News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

'I love Paul Rogers' or 'that's how he supports us' is not a valid response btw.

I have not twisted anything. You have ignored much, beginning with my question.. it is a serious question I am not trying to make a joke.

here is a Wiki page on Paul rogers if you want to use just this one example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Rodgers

Maybe I need to be more specific, using this one exmple is fine... how do you, Jeanie, balance this type of drug culture and satanically influenced music and lifestyle with your contrite LDS dogma?

The problem is.. while on the one hand you preach and post your LDS dogma and even some bible stuff, throughout this webboard, on the other hand you also lift up and widely praise the things and lifestyles that oppose the contrite dogma you also uphold. It is very confusing to me and I was simply wondering how you balance it in your own mind. The fact that you say your husband does it simply because that's how he makes a living.. well that is kind of like you saying fornication and adultery are sins (which you have said more or less) but your husband is a prostitute because that's the only way he knows how to make a living... so for that reason that response is invalid. Doing something that flies in the face of all your other beliefs simply to make money... well I am certain that you justify it somehow or another aside from the fact that it simply keeps food in your stomach.

SoSick, you are confusing me occasionally listening to Paul Rogers to what??? I don't live the lifestyle. I appreciate the music - period. Paul Rogers music is not about drugs... Its sexy but not blatantly so. Its romantic, but not sleezy. My husband grew up with him and wanted to share that with me when he came through town locally in one of only 5 US concerts he performed. I love some of Led Zeppelin, too. It scared me as a kid cause it was seductive, and they have a few songs I'm not comfortable with, but some of it is quite beautiful and classically influenced. They were greatly influenced by Lord of the Rings, actually. They lived wild at one time, but Jimmy Page has since been knighted as has another guy my husband knows well (who's house we've been to twice in Malibu). The singer, Robert Plant, just toured with Allison Krauss - a bluegrass singer! My husband "almost" played with KISS. (They flew him out to audition and it was between him and one other guy). I would not have approved of that and was a bit leery of him when I first heard that but then found out he had played on a hit record which was one of my favorite songs of all time and the guy who started the band now produces people like Josh Groban. 9And the song was very mellow and beautiful). We are also good friends with Vince Gill's drummer. Those are some of the best concerts I've been to!! Total ear candy. You can appreciate music without living the lifestyle. Good grief....Paul Rogers may've been a rocker (and still is) but he is a family man as is our friend from a famous heavy metal band. I wouldn't want my husband being a negative influence on kids (in a spiritual sense) but with what he does, he is a GOOD influence. People grow up. I don't think much of the Rolling Bones and am very selective of what "rock" music I do like. Much gives me a headache. But I appreciate good musicianship. Period.

I was subbing long term last year in a special ed class and some of these kids were struggling with self esteem due to their limitations. (They are not classic Special Ed, just resource, or needed some extra help). The teacher, to make a point, gave them a little test asking them who they would vote for as president out of the descriptions of the lifestyles these people had led throughout their lives. All but one had done something immoral through their lives except for one. I can't remember all the details of what each had done (they were real examples) but when we found out who they were and who we had voted for...... the one who had lived the "cleanest" life had been Adolf Hitler. Which goes to show, you cannot judge someone by their pasts. Including musicians. You could also include the prostitute Jesus forgave who was so adoringly loving toward him. She had the greater appreciation because she had known sin and had much to be forgiven for. You can't judge these people. I don't like the personna or lifestyle some of them seemingly promote, but we're not talking Brittney Spears here. Her bubble gum pop has been among the most damaging out there when you think of HER lifestyle and example. And my husband has been out of that business a long time. So I really don't know what the heck you are talking about. I went to a heavy metal concert cause my husbands friends were in town and it would've been insulting if we hadn't. I realy struggled over that....but the singer actually toned down his normal language for me. I had a guy once say he would build a statue of me if I ever got my, now, husband to the temple. (I did : ) I should say, he did. You have to live high standards for that. He was looking for someone like me because he didn't like the decadence of Hollywood. My husband is NOW and has been for 20 years in THE ARMY BAND. He serves his country. He's been to Kuwait twice. They tour.... They make soldiers feel good about their country and remember home. HE SERVES. You don't seem real big on patriotism, but I am. If I'm not answering to your point, clarify again, but there isn't anything in my lifestyle that doesn't jive with the standards of the church. I live high standards. Not a partier. So don't know what your point is. Paul Rogers is simply a great musician and his music makes me feel good. (And sometimes romantic....) I like Elvis, too. And Josh Groban. (I was obsessed with his music for a couple of years). I like Martina McBride. Sarah McClachlan (sp?). Baroque music..... MUSIC... Depends on my mood.

Because there is a difference between was (a prostitute for instance) and is. Because there is also a difference between speaking to and participating with. If Jesus had been the prostitute's pimp or john we wouldn't be having this discussion today. If the prostitute had not repented and ceased from her way of life we wouldn't be having this conversation today. Comparing women caught up in prostitution probably is not valid in this context anyway because many of them are truly coerced into that profession... due to lack of other choices.

I don't see what Jimmy Page being knighted has to do with anything unless you are trying to make a point that the British throne has questionable taste too.. far as I can tell since i did search the web on that, he has not been knighted anwyay, just honored by the queen. Jimmy Page's affection for the occult is well documneted and quite evident in led zeppelin's music.

Comparing Brittney Spears to the bunch of rockers you gloat frequently over is like comparing coca cola to jack daniel's whiskey anyway. but maybe you are helping me to make my point with that one... you see brittney as an epitome of 'most damaging' but you seem clueless as the people who you admire. I think, in reality, if you were to walk into any heroin den or wiccan gathering in the USA today you'd be a thousand times more likely to hear Led Zeppelin's music in the background than Brittney Spears'.

So to clarify: you seem to think it is better to be a poor role model for young women by showing them that being a woman is about how skimpily you dress and how sexy you can be; than putting some Lord of the Rings etc in your songs.

Many of these bands do it as a gimmick, nothing more. What specifically do you find offensive about Led Zep? I would have thought you'd be ten times more offended by the sexual nature of the lyrics. Again, though, I don't see it as anything other than fun. My husband and I like Led Zeppelin's music and we have a laugh at some of the puerile lyrics in songs like "Whole Lotta Love." From that era, though, you can find all kinds of sexual content in songs. In my eyes it's boys trying to show off, nothing more.

I have a friend who knew some of the members of Led Zeppelin in their early days, before they were famous. He was a newspaper reporter in their city. They're not dangerous Satanists, they're ordinary people who wanted to be noticed. They've actually managed to stay ordinary in ways that many famous people don't achieve.

By the way, listening to those songs does not encourage me to do anything other than appreciate their artistry. They rock.

You're trying to convince posters here that groups like Led Zeppelin aren't Satanists?! For that matter I can say with some certainty that Glen Danzig isn't a Satanist, he just uses the imagery of Satanism for artistic purposes - but I'm not even going to bother trying to convince the mass of lemmings here, whom I can only assume want "rock" music to be Satanic. Which is kind of funny for anyone who knows anything about true Satanism (which has little to nothing to do with the Christian version of Satan).



Well said.

The point is, these rockers have grown up and changed. Jimmy Page was knighted for the good he has done for children's organizations if I remember correctly. I like British Rock. So sue me. I like music period.

Brittney Spears is the poorest role model I've ever seen. Next to Madonna.

: )

How is it fair, Jeanie, to compare 60 year old men to a 20 something girl with an incredible amount of bad influence around her, dropped on her from the music industry even, and say 'they've grown up'?

Given 40 years I'm sure Britney will grow up too. In the meantime she only struggles with the exact things I am trying to point out to you here, bad influences of popular culture. and Britney, we can name her, she's a public figure. but what about the millions of others influenced by the likes of Jimmy Page's and Paul Rodgers music, often also known as acid-rock for very good reason?

If Jimmy Page was knighted for the good he has done with children's organizations, why has the self-destructive behavior he helped encourage so many others with been overlooked? does his good with a few children's organizations in his latter years even begin to put a dent in the destruction he otherwise helped along? or maybe, the children that need those organizations are the collateral damage of him feeding his stomach? Maybe he realized at some point, unlike yourself, he had some garbage that needed cleaning up?

Linda, it doesn't matter what you do, you aren't spending half your time gloating about your associations with heroin addicted and acid dropping musicians and the other half dictating religious dogma to anyone.

as far as the music industry and satanic symbolism on album covers is concerned.. it doesn't raelly matter if they are really into satanism or not.. using whatever means they are able to entice the public into buying their work speaks for itself. If that is what they choose to use, then it tells us who they are and what their ethics are about, especially if they are not really into satanism but use the symbolism as a means of statiating their stomachs anyway. I guess then, we could call that a form of prostitution indeed. If the pope did it there would be trouble I'm sure.

I am not sure, but I don't think Madonna or Britney have ever been heroin addicts, especially at the height of their careers. Considering popular culture, the music industry and drugs etc... they really aren't doing too badly compared to quite a few. and they aren't hiding behind the book of mormon either.

I still don't understand why Britney -- and Madonna, yes -- are being let off so lightly. My students are all girls and they are very much "into" pop culture. Most female pop stars are poor role models indeed because as I said, they make girls think that their aspirations should be all about how pretty they look and having boyfriends. These two women have been very influential in this respect and it's sad. When was the last time you heard a woman singing about anything other than love/men?



You haven't answered my question about what specifically Led Zeppelin have done that is sinful, in your eyes. I have all their CDs, so I'll understand any reference you make. I don't see anything dangerous or Satanic in "Stairway to Heaven" or in anything else off Led Zep IV, which is the one and only point I can see where they drew upon some mystical imagery. Please, enlighten me. I would have said that Robert Plant was more about getting laid than anything else, though he wrote about a lot of other things too. (He was being true to his blues roots in a way, which is also heavy on sexual innuendo.)

LOL....Yah. I heard things about Robert. John Bonham actually hit my husband in the face at the Rainbow. My husband was sitting at their table to try and get a tape to their manager and Bonham was hungry pacing back and forth waiting for his food. Basically the food came, he was in Bonhams chair and thought it was for him and took a bite and asked "who this roadie was?" That was it... blowout fracture and scratched cornea. Later he bought him a beer and apologized...(like a couple of months later).
Ultimately Bonham did die of an overdose. That and losing his little girl apparently through Robert Plant for quite a loop.

I guess, though, that famous people aren't supposed to be able to change or be forgiven cause they aren't human?? I agree they are responsible for their personna and how they affect kids. But they weren't as evil as you have them coming off and they were more about folklore from what I know.

SoSick, how old do you think Led Zeppelin was in there hey day? What's the difference? Most of their songs are love songs. There is no comparison with them and Spears or Madonna on any level and certainly not musically. What kind of influence do you suppose THEY have had on young girls???? I'm listening to Stairway to Heaven right now. One of the greats of all time....

I have to agree with you on this.

In fact, some rock bands are blatant about their destructive lifestyles. They are like cigarette packages with warning labels.

Britney and Madonna are more like amalgam fillings: Filled with neurotoxins but with no warning. They do deeper and more profound damage in my opinion.

Thanks Russ!

You don't hear anything I write.... My husband was in that business. And I like Paul Rogers. So??? He has some great music. One of his most recent CD's with the title NOW is all about his wife and how beautiful she is as a mother.... YOU DON'T KNOW HIM and are judging him just like you do everyone else. How you are getting all this heroin B/S out of all this is pretty typical of how you twist anything I say because you have a prejudice.

