life. They can wait until the child is 18 and then convince her of their bullsh*t!

What a shame it will be if some of these people die and meet God and he informs them that medical science was a gift he gave the world, but they rejected it, and allowed their family and loved ones to die unnecessarily, when God had provided a way to help them.

Within reason, we go out of our way as a society to protect religious freedoms, and these people have a right to believe that medicine or even science for that matter, are evil inventions of men bringing sin.

But it reminds me of that joke where a guy who is drowning refused help from a canoe, a boat and then a helicopter, and said "No thanks, God will save me" and of course when he drowns to death, he asks God why he didn't help the man, and God responds "What do you mean? I sent you a canoe, a boat and a helicopter!"

I'm eating popcorn agian.

Craig, you know what I'm talking about

I'm eating popcorn agian.

Craig, you know what I'm talking about

It means I'm entertaining you I guess. LOL

Hey, I'm not trying to be involved in drama bro.

I just have some deeply held views, especially where the safety and lives of children are concerned.

Is it Orville Redenbacher's Gourmet Popcorn?

Cause it pops bigger than the regular popcorn. It blows the lid right off the popper in fact!

Yeah, Craig...you said it. In some ways, my views ARE kinda radical for some ppl, & reactionary for others. I consider myself to be "the ultimate conservative" most of the time, if only in my belief in a non-meddling gov't.

When the gov't claims the "right" to interfere in a family, in my view it devalues the sanctity of the family.

Nowhere have I claimed it to be a parent's right to abuse a child. I do claim, however, that it is the right of the parents to determine what is right or wrong for a child in cases of religion & education.

Having said that, it follows that the subject of health care often falls into the religious area. If a parent makes decisions for thier family that you disagree with, well, tough, man. It isn't your call, unless there is serious physical abuse going on. There are degrees that must call for community intervention, yes, but they are far far fewer than the number of cases where our good gov't meddles in ppl's lives. The very fact that parents can be arrested & pulled into court over this particular case we're talking about offends me to the very core of my being. We are far too anxious to criminalize & demonize others in our "liberal" view that all life falls under our protection & jurisdiction, no matter the paramters involved with said life.

We say that it falls to the parents in determining how to care, or whether to care for the child, in most cases. Then, when the parents don't make the decisions that we think they should, we arrest them & try them for neglect or abuse. Just make it a law, if you must, that the child must be treated, but don't criminalize them for making thier supposedly "free" decision if you disagree with it after the child dies. They were doing what they thought was right within the parameters of thier religion. Thier choice was a perfectly legal one, as things stand, now. They lost a child. Let them grieve in peace. This is a gray area as things stand now, & as such, you cannot make ppl into criminals after the fact & before you write something into law. Personally, I wouldn't write that law, because it interferes with religious freedom.

It is also the right of a parent to decide whether or not a child will be brought up in a racist home, where the child never gets to see how other cultures or races live, or even to interact with them, casually. Some ppl would call this child abuse. I would not. It carries on a family tradition that, right or wrong, has just as much right to exist as my own.

I believe that a mother has the right to slap her child in the face for saying things that go against her teachings, or for acting out. In a recent case in the south, a mother was arrested after slapping her son for calling his sister the "C" word in a grocery store. She was arrested at the scene, & the children were carted away. It cost that family over $20,000 in legal fees, & the children were placed in foster care until the case was resolved in the court. THIS IS RIDICULOUS!

I saw a child threaten his mother with calling on the authorities if she spanked him. ( And believe me, if he were my son, he probably wouldn't have had the chance to argue with me before I smacked the living hell outta him! What a mouthy little brat! ) She did pause before she continued. What a mess we create when we put this power in the hands of children! He no longer needs to respect his mother, because our good gov't will step in if she disciplines him, & he knows it!!!

Obviously, I'm not saying that abuse or neglect is to be considered legal for a father or mother. I am saying that the case must be considered more carefully than it often is before we decide to allow our gov't to intervene on a child's behalf. I still maintain that it is perfectly alright for a parent to avoid medicines & surgeries, if it goes contrary to thier belief system. You say that drugs should be a matter of choice (I'm assuming your speaking of illegal ones, in the context you mentioned this). Should they not also be a matter of choice for a parent in making health decisions for his child? If there were a pill or a surgery that cured all ills, would you make it mandatory that everyone enjoy its benefits?

Obviously, the murder of "evil" children, cannibalism, murdering abortionist doctors, starvation, & human sacrifice should not be allowed. On the other hand, fasting rituals are certainly within the "norm," in any thinking person's mind. It's a matter of degree. How much time before a fasting ritual becomes abuse?

We depend on our gov't to interact in our lives way too often. When this occurs, Craig, the very fabric of society begins to fray at the edges. Ppl will tend to drift apart rather than to be active in thier communities, because there is no need for us to be active when the gov't takes such good care of us. When ppl stop interacting, child abuse, spouse abuse, etc etc etc can go unchecked for long periods of time before the gov't discovers & rectifies the situation.

If you pull the gov't back out of the communities, then ppl will be forced to take better care of themselves & each other, AND they will be freer to continue to live as they will, whether or not you agree should never be an issue unless someone is being seriously abused.

I've been told by various professionals that I grew up in an abusive home. In some ways I agree, in others I do not. All in all, I think I'm better off for having experienced the things that I have.

I believe that I covered the forced marriage issue quite well, Craig, by saying that ppl are free to remove themselves from any religion once they become of marriageable age. Where's the force? If they are not allowed to leave the religion, that falls into the slavery category, & needs to be addressed. Otherwise, I have no problem with arranged marriage.

Oh, & yes, I DO think we should remove "In God We Trust" from our money. It only shows how directionless & schizophrenic we are as a nation, when you look at the dollar bill & see "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM" ("new secular order") right next to "In God We Trust!! LMAO