You know, I just get such a kick out of you.

Please listen carefully because you're not reading my posts carefully.

THIS is the context...

Why do occultists use the WORD "marriage"?

Deciding to be monogamous is not what we're talking about here.

Monogamy is encoded in our "instinct". (Instinct is the pre-programming that God made for us, analogous to a computer's ROM, a.k.a. CMOS memory.)

I'm talking about (and have been) using the WORD marriage.

The word "marriage" is specifically associated with the symbol of Christ's union with His bride, a concept represented by human marriage.

Remember, I was suggesting that occultists use the word "splunge", or something else to represent their ceremonies of monogamy.

No, I don't hear anything you write but I can read it just fine.

I am not 'letting off' Britney or Madonna.. but since I did not toss those names into this conversation... maybe Jeanie can explain why she sees their behavior as being any different, or worse, than the people she props up as idols. Because truth be told, their behavior is actually much better than their predecessors that Jeanie proclaims she ran after for half her life. You cannot just say 'oh but look at Britney Spears' as a distraction from whatever we were talking about previously. I imagine your mother was much more aghast at the fact that you idolized the likes of Jimmy Page..and found you running behind certain other people like a groupie... than most mothers are at the fact that their daughter might try to emulate Britney Spears. Britney Spears is only a damaged product of the culture and lifestyle that fed you, feeds you, and which you gloat so lovingly about still. She is simply being 'bad' because that is the example her role models and idols have set before her.

Led Zeppelin writes mostly love songs? It's news to me. Led Zeppelin was the music of choice for every pot party and beer blast I ever attended as a teenager. I do not recall ever hearing Led zeppelin at a wedding. Far as I could ever tell Led Zeppelin was about getting as stoned and drunk as possible and crawling around in vomit. And the band set a fine example of it themselves. They are the granddaddies of heavy metal, not romance and love. I think if you check the catalog http://www.amazon.com/Led-Zeppelin/dp/B000002IQ1#moreAboutThisProduct you'll find more songs about unemotional sex and leaving than staying and being dazed and confused. But maybe that's love to you.

You can try to say 'these people have grown up' or they have changed all you like but the fact that they still earn royalties from the music that influences so much bad behavior tells me that they are still rely heavily on being the 'bad boys' of rock and roll to maintain their lifestyles. It's not possible to forgive someone while they are still in the act of doing the thing you claim they should be forgiven for. And likewise I do not recall any of them ever requesting or requiring my, or anyone's, forgiveness.

anyway, It wasn't my intention to get into a discussion about led zeppelin or whomever in that regard. I actually truly have not listened to that type of music since I was 17 or 18 years old.

My question to you simply, was how do you balance that lifestyle with your LDS dogma/ And apparently the answer is.. you have never bothered to think about it.... or, you do not see any contradictions but britney spears sure has problems.

good enough. that was all i asked.

I think the difference between me and you SS, is that I NEVER HAVE lived that lifestyle. I never listened to them as a kid. My brother did, but like I stated once, they scared me. I have no idea what you are talking about with me gloating or running after people. You have not listened to what I've said. I met my husband when I was 23. I become LDS at 15....(and lived it). WE MARRIED WHEN I WAS 25 AND HAD NOT EVEN HAD SEX. I WAS NOT AND AM NOT A GROUPIE. He was tired of the Hollywood crap. You are completely misjudging me and just like I thought, you are actually projecting what you were or are onto me. My husband was looking for someone different. I had and have no association with any musicians other than through his friends from when HE was in the music business. My husband was ready to make changes when we met. Yes, I have grown to appreciate the musicianship of some of the old classic rockers, but I was not a partier in a true sense EVER. They are hardly idols. I know they are just people. You'd know that if you ever got to meet and know any body that way. SO WHAT??? Its my life. I speak of what I know. Paul Roger's concert was one of the only concerts we've gone to that we didn't have free tickets to but my DH wanted me to see what inspired him decades earlier. He is an amazing singer! His band was amazing! SO WHAT. What lifestyle does that mean I live??? Do I drink or do drugs? NO. Do I have extramarital sex? NO. Do I have these guys on a pedestal? NO.

And I agree that Brittney Spears is a victim of society... Her life is sad...but have you ever seen a more blatant....uh....harlot? Do you want your girls growing up to be like her? (If you have any). She glorifies everything wrong. I don't know what drugs she abuses, but she most certainly DOES party. She may be bi-polar but I use to cringe seeing little girls start dressing like her. My girls are great kids. And, yah, they've met a lot of these famous people, too. One composes, sings and plays but its beautiful stuff. The other married as a virgin and is going to school to become an English teacher. Her husband's aspirations are to become a Pediatrician.

What is your problem?

I guess my problem is that I really have difficulty with the way you attempt to glamorize these people, or it would appear that way, especially in context of your dogmatic LDS attitude... that questions nothing... It's kind of like.. you question nothing.. and, don't get overly offended, but it just comes across as really shallow to me.

I never lived that lifestyle.. like I said, I really never listened to that type of pop music past the age 17-18. it actually would be 17 because i stopped partying with my high school buddies at age 17 and focused on getting myself into college. But between the ages of 15 and 17 it was all the music you discuss at pot parties.. beer parties.. people vomiting.. not much talking because the music was so loud that type of music only sounds good real loud... to this day.. i cannot listen to 1970's pop music.. I can still smell the vomit I kid you not and I get a sick feeling in my stomach... to me that music epitomizes a high school wasteland and all my HS friends who were too stoned to ever think of doing anything much with their lives past selling dope.. . and past that the only places I have ever heard that music being played were more places people smoked a lot of dope or did heroin or in shops that sold witchcraft and/or drug paraphanalia.. not my crowd either but you do stumble into stuff on life's journey... and as far as I can tell the only people who still listen to that stuff are still into the same old mess and have yet to leave adolesence behind. so, it may seem glamorous to you but it's effect on a big sector of society has not been all that glamorous in reality.

I don't understand your perception of britney spears that's for sure. It's not that I approve of her, far from it but she is only doing the same thing many off the edge rock musicians have done before her. the drugs the drinking the slimy character.. except she is a woman. yeah i'd say I have seen bigger harlots for sure, male harlots, some of whose names you like to mention... I think you are being rather sexist in this case really i do. and I also think you are looking at her as a parent but fail to recognize that probably your parents, my parents for sure, saw your idols the same way. The long dirty hair.. the dirty jeans falling off their behinds.. their sexist drug and booze enamoured music.. the men in eyeliner... stroking their private parts onstage for the whole world to see.. need I say more? Britney Spears is not original in her behavior.

I don't know.. it's all just very high school to me, it's mass appeal is to that age group.. a very rebellious and impressionable age group. An age group where many fall victim to the darker side of our culture with your idols singing in the background as their anthems... I truly fail to see where any of it glorifies God even in the least. I don't find it/them amazing or inspiring at all. downright gross if you want my honest opinion of that genre of music as a whole. honestly, and I am not just saying it, the only thing it inspires in me is this feeling that i am going to puke or pass out from the smell of opium.

Madonna looks like heck of late, so much for the gracefully aging stick thin popstar. My daughter pegged britney as a slut at the tender age of 7. I really don't worry about her being influenced by stuff like that.

Just to add my two cents . . .

I really like 70s rock. I like Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix. (I like lots of kinds of music but these are some favourites.) So does my husband. Both of us hate parties, we don't do drugs, and we hardly ever touch alcohol. Do you think a person can appreciate art without mindlessly imbibing whatever messages it gets across? Do you think it's possible to say "I like that song" even though you don't take the lyrics seriously or agree with what they are saying? I like a song called "Don't Fear the Reaper" by Blue Oyster Cult, a band which very obviously promoted the occult negatively and a song which encourages people to commit suicide. I don't approve of the lyrics at all and I'm not sure why it was allowed on public radio in its time, but it sure is a catchy tune. I'm not going to hurl myself off a cliff because of it though.

I don't think you're seeing what we're saying about Britney Spears and Madonna either. I was completely out of pop culture for several years, had no clue what songs were on the radio or what was going on with music videos. When my daughter was born, I went to the gym regularly and while I was on the treadmill, MTV would always be on the TVs on the wall in front of me. It was an endless stream of soft porn. All the women lokked and acted like whores. I don't remember a single one who dressed any differently and sang about anything other than boys. That apparently is supposed to be the scope of a modern woman's existence. It seems to ignore that the feminist movement ever happened. I'm quite concerned about my daughter growing up with this, as well as the hundreds of students in my school. Britney and Madonna aren't completely responsible for this on their own but they each have made a substantial contribution.

Hmmmm, I have to agree. The visual sexualisation, as well as the lyrical, promoted by artists such as these has had a tremendous effect on young girls in our society. Young impressionable girls who are not often interested in the likes of male rock singers, as much as they are interested in glamerous young whorish women gyrating around on stage showing girls "this is how you get boys" "this is how you should look if you want to be like us and get somewhere" etc etc. Extremely shallow, whorish and tedious yes. But sadly impressionable young girls so often fall for it if they're exposed to it and possibly don't know a lot better.

Like yourself Linda, I enjoy "Don't fear the reaper" but never considered the lyrics as such, just enjoyed the tune. I also enjoy some of David Bowies' old hits "Velvet Goldmine" etc. I simply enjoy them for the sound, rather than much else.

Until you mentioned what they were about, I don't think I'd have taken as much notice. However, though the messages of some of these songs can indeed have an impact, it's the more hard satanic type rock bands that are obvious for what they are. Though at least they don't tend to hide what they're about. But in my opinion, they are dispicable and still corrupt young minds/hearts. Especially young teenagers.

But people sometimes underestimate the candy coated sexualisation and glamor (if you can call it that) of the female pop singers, (e.g. Britney) which is lethal in its own way.

I personally don't think Satan cares about which way he gets through to the human mind and heart. Whether candy coated sexual fun, or hard satanic rock, or messages covered up by "harmless fun". He's happy so long as it's effective. I realise some of you do not believe in Satan, but I most definitely do. And though you get the obvious stuff that screams satan, I think the other stuff is in a sense, more effective. There isn't too many that might go for the direct potent poison, but there are MANY who will go for the candy coated poison, the stuff that might look good, taste good and be just as lethal.

I'm surprised really that the whorish pop singers haven't become old hat. I would have thought they would....they all look much the same to me and all I think now is "here comes anther one" and I roll my eyes and switch channels. YAWN! Amazing, so many have little to no talent too. Just goes to show, plastic image will get you everywhere in this world. What happened to raw talent and interesting looking people with their own indiviality?

At any rate, either way. For me now, I'm a little more aware of the songs that promote bad messages and tend to tune out and switch off. I was never a party goer as such, I never felt right in clubs or parties. Always had a cold sick feeling for some reason. I used to leave or get very drunk to block it out. Later, as I matured, I simply decided "why go?". I much enjoy being around people I'm comfortable with and don't need alcohol! Sounds boring to some maybe, but I'm happier for it in many respects.

God has helped me see through alot of things that I was completely blind to before. Still have a ways to go though.

SoSick,

Thinking about what you've said, sounds like with your references to "gloating", etc. you think I'm bragging... I can see where it would come off that way and if that is the case, apologize.

But if you think I idolize these people, you would be wrong. They do have talent to be admired... And I do love most of the music of the 70s era. I was a teenager then. It was a searching period for me, but that is what was on the radio. The heavy metal band with the guy we know was actually from the 80s. (They hung in there and got big right when the hubbie was going through basic training). THAT was hard on him : ) The only person I've met that I would say I am really and truly proud to know, though, is David Foster. This man is someone I respect. I met him for the first time at the Crystal Cathedral for the Hour of Power where he invited us on a Mother's day when we were in town for a reunion with him and the hubby. We met Robert Schular, too, that day. (And then went over to David's studio). He's the one who helped turn Josh Grobran into a star among others. He HAS definitely been knighted. (He's from British Columbia but a dual citizen, now). Just the same, though, he's a person with feelings and weaknesses and insecurities, too. Just a filty rich one..... Kind of larger than life - but only because he also has the integrity to go along with it. He is a musical genius. HIM - yes - perhaps I do have him on a pedestal. Or at least have tremendous respect and regard for him.

Hi Bex,

It's nice to agree with people here. The sexualisation of the pop industry wouldn't bother me so much if there were choice on offer. There isn't, though. From what I can see, girls consistently get the same message, and that is that looking sexy and getting a boy are the only things in life that matter.

The Spice Girls had their reunion tour recently. They bother me now just like they bothered me when they were popular the first time around. "Girl Power" -- what's that? Explain how you are showing girls how to "empower" themselves exactly? It's a talentless group of pretty women who don't really seem to stand for anything other than glamour. Well, I guess you can find this in many parts of the media now, not just the pop industry. What direction are we headed in I wonder.

I've always had an inherant tendency to shun mainstream music and pop culture. If it was on the radio for me, growing up, I couldn't bring myself to like it. It's music for the masses, was my attitude, for the lemmings who can't be bothered to search for their own inner likes and dislikes and instead simply accept what is most readily available. But I see much of what is being discussed here as simply part of human nature. I don't think the media or music industry is trying to impose the desire for women to be beautiful and desirous any more than women are already imposing upon themselves. Who doesn't want to be beautiful and desirous? It's human nature. Having said that, it's certainly a bit primeval and animalistic to behave in this manner and I think that we as humans can adopt a more civilized approach - but that doesn't make this kind of music immoral or "wrong", IMO. Just human.

At the end of the day, though, none of it is about sex appeal or trying to convince girls to act a certain way. That's simply a byproduct of what the real agenda is: making money. There was a lot of Cat Stevens and Simon & Garfunkle type music in my household growing up, which influenced me (despite that it was already old when I was listening to it), as well as a medley of celtic music, chiefly hammered dulcimer music which I adore. Much of what I listen to falls under this category, these days simply as a matter of habit. Unfortunately, music like this doesn't sell. And the musicians performing them, often dressed in their geeky Rennaissance garb and possessed with figures deemed overly ample by pop culture's standards would never be given the spotlight. I think I prefer it that way though.

Yes, I can see where you are coming from. I've never actually liked what's been on the radio during my "time" either. It was the mid-80s when I was introduced to 70s rock. I've often said to my husband that if anyone ever wanted to send me on a nostalgia trip with Wham, Duran Duran, etc, they would fail dismally.

I want to make it clear that I don't believe in a giant conspiracy to corrupt our youth either; you are right, the bottom line is money. I suppose nubile young pop stars sell stuff because they are pretty and also very mainstream. My question would be, when did it become mainstream for most female pop stars to be dressing and singing as they do? I don't think it's immoral as such -- just a poor role model. Who is actually our there in popular culture, reminding girls that there's more to life than wearing designer clothes, doing your makeup and pulling boys? Who shows them that it can be OK to use your brain too, and that "empowerment" is more than how clever you are at catching a bloke? I see nobody. Personally I see Madonna and her "boy toy" belt near the start of this but that's just my opinion and the roots of the problem are much more complicated I'm sure.

There's a hint of bragging, like you think this is really cool, but by gloating I mean you relay a real love and longing for the heyday of those days.. gloating.. look it up in the dictionary I mean it exactly for what the word describes..

whereas no, not I, sorry. I mean, if you look up some of these bands and people on the internet.. they look slimy and creepy... exactly who and what they are.. a slimy creepy bunch of potheads. I have to disagree about their talent too.. with a few exceptions.. it's the late 60's-early 70's sound and few of them are really unique. You have to check the date too, this is 1970's music.. the 60's have just happened, Woodstock just happened.. Kent state had just happened.. the morals of America were crushed almost overnight and there was this huge void leftover... in 1975 I would have been 15 years old... no one knew what was right or wrong anymore and drugs were everywhere... it really all in all was not a good time to be a teenager. People were driving those painted VW buses still.. so many of my young friends never made it to school past HS,, they wandered around for several years trying to 'find themselves'. Tell me how you find yourself when you are stoned all day.

I really do have to agree with Pwcca on this one. It's about money. The few musicians that made money did ok but the general masses, so many of them, their lives were destroyed by that pop music drug culture. some recovered but many simply became casualities. Think about it really.. who or what was leading our generation.. after Woodstock.. after Vietnam.. no one we were terribly lost... we looked mainly to these groups of stoned musicians with absolutely zero of our best interests at heart. that's who we looked to because they expressed some of our teenage fears and desires on the radio. .. a huge mistake. and the drugs.. the drugs trapped people there in that moment.

I have never watched MTV except for a moment or two here and there skipping channels I may have bumped into it a few times. I don't know, if you worry about your kids emulating what's on TV then maybe they need a parent in the house.

don't fear the reaper.. that one will really make me upchuck. all that music is about drugs and sex and running cluelessly wild until you bump into something hard enough to knock you out for a while. I'm sorry. It's all so shallow.

ugh.

Celtic music is very nice btw, I would agree with that. It's wierd I must admit, once I left the suburbs and got to college, no one listened to the mainstream stuff anymore. No one. In college, mainstream music was not cool. It was considered a relic of the 60's. history. dinosaurs. So that page in my life pretty much closed right there and that was a good thing. I guess that's why i still associate it with a high school mentality. At least I didnt have to wander from coast to coast begging to figure that much out.

these friends of mine from high school would show up at my door in NYC from time to time.. dressed like hippies.. smoking pot.. looking for a place to stay it was so weird... being almost 1980 by now... very wierd.. a very weird bunch... ugh.

Yeah, I hear ya, LindaLou. I think it's the same for both sexes as regards imagery. The main difference is men don't feel as inclined to be "beautiful". That is, I never felt the compulsion to have the same build as the toy action figures I had as a kid. Somehow, it's different for men but the image issue does exist on some level.

Have you ever seen the video to the song the Sultans of Swing? Those guys had talent but you'd never see muscicians who look the way they did in any of today's videos.

Yeah but compared with Madonna and Britney, I think these girls were like bubble gum. But I see what you're saying. However, it's becoming much worse now and some of the pop videos now are akin almost to soft porn (as you stated earlier). It's an affliction, rather than a joy. The music industry is pretty much a sick joke these days. Yes, Pwcca is right it's just about the money. Greed reigns.

But that take a look at much of the TV programmes It's not alot better. Low on quality and high on garbage alot of it, or perhaps New Zealand just get the dregs of it and there is better stuff out there that we're not getting. It really is bad. Even some of our home-grown shows are embarrassing. The kind you hope nobody gets to see overseas.

This is why parents have to start taking stronger roles for the sake of their kids. I don't mean wrapping the child in cotton wool or putting them in a bubble, because that isn't going to prepare them for what's out there. But geesh, let them have the chance to be kids and enjoy "some" of their innocence. My neice and nephew are children of these times and I try my best I guess to shield them from the worst of it when I'm around them, but I can't do it all. I am also very clear to them about it, without being graphic.

I like celtic music also. I also enjoy Enya! Never knew the lyrics to "Don't fear the reaper", but heard the song and liked the music/tune. Unfortunate to hear what it's actually about.

I've never been into the drug/party scene. I was a chid in the 70s, not a teen. And by the time I did become a teenager, I was shy and very sick, so tended to shun social activities, particularly of that kind. Never made me feel good even when I "tried". I always felt clammy and sick around it. Strange.

What I see now on the TV is very concerning. I avoid most television now. It's rare when I watch it. I have my own movies/videos that I watch when I feel like it. Some form of escapism at times also. It's interesting to hear the views of more people to find that one isn't isolated in their opinion.

We watch very little TV. My daughter watches CBeebies, which is non-commercial children's programmes from the BBC. She also likes Doctor Who and Scooby Doo; we watch them on DVDs. (Again . . . and again . . . and again . . . children don't seem to understand that adults don't like repetition as much as they do.)

I don't go out to see a film unless it's had excellent reviews and sounds intelligent and different -- in other words, almost never. Sometimes I come across a good DVD. My husband was given the British TV series "Life on Mars" for his birthday and we're both unexpectedly into that, despite us never having been fans of cop shows before.

The radio is never on. I used to listen to BBC's Radio Four (like NPR in the USA) until my daughter got older. I never seem to get the time now. There are a couple of podcasts I listen to when I am not prone to falling asleep while they're playing.

My daughter will be influenced by us, but she will also be influenced by her friends when she is older. That influence can be very powerful for a teenager. The best we can do is equip her to make good choices but we can't control her.

I try to educate my students a bit about pop culture. I've taught media studies. They often don't think about how they are being influenced in subtle ways. But what I do doesn't make a huge amount of difference.

BTW when I think about 70s rock, I think about listening to "classic rock" radio stations in the US. Often I was doing artwork of some kind, or driving down a lonely road somewhere. Good memories. I was a child too and I have no associations of drugs or anything else, I'm looking at it from a different angle. But were people damaged by that culture? I think more than we realise, yes. Many of the hippies of the 60s turned into the breadheads of the 80s, proving that when they tried to find themselves, they found a desire for material possessions. One of my old college professors and his family were great people who were always true to the peace and love values of that time -- I think that can honestly be said about very few people.

SoSick, It appears, then, if you would've been 15 in 1975 we are the same age. I was born in 1960. So I know what you are talking about....

Just hear me out. I've been trying to state it, but its not getting through. You really have taken me wrong, but I can see how you could have. (And you tend to look at me through black colored glasses anyway). I lost my dad when I was 12. My brother was a pothead and into music from the time he was 10 or so. I remember my dad being furious once with him when he caught him listening to Black Sabbath and becoming borderline abusive, even, with him). Of course daddy died, like I said, when I was 12 and Jeff was 14. But Jeff also died last year if you haven't caught that. He died due to the fact that he NEVER quit smoking pot, or cigarettes, or drinking from the time we were kids to that point, so I know exactly what you are talking about. You are actually preaching to the choir.... I lost my own brother due to that lifestyle. My own brief experimental stint was minimal. I'd always gone to church before that till daddy died, but pretty much had no guidance and my brother was...my big brother. I tried his way cause he wanted me to, but I got away from it quickly. I knew it would take me nowhere and that there was no future in it. I got "saved" at a revival when I was about 14 and threw out all my David Bowie albums. (THat is about all I owned if I remember right that I felt bad about). I, however, kept my Moody Blues and Neil Diamond, Spirit, etc. albums. When I met my husband it was the year after he had auditioned for KISS. I thought of them as "Knights in Satan's Service." (I'd seen a picture of them posing with one of the guy's hand on a woman's breast with her face hidden like she was less than human IMO. I was thoroughly disgusted but didn't really like their music anyway). That is my point made early on in this discussion with "if you only knew."

My husband's life and mine ran parallel in a way, though. When my brother (and me along with him) was into David Bowie, my husband was opening up for him down in FL. When the song I loved so much came out, Wildflower, he was playing on it. I didn't know that at the time, obviously, but could relate with what his life had been even though he was almost 8 years older than me. When he hit 30 and hadn't made it all the way in the business, though, he got out. He felt jaded and felt the lifestyle was not something he wanted to be around anymore, either. When I met him he was living with his mom and was completely starting over. When he started telling me about his background....it scared me. It took 2.5 years for me to marry him because he was not marriage material at first. He changed his life completely. The KISS thing never worked out, (thank goodness) but the things that did were actually respectable. He had toured and played with Ambrosia if you remember them. (Hardly acid rock). He played with David Foster in Skylark, too, when they had the hit Wildflower. I loved that song when it came out in 1973 cause I related with it. The other stuff didn't impress me, but that did. If you caught where I posted Mott the Hoople's song, Hymn for the Dudes, note on that song the part that says "cross over shame, like the wise dove, who care's not for fame, just for shy love." That is how I've always looked at it.

He has lots of interesting stories, but the moral is that he gave it all up for a better life in reality. His friend who is a heavy metal rocker is a sweetheart, but I don't want to hold him up for ridicule. I was proud of him and their group, though, when they came out with a song with the words "Call of the wild has been bringing me down, spirit controls what's inside you.... (Can't remember all the words). The tune is to a heavy mesmerizing beat. (Musically - like the style or not they are good musicians - the drummer is a very powerful heavy rocker, but also a family man now). Anyway, then the chorus is "Time Stands Still when you're having fun, but you pay the price when the day is done." The singer just died in 2007. It crushed our friend... In the end, the lifestyle killed the singer, but the other members have lived more "temperately." Yes, they've lived off that party image and, as much as my husband would love to play with the drummer again, I wouldn't want him playing that kind of music.

David from Skylark has always had high standards. He has been my husbands mentor, teacher and friend.

I've been sentimental about mt brother which is partly why I've been dwelling on music from this era, though. As I've stated on here before, the bass player in Paul Rogers band reminds me of my brother. When we saw them live it blew me away. I broke out in tears just seeing him. (It had only been a few months at time time since he'd died). I have a DVD with this same band "Live from Glasgow." It is good music, period. Music was really the one thing I had in common with my brother having a musician husband, and my brother looked up to him. That is partly what has motivated me to keep watching this DVD of Paul Rogers. Its like watching my brother who was also a bass player and he had the same hair and thick neck and face. And I do admire their musicianship. I do not apologize for that. They rock! Period. But I don't gloat or lust after them personally, although, I must say my hubbie and I did have some great sex once with them on in the background!!!!! (Sorry if that's more info than you want...). The music puts me in the mood. I'm not lusting after Paul himself. He's a short little guy. But he sure has a sexy singing voice. My bad.. (Better than watching porn...not as easy to get in the mood as it use to be). However, having even said that I feel more comfortable on an every day basis listening to Josh Groban. I do like celtic, too. Enya is nice. They had a video of her on at Blockbuster the other day with a Lord of the Rings video. The music is partly what was so spellbinding about that movie series.

I didn't really "discover" even Led Zeppelin till later (and married). It certainly doesn't evoke anything to do with drugs with me cause I don't associate it with it. Like I said, they scared me. I made out some, but remember, once, going to a party with a guy where they were playing outside and it made me very uncomfortable. Too seductive. And a few of their songs, yes, I find a little sleezy. But their musicianship was amazing. I had an experience with Stairway to Heaven that was actually life changing for me. Me and a girlfriend were out driving around getting high (I did say I experimented) with these two older guys and were driving through a cemetary. Here I was, high, and the headlights shone right on my dad's head stone as we came up over the hill. There was dead silence in the van. Then Stairway to Heaven came on the radio. I kind of took it all as a sign. My mom had been in her own little world dealing with being widowed at only 40 and having 3 teenagers, but seeing his gravestone right then made me think about how he would feel knowing what I was doing smoking pot. He had died an alcoholic, (Korean war vet) but was very conservative and did not like the drug culture. And yes, many of their songs are about leaving someone or being upset cause there is cheating going on. (The blues influence and, likely, life experiences. My husband liked me because I WOULDN'T sleep with him. He was tired of the groupies). Some of their music, though, is beautiful. Thank You is one of the most beautiful romantic love songs I've ever heard. (About eternal love....). They used strings in a lot of their songs.... They were classically trained. Originally a few years back I heard that song and ordered their CD for that which is how I "discovered" them. (But I haven't really talked about them anyway....nor do I listen to them regularly anymore. Kind of burned out on them after my discovery. Paul has actually gotten that way, too. Some times I obsess with things for a while.

Anyway, I guess I need to be more careful about how I throw that stuff around. I don't really think about how it might come off because its just what I've been around since I've known my husband. I'm glad you brought it up, actually, though, and that I was able to clarify finally hopefully.

Music, IMO, though is always a good ice breaker and its nice to see us also come together on something...(With Pwcca, LL, Bex, Russ, you).

well great so since you are aware of the wide swath of destruction left behind by the values (non-values) of that generation you maybe should consider that glamourizing it/them in any way shape or form just really doesn't jive with your contrite LDS dogma.

and that's all I was trying to tell you.

I've spent my entire life picking crumbs at the tail end of the baby boom generation, they had/have a ferocious appetite and didn't leave much for the rest of us but a few bags of stinky old weed as icons of their success, and I really don't think admiring them for it does anyone much good. I dont care how sweet the songs sound. that's how I see it. ugh puke.

Just a quick FYI, since things I've said have been taken wrong, what I said about porn had nothing to do with watching it myself. I am even highly selective about R rated movies. (If anything sometimes watch things with some violence. Own Braveheart...The Patriot, Gladiator and, yesterday, watched The Happening. (Don't watch porn.....) Just wanted to clarify that.

On that note, though, any opinions about M. Night's movie, The Happening? Kind of dumb I thought.... Interesting... but I could've done without the constant suicide twist. He seems to be running out of material. : ) I was just thinking this all has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution or creation, but in a way, the movie was scientific????????????? I guess that is debatable : )

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm a music lover. I don't always pay attention to every sin the performer has committed but do think spiritually uplifting music is best and that's something I would do better to apply. I got freaked out when I liked Sarah McLachlan and realized her lyrics were lesbian (if they were, still not sure) and cannot stomach hearing (who's that one singer - Melissa Etheridge) them sing love songs, but I've since heard Sarah is married. (In a heterosexual relationship). I tend to like, I guess, somewhat "emo" type stuff or "heavier" stuff (or whatever you want to call it). I liked some of Evanescence's stuff, too, when my daughter did.

I guess, though, songs do bring back memories and have associations to them. When all is said and done, we should listen to and or watch things that are uplifting. You've made good points.

Not sure what your actual tastes are or if you even like music, but you should hear Josh Groban if you haven't..... I, obviously, listen to secular music (not strictly Christian), but his is pretty spiritual overall. I do like a lot of the Christian station music. I love Lifehouse stuff. I'd rather not Christian lyrics be associated with rock, though. And sometimes it almost seems like the love songs about Christ are romantic?? If I listen to out and out spiritual music I like the real deal and to keep it reverent. (I'm sure you'll have a retort). The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is nice : ) Their Christmas music is very nice. Actually David Foster has a beautiful Christmas album from a few years ago. Josh Grobans is amazing, too. Got that last year. Sorry...need to stop blathering on. Things to do.

Jeanie, I don't really think anyone cares what music you listen to.. I certainly don't.

but.. when you make posts on a public board glamorizing certain things/certain people.. you do that expecting approval from everyone.. a little ooh or ahh or wow.. whatever.. I know you expect approval because, if you don't get the approval you expect, you provide backlash.

thing is.. if you perk up your ears just a little bit after your oldies but goodies replay for the 100th time posts.. you'll also hear a good amount of ugh... puke...sigh.. in the background.

Maybe if I rephrase my above statement you will understand it better. What I said was...

maybe you should consider that glamourizing certain things just really doesn't jive with your contrite LDS dogma.

and that's all I was trying to tell you.

I wasted a lot of time today trying to address your concerns, but not sure why now. You'd think I'd learn. I really thought you were human for a while.

I have to wonder what it is that makes you so bitter. Some on here at least behind your back blame the mercury. But there is no excuse even if you are severely poisoned. When it comes right down to it, you make a choice to be mean. I like myself SoSick. I make no apologies for anything I do. In fact, if anything I rebel rather than try to please people if I don't agree with something. I stand alone on issues and have all my life. I don't need people's approval I don't even know. But I believe in leaving people better than you found them...not grinding them into the ground like you do.

The other "blatherings" were a nervous attempt at conversation. I care about people and was actually glad you were, seemingly, (even if it was insulting at the same time) making an attempt to communicate. You throw around insults that have no basis just to be mean. But you know what? I like myself... I wouldn't have me any other way. I have self respect and even love for myself. That seems to grate on you. So I'll just enjoy doing it all the more, now : )

Say, did I ever tell you about the time David sang to me when we were hanging out at his studio? Or, let me see....what else can I brag about....cause its obviously getting on your nerves

Oh - and did I tell you the bass player for the original punk rock band, The New York Dolls became LDS before he died? (Of leukemia). There is a DVD out, New York Doll, about him. Beautiful story actually. He completely changed his life. Glady Knight became a Mormon, too. She was on the Midnight Special the same night as Skylark back in the day. The husband and her talked recently when she came here and performed with her choir. Bachman Turner Overdrive are LDS... And lets not forget Donny and Marie Osmond! : )
MORMONS ROCK....

It's important to be consistent.

Especially as a Christian.

Cowards. tsk tsk. Talking behind my back.. ooooh... who would do such a thing? Since gossip is not consistent with a Christian walk either... a lot like dog food gossip is.. kennelration to be specific..

actually dear Jeanie.. I have nothing against you personally for being a mormon. Since in Christ there is no Roman, no greek, no jew... neither is there baptist or catholic or mormon... and a person who is really going to believe, really be saved, will be saved no matter what church they belong to. The biggest problem I have with mormonism, which has nothing to do with you personally whatsoever, is that it requires everyone to be mormon to be saved.

a bunch of boolly whoop.

so, after you got 'saved' at that revival at the tender age of 14, was cruising and experimenting with pot your way of converting others to faith? I don't think my father would approve either and I doubt he led you in that. but being as young as you were.. and impressionable... I doubt it ever occured to you either that probably it was him you heard that evening when the thought occurred to you that your father would not approve... of so many inconsistencies.



actually it's boring me to pieces but if you need to get it off your chest go right ahead.

bittersweet not a bad place to be really. I am glad you like yourself anyway. I'd hone things a bit myself. Starting with the anger...

you never did address my concerns btw... you mostly only talked about why you like this music or that. my concerns were a bit deeper than the surface you scratched.

SoSick, I agree about talking behind people's backs. I'd rather know to my face so, actually, appreciate that you say what you "really" think more than otherwise. Right now I'm tired of the syrupy sweet folks of the south who talk mean about people in the next breath cause I don't trust whether they do it about me, too.

Actually there is a joke about the Mormon's thinking they're the only ones in heaven. That is why I don't believe in judging. It ain't over till the fat lady sings and, to us, the gospel is still being preached in the spirit world even after death. Its completely fair and just. EVERYONE will have the chance to choose, even if not while in mortality. But when it boils down to it, there is and will only be one church. The Bible even says that. One faith, One Lord, (One??? - saying off the top of my head). Its about being The Church of Jesus Christ..... But all will need to accept the truth that way to reach their full potential. The difference with us, is that we don't think if you reject it (as a Christian, still), you will not go to "hell." 1st Corinthians talks about the glory of the sun, the moon and the stars. (Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial). There is modern day revelation....(which is how we know these things, it was seen in vision). The heavens are open again and God is speaking to the earth. Its not exclusive...but does require acceptance as truth to reap the full benefits.

As far as smoking pot, that was very brief and was before getting "saved." (I was 13....maybe just into 14? Don't remember exactly, but didn't live that way long. Just long enough to know it wasn't what I wanted). I like music and really don't find an inconsistency with that if its not offensive to the spirit. Feeling romantic, if something affects you that way, is not a sin. ?? I'm sure Paul Rogers was into drugs at one time or another, but so was I to a small extent when I was 13. Doesn't make me that way now so shouldn't be held against me now. I changed. (But don't care what he does either way...I don't full accept him or all his music, even, but like some of it. Its that simple). The other is just life experiences. (The "boring" part). If anything, I know that it DOESN'T matter.... For what profiteth a man if he gain the whole world but lose his own soul." I really have seen that for myself and believe it. Still, there are good people out there who just happen to be very talented and are in the lime light and its not fair to judge them any more than anyone else. I agree people will be responsible for how they impact or influence kids, etc., though. But famous or not, we ALL influence people.... You've actually made me think about some of that. My tastes change with regards to music according to my moods, and lately, loud things bother me. Nor do I feel relaxed working again. I am very aware of how I impact kids. But, sometimes, you can impact kids you couldn't otherwise if they feel you at least understand them. My most important priority is to help them feel better about themselves in whatever small way I can. (I actually often gravitate toward the more needy kids but like them all..cheerleader/jock to stoner or emo kid). Everybody is insecure. I am too. But I know I'm a good person and have self respect. (What I mean by liking myself). Some kids don't realize how important that is along with all the other pressures they are under. Anyway - the subject is pretty beaten up, but I'm glad to have a "more" civil discussion than in times past. Thanks.

Of the reply on the second paragraph 5th line I meant to say that we don't think you will go to hell (where it's like 2 negatives instead - didn't make sense - just caught it).

that says it pretty well.

Don't misunderstand me, I have nothing against music, it's just the contrast of holding up acid rockers and the drug culture (even as a has been) in one hand and the book of mormon in the other.. even though I don't care for the book of mormon, you do, and you give it much respect, an unquestioning respect.

My point is that it's just not possible for everyone to give everything unquestioning respect and adoration, some of us need, truly need, to look beyond the surface.

and also, this being a webboard I also realize things don't always come across as one may intend them to others.. posts often sound angry when they are not meant that way etc. but kids are a great example... as a for instance, given your penchant for telling uncensored tales of your own history.. I would fear leaving my kid with you for an afternoon.. I might walk back into the house to hear Led Zeppelin playing full blast and later hear that oh.. it's just music.. ... just music to you maybe.. but me.. I don't see it that way.. I hear the words.. I know the deeper meanings...

but anyway. It's not about Led Zeppelin.. it's not about Queen.. it's about holding certain things like that, could be anything really, godlessness of a sort, in one hand and things like the book of mormon, or even the bible, in the other hand at the same time. even as a fond memory...

I find that very confusing.

given that God says He will forgive and forget our sin.. I think sometimes it's best we leave it in the past too. It's really not good to dwell.. but I guess recognizing it would be an essential there.

You've made a lot of good points SoSick. Its causing me to reflect on what you are bringing up. I do understand what you are saying. I have a has been husband, though, who tends to need to remember it for his own sense of self or I likely wouldn't even think about it. (Actually he's writing a book which if nothing else will serve for his own memoirs or journal for posterity. Not so much about the encounters but the journey and how he's come through it and a love story, too). I still like Paul Rogers, though. I think I've given the impression I'm a lot more into him on an every day basis than I am, however. (All the adoring stuff isn't there??? Just like to hear him. Not sure I'd like him as a person. There are some people I DO like....Vince Gill, David Foster, etc. partly cause I don't feel a contradiction with lifestyles and I respect them. I don't agree with everything PR's stands for, but he's not on the level of LZ. I think I've burned out on him for the most part anyway.... (Over my obsession which is where it was a while back). But I don't see him as an acid rocker at all. Just a rocker with a soulful romantic voice. I'd still see him again in a heartbeat live if he came to town again. I still don't see enjoying music as a contradiction unless it is evil or drives the spirit away. BUT I was looking for my Josh Groban CDs to put in the car the other morning. We're moving into Christmas season, too. I noticed one year I felt the spirit all the time then and it dawned on me (duh) that it was the Christmas songs!! Music does or can have a huge impact on our spirituality.

I have to admit these past couple of years have been trying for me on a spiritual level and I've, at times, been a bit rebellious. I've had a lot of pretty severe soul wrenching tests, but if we hang in there, we come through them even stronger. I'm probably doing better than for some time right now. So anyway, you're right.... Thanks for at least giving me the chance to explain some. I doubt it still makes sense, but good music is, still, good music. But, again....point taken. Maybe I do need to work on that and act more my age if nothing else : ) Its not a matter of acting, though. I am what I am, but if what I am needs work, I'm open. I'll think about it : ) I would say I have a pure heart.... but not perfect by any means.

You know, actually other than an occasional lonely Friday night when I just need to feel alive when I may watch my Paul Rodgers DVD to exercise, I only do listen to him or any other rock cause its energetic and gets me going.

Anyway, hitting it for tonight. I'm glad to be more productive in our discussions. Maybe I was too sensitive in the past and/or not use to your "style." Sorry for anything offensive I have said. The only other forum I've ever seriously been on before was an LDS Homeschooling online support group.

You feeling all right these days?

Yes, I am fine thank you.

More sure of my salvation than the economic future of America so I doubt I will be seeing hell either unless of course He plans on being there with me.

On the other hand I think I have experienced enough suffering this past couple years to confidently say I have already been to hell and back, more or less. Musical reminders are not my thing either. It occured to me during a very excruciating bout of amalgam filled molar pain and migraines a while back.. that hell quite possibly could be like that.. excruciating pain but with no hope in sight. I did finally come to the rock hard solid decision to simply remove the teeth and all is well.

Hopefully there is a moral to the story.. your husband's story.

I really do not think Jesus preaches in hell and saves souls there. He said the devil destroys our souls in hell.

right here

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Can't save a soul that has already been destroyed now can you?

I noticed a good decade ago at least that certain types of music, without a doubt, attract some very bad negative spiritual influences.. spirits.. lost souls.. demons maybe.. they are everywhere looking for an abode that is friendly to them... kind of like blasting a magaphone saying 'here I am .. I'm real confused.." and they come running. Just like worship and praise music draws the Lord to you, other types of music attracts other spirits. Just the way it is. I am quite certain of it.

Yes I would agree you are very sensitive. and overly defensive of your weak spots which probably do need some review as to why they are so sensitive. Sensitivity usually indicates a wound that has not healed properly. Defending an improperly healed wound usually exacerbates the problem, which is the continual failure to heal.

You wanted to know what I meant when I said I misrepresented myself. This seems to be the right place to answer it.

I actually haven't misrepresented myself except to the extent that my name says nothing about me. I just separated the two (religion, myself) in answer to your question in order to see if you would figure out that it is actually impossible to separate them. What you believe actually defines you. They are your choices on how you will act in situations. Additionally, how you make yourself act will help define your beliefs.

Jesus concentrated on how we are to act and how we are to control our thoughts. He knew that beliefs are just words until they are acted upon.

Does this help?

Deep. I guess I'd just say that belief defines the ego, the everyday consciousness that we use. I think the essence of what we are goes beyond belief.

Can't say I agree with this logic, but the implications are interesting, to say the least.

If Linear has feigned stupidity, he isn't a 'christian'. Or lied about his education, or location, or any number of things...

Indeed, claiming to have misrepresented himself is a misrepresentation, according to this. Rather settles the issue, doesn't it? Or is this supposed to be too subtle a clue for creationists to figure out?

Helped me a little. But I'm not Russ, of course.

Ah! Are you saying that if a lie is told by someone then that removes them from the Christian ranks? I am not good at subtlety so I do not employ it.

Helped you in what way?

Linear, here is the question from Russ that you wouldn't answer in another thread due to it being off-topic. I will re-post it here so people are clear what was asked:

Russ said:


You answered:


I am unsure whether you have answered this already or not somewhere else, but I cannot see in your post here what addresses/answers the specific and clear questions Russ asked of you.

You're the one who said misrepresenting yourself = misrepresenting your religion. I noted the abnormality in such logic and demonstrated the implications.

Now whether you actually forget your own words so quickly or not, is it reasonable to expect anyone to believe you do?
If it is impossible to separate the two, then any misrepresentation of oneself = misrepresenting one's religion.

So representing oneself as one who has misrepresented oneself is a misrepresentation of both. According to your own standard, at least. I don't think anyone else would have proposed such a standard, but for some reason you chose it.

Now I have, in applying this, assumed the first statement was false, and the second one true. It works out the same if the reverse is the case. In neither case does your logic allow for either misrepresentation to be other than a misrepresentation of your religion. Perhaps you should have thought a move or two ahead?

I could complain that you now represent yourself as one who never proposed such a standard, but why add to the confusion? I see no need to try and tally a precise count of misrepresentations.
Additional clarification has been provided for any who may be slow on the uptake. This is helpful.

This part is not a question but a statement. It really has no purpose except to put the idea in any reader's head that if I don't suddenly agree that the writings in the Bible are literally, historically true then I am not really a believer. Additionally, it is a statement that, puts me in the position of denying that I agree with the theory of evolution, otherwise I am not a "true" believer in Christ.



My basis for believing Christ is who He said He is (not "was") resides in my own experience within my faith and the fact that there is no evidence showing that He didn't exist. That's all I have, but it is enough. There is no conclusive evidence that Christ existed but some of the historical context and the testimony of His disciples concerning His resurection. They apparantly died for the testimony that they saw Christ risen from the dead. For me that is beyond reasonable doubt. For others it may not be. So be it.

However, this does not make the rest of the Bible factually and historically accurate. These were men relating their experience and insight about the nature of their Lord. Some of the "history" in the Old Testament has been shown to be incorrect by scientific investigation. If you don't choose to believe that then that is your right to do so. However, the methods by which scientists try to find out the truth withing the natural world, follows a logic that I agree with and could repeat if I disagreed with their results. If you can point to scientific evidence, that I can look at and test, that shows the Earth is only 10,000 years old then I will actually consider changing my mind. That doesn't mean I won't question the heck out of the evidence. That's what science does to evidence that appears to change the reigning paradigm.



If he doesn't mean to offend anyone then why succeed at offending them so readily? Does he really think that questioning and demeaning someones beliefs should be taken so lightly when he is so easily offended when someone questions his?
I only seem to "contradict" myself and thusly "understandably-cast doubt" on my integrity when my actions are judged against his "evolution contradicts Christianity and the Bible" requirements that were stated in the set-up of this inquisition.

And, yet, you take the time to point them out at every turn while ignoring questions posed by me to you in other threads. Not hard to see that, for you, attacking the individual takes priority over addressing the debate topic. But we knew that already, didn't we?

I realize that since you have become the moderator for this forum, I should treat your posts with more seriousness....but then I read them...

Perhaps you should change tactics and post something with real evidence to support your position without interlacing it with thinly veiled insults of your opponents. However, there is the point that your method of debate helped solidify your moderatorship. So, maybe, you should stick with what you're able to handle and has actually worked in this forum for you. It just leads me to believe that Machiavellian methods are truly the means to get ahead for your type of Christian.

Well, he is the owner Linear. I'm not and I passed that onto this thread, because I felt it was where it belonged.

There are plenty of theistic evolutionists around and that includes the Pope apparently, so no I don't believe that a theistic evolutionist cannot be a Christian. However, for me? I'd have much confusion if I took on both.

And since Jesus referred to the old testament truths, including Moses, I have even further reason to consider it's authenticity, rather than it's apparent "mythology". Jesus confirmed the words of the prophets, both by his life and his own statements!

HOW DID JESUS VIEW THE OLD TESTAMENT? A WORD TO THE SKEPTICS

This, plus the astounding findings around the world (e.g. from Ron Wyatt) that appear to prove the "stories" in the old testament could very well be a reality and part of our history (I certainly believe they are). This was all brought up and discussed in another thread quite sometime ago, but instead they were simply pooed pooed, the videos included and brushed to oneside without much of an explanation. Even though a lot of work was put into presenting it all on the thread. You also searched the net to try and find something against Ron Wyatt. That was your response/reaction, rather than investigate his findings, it seemed you preferred to search for any negative feedback you could find. Had you simply investigated the findings, you may considered it a bit more seriously. But in all honesty, I hardly see how trying to dredge up more of the same is going to make much difference to be honest. As far as I've seen, people are going to believe what they wish to believe.

I happen to believe in the bible as told. I'm not bothered whether others consider me a fool for doing so or not. I'm happy about it, and God so far, has not given me any reason to doubt any aspect of His word from start to finish.

In fact, Russ has suggested that He believes the possibility of the earth itself being old, but not the creatures on it....he feels there is compelling evidence for both views and I guess he's keeping an open mind about that side of it. I'd consider either also, but I do not believe that creatures/humans evolved from lower/simple life forms. I am well aware that God created man in His own image and likeness and the miracles of God are usually instantaneous, rather than millions of years to unfold. i see no reason and no evidence that any creature, us included, ever came from such.

I've seen evidence only for created formed beings, not omeba to man or anything else indicating such in the fossil record to there ever was such a scenario. I do however believe in variation/micro-evolution/adaption etc, I haven't seen any indication yet of one species becoming something else, or that any species has arisen from simple life forms, not now, not within the fossil record or anywhere else. Extinct or unknown species? Still does not indicate that they were an earlier form going through their evolution to what we see today.

So no, I do not believe in macro-evolution. I have no reason to do so. And the reason for believing in Christ, is the reason for baptism and the reason for baptism is to wipe original sin. Where did original sin arise? From our first two created parents. The very two created in the image of God that incurred, by their disobedience, a curse over the human race and th earth itself. Hence why all of us are born with original sin and the tendency to also rebel.

We have much hope in Christ however and the renewal of our earth as spoken by the prophets! Something to look forward to. Until then, the arguments we have on here and the arguments elsewhere will continue until they will be silenced.

To the post above Bex's..

To the Quote.
Actually there is alot more then that I posted alot of it already not on this forum, but on the board..
Even in Archeology..

Quote:
There is no conclusive evidence that Christ existed but some of the historical context and the testimony of His disciples concerning His resurection.

Plus..
I agree with alot of what Bex wrote above.
And thats about it..
I'm plum tucker'd out..
You all stay well.

Take Care
Lynn

Honestly, sometimes your writing sounds like conventional Russian indoctrination.



Not true.

There is an abundance of evidence for the existence of Christ and for the reliability of the Bible. Gematria, history, archeology, third source writers, prophecy. Those who cannot find it, simply do not want to.



Not true.

Again, there is reliable evidence that Christ existed, and continues to exist. Again, if you do not find it, you don't want to.



Answer me honestly: Is Christ YOUR Lord?



As I've clearly pointed out in another post, the Bible does not state the world to be 10,000 years old. In all likelihood, the Earth is old but was renewed and rearranged in recent history; At the beginning of this age.



How ironic it is that the scientific paradigm changes so often.

So, let's see:

Are amalgam fillings toxic?

Is mercury in vaccines toxic?

What is the age of the Earth? (Seems to be increasing at a rate of a few hundred million every few years.)

Why is NutraSweet safe?

Why is Saint John's Wort not effective?

How is it that Vitamin E does not help the body fight cancer?

Just as evolution, these conclusions are not science. I love science, but evolution is an affront to science and amounts to nothing more that soviet-style propaganda. Nothing more.


I am quite aware that you misrepresent yourself, as seems to be the ongoing saga of most evolutionists on this forum.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I have to agree with Russ.... And there are those who also believe Jesus the Christ has appeared on the earth quite recently even to the current degree. He is resurrected and is quite alive and interacting with the earth more than many have any idea.

I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, but I believe you actually like saying things like this type of emotional appeal.

Great, provide some convincing evidence and I will change my position.

Then show it to me instead of assuming that I have not looked for it. You don't need to imply that I am denying Christ.

Should I answer like you do?
How about: There is abundant evidence that Christ is my Lord. If you cannot find it, you simply do not want to.

Science has shown evidence of the existence of life as far back as 3 billion years. You have not claimed that, so we are in disagreement. But, show me the evidence that the existence of life is less than 10,000 old and I will change my mind.

So, you would rather that science not change as information becomes available? You would not be able to peddle your wares on the internet if science had not changed a paradigm or two.

Thanks for calling me a liar. Since I don't think I am a liar, your statement must be slander. Does this mean you plan on banning yourself?

No. Honestly, I really meant what I said.

Sometimes your writings actually sound like conventional Russian indoctrination.

No hard feelings



"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
(Luke 16:19-31)



Please correct me if I'm wrong. I believe you are saying that Christ IS your Lord.

If you do not respond to this statement, then I will assume that this is what you meant.



I did not say that life began 10,000 years ago. I said that evidence exists that strongly suggests that Someone made some major renovations about that time.

I believe this: In the ages before this age, life could very well have existed. In my study, the Bible does not refute that and even makes apparent—albeit debatable—references to it.



I will also point out that "science" has shown the age of the Earth to be 500,000 years old, and then 1 billion, and then 2.5 billion, and then 3 billion, and then 4 billion.

Notice, the claims of "science" keep changing over time.

I love science, but the information that is being taught as "science" these days is replete with propaganda. I detest how they are discrediting the fine art of observation, after all, God gave us eyes for the purpose of observation.



I would prefer that science remain science and that politics stay away from it. Unfortunately, the life-extension given to Earth is little more then an attempt to make the math behind evolution appear ("feel") more feasible.

The sales of my herbs are based on real science.

The irony here is that I see a constant stream of lies and propaganda pedaled as "science" in my own field of study (herbs/vitamins) as the influence of big-pharma on news corrupts information for their own gain.

I've personally seen news story after news story attempt to debunk the efficacy of herbs and vitamins in the Untied States. Ironically, much of our research comes from the German Commission E Monographs.

Strange.

Herbs work in Germany but not in the United States.

Is this science?

It is time that you and the rest of the world wake up and realize the level of corruption of information that is taking place. Oh, and this corruption involves more than one person, and is therefore, by definition:

a conspiracy.

Evolution is no different in that is contains massive amounts of false information that is promoted to facilitate profit for a wealthy few. This is the reason that I correctly state:

Evolution is a social control. If you believe it, you are controlled.



Um, actually, I'm simply restating what you told me yourself.

Do you remember?

You said that you did not accurately represent yourself on this forum.

You said it yourself.

Did you forget?

Please. Let's be honest with each other here.

Looks like I missed (at least) one:
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=25195#Post25195

No surprise. Good spotting CTD. Anybody still unconvinced?

Top Three current viewcounts in CvE
1) What do I think... - 2,880
2) Question for LinearAq - 2,348
3) Backbone of creationist beliefs? - 2,246

I have to say I seriously underestimated the public interest in this thread.

I see it too as it doesn't make sense..



Yet he wrote on the problems for athestic evolutionists thread.



And this sentence is rather confusing as well ..
Avoid producing fruit??



And when it comes to fruit..
I posted on that other thread..



So which one is it???
It can't be both..

As you wish.

Now that I have been categorized as a non-Christian, I guess you wouldn't be surprised if I were to lash out in all kinds of insults and mean spirited posts.

Yet you are not suprised when CTD does just that. I guess being a "Christian" doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to internet behavior.

Maybe he isn't a "true" Christian?

Hmmm, when I replied that I had not misrepresented my faith I forgot that I had back then. My apologies to Russ concerning that.

Since you have completed your quest to discredit me, young Parsival, what next? Who's the next target? Pwcca? Bex?

Am I now to be brought before the court of opinion and be banned?

For the purposes of this forum, I will not speak of my faith again. I will be even more careful to refrain from giving any impression that I am trying to discredit Christianity (I wasn't trying to before!!), as what I say will most certainly be misinterpreted by you and misunderstood by others.

Perhaps I should just leave the forum. However, that would just leave you, Russ and your groupies. I'm sure patting yourselves on the back for getting rid of anyone who sees through your poorly supported anti-science rhetoric is satisfying for now. Surely it will become old after a while and you would wish you had someone around to encourage you to actually think about what you write. So I will stay until thrown out.

What did Russ say about those who cannot support their side of the debate with evidence?
Hmmm...something about attacking the character of their opponent....or..maybe...well, I can't remember it right now so I will have to look through the threads and get back to you.

Been categorized, have you? Looks to me like you categorized yourself in no uncertain terms.

That you try to change the subject is hardly surprising. But how much luck did you have in the past with this stuff? This isn't your first attempt, is it?

See? No innovation. No logic. Just knee-jerk ad hom. Same pattern as ever.

Mind explaining which side you're attempting to discredit? Or have you figured it out yet?

Since you've made claims of being an unbeliever/non Christian to being a Christian, which catagory does this come under? And how does one catagorise such a person?

According to how you've presented/contradicted your belief system on here, I gather internet behaviour doesn't mean a whole lot in keeping with ones claims of Christianity. And you wonder at the confusion? In regards to insults - do you honestly claim that you have resisted the urge to provoke others in your posts and not deserved certain responses? I can't imagine most on here could or would if they were honest.

Shifting the burden of guilt/responsibility/focus onto others, seems to be an attempt at distraction from the confusion you have created in regards to your beliefs on here - which is the point of this thread. Some would be harsher than me, and call it "lying". I would like to consider otherwise. Perhaps this speaks more of someone struggling with inner conflict.







Well, you said it!

Now, claiming others as being "unchristian" in behaviour, was not unexpected. At any rate - most people, Christian or otherwise can be accused of being uncharitable and unchristian at times in their responses to others on debate forums. Because of the very emotion and hostiity it often creates. Very common regardless of belief. Not being better examples of Christ is what many of us could certainly be accused of. I am one such example. I find it difficult many times to conform myself to Christ, especially in face of provocation and fail often and miserably. However, if you can find a post of myself, Russ or CTD, where we have misrepresented what we believe on this forum? Please do present it.

Apart from some harsher retaliatory posts, that usually do not come without provocation - which everybody on this forum can be accused of, I'd be surprised if you came up with any proof that their position on their belief system has been contradicted in their posting history.




Your own posts appear to have done the discrediting. Why do you lay blame at others feet for presenting the evidence?

Bringing up such a dubious character as Pwcca as a possible example is somewhat outrageous considering what's gone on in this forum. Why put your own integrity in further doubt by doing so?

Just in case anybody has been on vacation or has overlooked/ignored these particular times of inconvenient exposures - This character "Pwcca" has discredited himself repeatedly on this forum, been cornered and exposed a number of times - no surprise that there is consequentual anger and undying loyalty/support from devotees of such a person/practice. Are we to believe that this is the norm and expected practice of the evolutionist and therefore automatically acceptable?

This is not about discrediting anybody, nor is it a threat. Russ is actually a very patient and kind owner and appreciated by many other members on this forum, who gain much help and support from the system he has set up.

This is about exposing clear contradictions/misrepresentations and bringing it to a head. Now whether you have been deliberately deceptive, or you have struggled with conflict/confusion with the Christian religion - and an on and off again belief/relationship with God? I cannot tell. That is for God to judge ultimately and is personal between you and He. But certainly you have been caught out saying one thing and then another in regards to being a Christian - thereby confusing others on here in respect to the sincerity of your position. Why place blame on those who have exposed it?

It's up to you if you wish to leave the forum Linear. But nobody has banned you. An apology without the false accusations regarding the bannings would have been a more sincere, honest, and mature response with a far better reception - yet you have resorted to the other. Sadly, the attempt here seems to be to misrepresent the truth in favour of the banned. Giving an apology and then baiting the owner for a ban, makes little sense and seems a contradiction to any sincerity.

It's been exposed and pointed out many times why the bannings took place, as to leave anybody in no doubts and no excuse to suppose otherwise. I guess one might consider it steadfast loyalty that you would wish to continue excusing and showing the banned in a favourable light, regardless of such evident deception.

Unfortunately for them, it wasn't just the attempts at discrediting the owner, his reputation and mental status that proved their downfall - but the IP addresses and computer information have back fired. No owner would continue to tolerate such behaviours and I am all for clearing out such phony/pseudo personalities from the forum.

I have one example to present.

In the "Recap Frauds" thread, I pretended for a time to believe in the antihistoric strawman version of Häckel's recap which more recent evolutionists have concocted. It took a while, but eventually both LindaLou and LinearAq said Häckel didn't teach those things.

Your posting history on this forum, in regards to the position on your Christian/creation beliefs - has not aroused any such confusion/suspicion/doubt (at least not with me), due to the consistency, straight forwardness, lack of contradiction/liberalism and heresy. I'd be surprised if it was shown otherwise. Though imperfection and some inconsistencies would be expected in all our posts(being human).

In regards to the link you gave on yourself? Testing others with dubious beliefs by members of their own side to check for their knowledge/honesty/position/response, is a tricky debate tactic. Perhaps not the most honest method of achieving results, but hardly as serious. However, feigning a religious belief to fool others is dishonest. Or denying one - then later claiming you have one is a misrepresentation of ones position on this forum and confuses others. I see no such evidence in your history thus far. Let me know if you do in mine.

This should be an example to everybody to be honest in their representation, so it allows for a more honest debate.

Hi Bex, ((( Smiles )))

Thank You for doing the quote thing for me last night.
I'm too busy to be a mod better you then me.
It was pretty late last night and I posted but forgot to
use that feature..
I was about ready to hit the sack..
But ya I do agree...



To say the least..
That's why it became so confusing at times..
Like say what???

Take Care
Lynn

I believe you should judge any claims of a particular religious belief with some caution. I made the mistake, I should bear the consequences in a lack of trust by the people on this forum.

I never claimed to resist the urge to provoke others or to retaliate in kind when provoked. Do you have an instance where I said I don't do those things?

Ok, At the time I honestly believed that I had not misrepresented my beliefs. I had forgotten my words to you in that post when I first came to the board. I apologize to you also for that.

I won't even look for it. Why should I?

I certainly won't find what CTD did. Neither of them will actually say they believe something contrary to what they have said they believe. I agree that I should not have.

Defense mechanism, I guess.

For the record, I apologize for the action I took early on in this forum. It caused confusion and has made open discussion more difficult.

Linear, I'm with you. I asked to be banned (and was temporarily) cause Russ referred to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as "stupid." Usually I blow it off or have since I've been on here save some incidences when I did lose it, but don't usually take it personal. I've had a very difficult, emotional period, though, and I know you, too, are having a hard time personally. What I find very ironic is that this site which supposedly stands for freedom, love, Christianity, etc., actually feels like something very different. In fact, not sure at this moment, at least, why I have come back on. Witnessing you being ganged up on like this is disturbing. You obviously believe in and have faith in Christ but feel there is some truth to evolution. I don't think people have a right to judge you. Neither Bex or Russ have families. Don't know much about CTD. But this site appears to be their life and they take it a bit seriously IMO. I've found it an interesting and sometimes fun experience posting on here, but all is left is those who are like minded now. The others have been banned. There is no discussion at least on this forum. I'm going to refrain from it rather than fight and see if I want to stay on for the health aspects, but I wouldn't blame you for leaving. If you do - take care and I hope everything works out with the issues with your job. Hopefully you got to spend Thankgsgiving with your family..... If not, hopefully it wasn't painful being separated. You're an intelligent, good man with a kind heart.

Bex, I meant no insult to you. I noticed you are now a moderator. Haven't been on for a while so behind on reading but I'm sure you'll do a fair job. I would just hope and think that all 3 of you would keep actual kindness and sensitivity in mind as believers and actually moderate rather than judge. I thought the purpose of moderation was to keep things under control....not to keep the status quo going on your personal opinion. Hope I'm wrong.....

These sites are provided by Russ for the benefit of others. At the very least it would be expected to treat it and others with some basic honesty. It was not provided for people to play games and deceive others with. To allow that to continue would not be very Christian or fair on other members/readers here and would not be in keeping with good moderation. Nobody is perfect, but a certain amount of honesty is expected. The system here should not be abused and used as a free for all to come on under false pretenses/multiple names/accounts to toy with others. And sadly it has. It was long past due to crack down. You already know this, it was pointed out on here repeatedly.



Then you have witnessed from a standpoint of bias, rather than truth. This seems to be a habit of yours. It has been pointed out repeatedly why there needed to be a crackdown on deceptive behaviour/misrepresentations on this forum. Ganging up has nothing to do with it and Linear for me has been humble in his recent admissions to confusing others and understands the outcome. Deliberate malice is not involved.

This is not ganging up. It's very much to do with more than one person witnessing the confusion/contradiction and misrepresentation in someone's belief system. It helps when others give their own observations of the same, bringing forth the evidence to prove it. In other words, we were justified in asking such questions. And should not have to feel guilty for exposing such.

One wonders how you can consider this "disturbing", yet you joined in the group attack on CTD, which continued for sometime and didn't appear to have much of an issue with it.

Let us not forget how you felt when you first joined this forum. You were not impressed with how you were treated by the evolutionists. Considering you had a few go at you at onetime. I seem to remember a few of us defending you.

You're not overly subtle with your bias judgements of us and anything goes acceptance of evolutionists, even in the face of Pwcca games.

It was pointed out on here time and time again why the crackdown took place. Russ went to the trouble to give the evidence, which you swept aside in an insulting manner.

A few people have been concerned about some of your emotional and often venomous/erratic outbursts on these forums. And wondering why it continued to be tolerated - particularly by Russ.



Yet you appear, once again to have put yourself in position of judge. Yet you have misjudged. Linear as a person is not under judgement. Only the confusion and upset regarding his true position on his faith and those who have felt deceived/confused and wary. He aknowledges the consequences of such confusion. It is not unheard of for people to pose as Christian on creation/evolution forums for their own agenda - so pardon others for becoming uncomfortable and cynical.

As for comments on not having a family? One wonders what that has to do with this? I am sure you are aware of long term illnesses and what it can do to a person's social/love life? You would be surprised at how many single people are on here because of sickness. I can't quite see where this has much to do with anything to be honest and find it hard to judge a person based upon whether they are single or married.

If the "single status" is about having too much time on ones hands and being apparently obsessed with this forum - Can I ask how on earth the rest of the regulars here who have families managed to be on here just as much..... You included! In fact, in the shorter time you've been here than most - you have been a very frequent poster and one whom most certainly takes it seriously. So seriously in fact, that you seem to have trouble controlling the nature of your responses.

Most regulars here have been frequent/long term posters. I'm sure each have taken breaks onetime or another, as I have and do. I do not answer each and every post and sometimes cannot be bothered. Sometimes I'm frequent, sometimes I'm not.... health/work/family/life etc. It happens to everybody. Why the need to say such things?

As for the forum now being only for those like-minded? The banned should have thought of that before they continued their tirade of abusing the system and the owner's patience/reputation and baiting him for a ban. Perhaps it would be more adult to consider taking some responsibility for ones own behaviour, instead of placing blame where it doesn't belong?

I'm quite happy if people present themselves honestly on here, whether they're evolutionist/creationist, as it's only fair to fellow members. But who wants time wasters/flamers/trolls?



If you refrained yourself, you would not have come on here with bias provocations. So much for honesty and fair judgements.



Hard not to find such statements rather insulting in light of what's gone on in recent times. The only way to keep things under control is also by cracking down on some pretty serious abuses to the system/freedom. Moderating a forum is not easy, but if behaviours like this (E.g. Pwcca's) are not called on and finally acted upon, then one can hardly complain at the consequences. Letting it go on, as it has done, shows what happens when people go too far and expect to be able to continue.

It's not just personal opinion. Once again, it has been pointed out to you CLEARLY with the evidence the reasons for bannings. Again, no owner/moderator would continue to tolerate such abuse to the forum and deception.

It seems to me that the banned on here have little regard for the decisions made. Little regard for the owner and those very decisions and waste no time in getting back on under new names to start pretty much where they left off.....

Being fair is one thing - being walked over and having your forum and own self treated with contempt is quite another and I think Russ finally had enough. Good on him! I hope that myself and CTD can be helpful in taking some of the load from him occassionally. But at the end, it's his call.

Which is what was done. But as a result, our question marks/suspicions were not well received by yourself or the others. Yet it turned out through evidence, we were indeed justified. As for the actual reasons? That's between yourself and God.

Perhaps you will remain on this forum afterall? Let's hope things can move forward.



I never claimed you did. It was your judgements of CTD and him as a Christian that caused me to question whether your own posts/provocations might be cause for some consideration?



Apology accepted. I had trouble believing there was any deliberate malice involved. But concerns/confusion? Yes. But again, I am not in a position to judge personal intent/circumstances. Only giving an opinion. I have struggled myself with my faith and with much conflict in my own life (past).



In regards to any of us misrepresenting our belief system? Probably because we haven't. Though one is welcome to prove otherwise if that has been demonstrated (if not by you, anybody else). It is only fair, if any of us have done so.



A humble admission and thank you. I would like also to apologise for anything in the past I may have offended you with.

I would like to see things get back to discussions on the topics - and I'm sure you would too.

First of all, I thought I deleted that whole post. As soon as I sent it I saw it said Lauren I took it off for editing and thought I got rid of it but, apparently, didn't. I tried to get back on as Jeanie to repost it and forgot my PW - then decided to just bag it and stay out of it. I was going to come back on and tell him just not to let anyone tell him what he was or wasn't. Of course he doesn't anyway, though. GOOD ON HIM.

Now it apparently hurt you or got to you what I said about having a life and for that, am sorry if it hurt. Yes - I've been on here too much at times, too. So have put distance between myself and this forum because it is, afterall, an online forum. I have a life beyond and need to focus on the people in it.

And I have personally never made an attempt to deceive by being someone else. I had set up Lauren as a sub name a while back before I ever asked to be or was banned. I still am not comfortable being on this site, though, with who I really am anymore so may use Lauren anyway but intended to let everyone know it was actually me if I posted. There are things posted on here whether I believe them or not that could be incriminating to the FBI as radical.

Just FYI, I ASKED Russ if he banned me cause he wanted me off or because I asked to be banned and he said the latter. I told him I wanted an apology for how he's spoken to me (referring to my church and beliefs as stupid) and he refused but unbanned me anyway. If I agree or disagree with something I'm not just going to go along with who the head honcho is. If THAT gets me banned, so be it. I understand that it is Russ' site, but this is beginning to feel like a dictatorship on here, not freedom. If what you believe in is true it will stand the test of people's criticisms and persecutions and time. That has certainly been true of our church. So I'm going to let the insults roll off my back, but I certainly don't feel like I'm among friends. I have actually LIKED most of the evolutionists on here that were banned. I agree with what I agree with and disagree with what I don't but I have never just out and out meanly insulted anyone cause their beliefs are different. Not the way I have been insulted. And yet its supposedly done with love? You guys are right. I know a completely different version of the God you do.

Don't worry about me getting in between anything else on here because I will only be on for my health, quite literally.

Can I ask why you remain on these forums to both use them, then speak poorly/falsey about the owner and his motives? There are plenty of forums around, perhaps you ought to go there? See how long you would last criticising the forum, the owner, and throwing your weight around.

These forums are about the most lenient/free I have ever belonged to. Others feel the same way. Unfortunately the leniency has had its drawbacks as we can see here. But certainly those who venomously attack it, insist on staying. I don't know many owners that would allow such people to continue using his system, and then turn around and spout out this.

"Head Honcho".... Russ behaves more like a fellow member at times than an owner. This is a compliment towards him, not an insult. It's very rare that he cracks down and even then, he likes to give certain people another chance. One wonders why he has done so with you, when you turn around and do this?

We already know why the few on here were banned. It was long overdue. Russ perhaps should have acted sooner, but at least it gave people a very good idea about what such people would resort to.



Perhaps you'd like to quote me where I have been nasty/insulting to you in regards to your faith? Could it be that you take anything - correction/concern as being a personal insult? - regardless of whether it's the biblical quotes that have done it, or those posting them. It seems that ever since this, you have done your best to make creation Christians look like the "bad guys" and evolutionists can do no wrong. Anybody surprised at the bias?

I wonder which evolutionist you speak of when you say you liked most of them.....which one of Pwcca's personalities?

Did you also enjoy his comparison of unborn children being of less value to a rodent? Did you enjoy his laughing at the bible and calling it a jabberwocky joke? Did you enjoy his sarcasm/imitation of a "Christian" with foul language? (which he never got a warning about) Tell me, did you enjoy his false accusations and putting of words in people's mouths on here? This is the type of individual you're willing to support on this forum because you have taken umbridge against the creation side. All because a few dared to point out some discrepancies/concerns regarding your religion and this is your idea of honesty is it?

The God I believe in, is a God of truth. Jesus offended many with the truth also. Look where the truth finally got Him? Crucified. A God of love, is also a God of correction.



I'll believe this when I see it.

I don't really care what you believe anymore, Bex.

Bex, I'm sorry I upset you. I mean that (now) sincerely. I had to cool off. Spare me any preaching though, please. I've pretty much had it.

No problem Jeanie.

Linear, ((( Smiles )))

What is this??
This is kind of disturbing..
Can you see why that could be..

Hi Jeanie, ((( Smiles )))

I believe what you said to Bex is sincere and you are just tired..
But there are things that are more important now happening in the world..
Before I came to this board..
Before I caught on to the vaccinations the mercury ect..
I read this site longcountry.net
Then I went to share international..
Then I read all about Maitreya..
Now Project Bluebeam..

I hate all things Christian..
Do you see why that would disturb me Jeanie??
Someone even saying that..
Do you understand whats happening here..
It goes way beyond all of this.

"There are only two ways to live your life.
One is as though nothing is a miracle.
The other is as if everything is." Albert Einstein

And Jesus is the miracle..
It's all true..
And lyeing signs and wonders is in Scripture too..
And thats where project bluebeam comes in.
We are all in this together it's comeing upon the whole world.
This is the biggy..

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for your posts. Just to clarify.

Those statements here:



were made by Linear quite sometime ago as a mocking take-off/impression and gross misrepresentation of the poster "CTD" - as though it represented CTD's "true agenda/beliefs".

CTD has never expressed such statements or anti beliefs, but this was Linear's psuedo impression of him and perhaps an intellectual putdown towards anybody who agreed with CTD.

There are plenty of examples that could be brought up on here from most of us that continue to expose our need for moderation -and debate forums are of course, the worst and most needy! Emotions run high. Not an excuse to indulge in rudeness and provocations, but show me a debate forum that doesn't descend into such.

Take care Lynn.

Hi Lynnmn,

As Bex has said, this was an attempt to characterize CTD as a non-christian because of his mocking of anyone who believed the theory of evolution to be true and his use of long-discredited "facts" to throw doubt on the biological, geological, and paleontological sciences. At the time, I actually thought CTD was trying to make creationists, and thusly fundamentalist Christians, look stupid by saying that his cardboard construction arguments were the actual beliefs of those people. Now, I don't think that.

Interestingly, what you have done is called a quote mine. It is basically, digging a statement out of context that provides an impression that the person quoted is saying something that is actually different than what the person was saying in the full context of what he wrote or said. Although you had no intent to misrepresent what I said and, by association, my feelings about Christ, you still did.

This can be and has been done with Bible passages pulled out of context. A number of unBiblical movements have been started within the Church by such misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

Hi Linear, (((( Hummmm ))))

Your right..
It was late at night and I was kind of taken back..
Even though on this thread it's posted in full for all to see.
I left something very important out indeed..

TO THE TUNE OF VICTORY IN JESUS!
And that makes it all the worse on top of not knowing what you really mean anymore..
I know you apologised for misrepresenting your beliefs..
Christian or non Christian ect..
O.K. I see that yet...
"in that context" and that CTD is a Christian and he wasen't singing that song..
You were..
It sounded very mocking to me " not just " to CTD which is putdown enough..

But you wrote that song and not knowing what you really mean anymore..
With that sentence..
I HATE ALL THINGS CHRISTIAN...
Singing to the tune of..
VICTORY IN JESUS!
I still find that very disturbing in that context.
I hope I have clarified myself better now..
Can you at least try to understand why I would find that so??
Instead of trying to compare what you expressed to a Bible interpretation.
I understand what you were trying to say in that regard but..
Your the one that thought thoses words up..
Not CTD..
And attached a tune and a Name to it as well.
And it wasen't just CDT's..
Thats what I mean that I was disturbed by that..
That you wrote that..
Not knowing what you are really saying anymore.
Thats what I found disturbing.
Clarified..
Thats it..
Thats all..

Lynn

Ok.

If those word upset you then I apologize for that.

Now for my concerns for the direction this is going.

It seems alright for anyone here to call my belief in the theory of evolution stupid. I have seen the theory called lies, indoctrination, and fit for ignorant and mislead people. I have seen the people who study this part of biology be called liars, ignorant or deluded. Some of those people are friends of mine here in Antarctica. During this attack on my beliefs, I wrote some pretty strong statements expressing my doubts about CTD's Christianity. I didn't say that Christianity was for deluded people. I didn't even say that young earth creationism belief was deluded.

You say that CTD is a Christian. I admit he has never openly contradicted himself.

Yet, some of the first things he brought up in this forum were little more than insults and condescending attitude. This continued even though he was confronted on his behavior by several here. I guess that, since we agree with the theory of evolution, our protests are not worth anything. Now he is a moderator. Rewards for a job well done.

As far as I know, he has never apologized for that behavior.

Do you consider that type of behavior to be a good representation of your beliefs? I doubt it since I haven't seen you act that way in the limit posts of yours that I read.

I can see your point. We need to be respectful though honest with our opinion.

But also, one must be careful not to jump onto every statement and put words in people's mouths either and become unnecessary defensive, thereby provoking another. Remember this is a debate forum. It's in place for people to question/challenge/refute and give another side. And there is another side. The creation side too in regards to biology/science etc. Not all scientists are automatically evolutionists. Though we know there is a majority rules in the science arena and it's exactly what the public is fed.

Let's not forget an interview posted on this forum with an evolutionist biologist giving some very uncomfortable and sobering admissions regarding evolution and the science arena. He knows there is the other side, but for his position and finance, he has to present only one (evolution). No, that is not an honest way to continue but he felt that due to the other factual science and many good discoveries, somehow he must have justified the other in his own mind (or tried to).

So, if I give an opinion based upon the creation side and an evolutionist says "this is not true" "this is not based upon evidence" etc......then surely I can just as easily jump on the defense and say "so you're calling them all liars"?

It is not a crime to question/challenge/refute an evolutionist scientist. It's not a crime to do the same with the medical/dental industry (ANY industry) and it appears it's necessary when there are always possibilities of discrepancies, cover ups, misinformation, wrong information, outdated information, misinterpretation, hoaxes, financial motivations, indoctrinations etc etc.

We have to respect that there is more side to an issue and this is why a debate forum is in place. There is NO obligation to accept one side of an issue because the opposition decides if we don't, we're calling them all liars. Especially when there is the opposition giving another side to presenting evidence. Tell me, are all dentists deliberate poisoners? Or are some of them misinformed/naive about some of the evidences that prove mercury from amalgams is indeed toxic/accummulative? Some dentists believe it's been proven to be safe...are they interested/willing to view the other side? And if not....why? If so, would they be willing to accept the possibility of evidence that may prove that they maybe mistaken? even though they have been through dental school and the likes of me has not?

Am I calling such people liars if I do not agree with their idea of the safety of amalgam? I cannot possibly know for certain whether a person has an agenda, or whether they are genuinely uninformed/misinformed about other possibilities of opposing evidences or not. And it's the same with the evolutionists. Just because we give another side and question/challenge, does not mean we are calling them all liars, or dumbies. It may mean that they are not the ONLY voice of science and there is indeed another side.

We recognise Linear that we are laypeople and what is fed to us, may not always be ABSOLUTE in regards to "science" or at least interpretations of findings. There is indeed a strong oppositional voice, however quieted/silenced it maybe in mainstream science/media/public - it's not going away anytime soon and is in fact growing.

I believe as a Christian, that Christ is coming soon to silence all such debates. In the meantime, we'll endure more of the same. Let us try to remember that when we are addressing another person, we are addressing someone whom God Himself considers more precious than gold - so much so, He sent His own son to die on a cross for each individual.....cause for much reflection. Eachtime we treat another human being in an insulting/offhand manner, we do the same to Christ. Since it was He who told us:

Matthew 25:41

Quote

Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

OUCH!. I believe by this, that it does not mean we cannot point out, correct, and defend (at least from what we believe is true - even if we might be mistaken), nor does it mean we won't experience feelings of anger/injustice, (Christ felt anger) - but how we treat a person whilst doing so. Is it with insult/contempt? Hmmmmm, makes me feel nervous when I consider this.

Seriously, I think most of here have cause for shame (myself included). It's a rare time when I become suddenly and acutely aware of such a reality and I'd like to remember this more often and wish I would live accordingly.