Can I assume this is a bit of sarcasm?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Convicted Heavy Metal ‘Christian’ Singer Admits Being Atheist, Duped Fans
- Thread starter radiocph
- Start date
Can I assume this is a bit of sarcasm?
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Well, Duh! Read my tagline!
There was no tag line on the post that included the sarcasm.
People who are not "Biblically literate" who know that you are a retired lay minister would read your original post and likely assume: "Well, the preacher knows his Bible."
In fact it looked so serious, so authentic that I did a search just to make sure I understood what was going one there.
My whole persona as GRC is built around including tease, spoofing and improbables. If and when I tease about issues of faith, I don't intend to ever, ever leave any opportunity for someone to assume I am being straight-up when I am actually pranking.
I found that particular post a bit disappointing.... almost offensive.
Whether Jesus was who the New Testament says he was is up to individuals to determine for themselves, but whether Jesus actually lived or was an actual historical figure isn't up for debate. In the history textbooks they had us read in Ancient History class at the local state university Jesus was referred to as an actual historical figure.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
Wow - it makes me wonder why a non-believer like you even bothers to read this section of the board. But I agree with you - for 90% of the "Christian" stations out there, it is a business. I can truthfully say, I have been treated worse by Christians than by any other demographic group except perhaps Muslims. If I had to judge Christianity solely on the behavior of its adherents, I would not have become one. That includes the behavior of a station owner - but I make a lot of allowance for him because he was a diabetic. But there was a definite prejudice against us, and in favor of a big preaching show right before our show.
As for your history - it is faulty. There is a Bible from 80 A.D. on display in the Vatican museum, which is the complete scriptural canon. I think it is in Greek. There is ten times the historical evidence for the literal bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is that George Washington ever lived. That includes secular Roman historians who were not Christians. Every single atheist who has tried to disprove the literal bodily resurrection of Christ has become a devout Christian. Every single one. So give it a try and report back here in a couple of years what you find!
A
Avid Listener
Guest
All of my posts have this at the bottom:
It's called sarcasm. It's as valid a form of expression as most others, including hyperbole.
Sure it is up for debate. I am not questioning whether or not you believe but rather whether a particular person actually lived as described in the Bible. The most educated historians cannot decide whether Jesus was an actual person or whether he was an amalgamation of Christian beliefs. In fact, there is considerable thought that because most of his life is not referenced he was not an actual person. People of his day who wrote of such things didn't write about him and surely if he had performed his "miracles" they would have. In any event, you will believe whatever you wish and I will do the same. But the fact that a theory exists in a textbook does not make it so.
I was reading and responding to a radio-based subject that has religious broadcasting as its subject. The fact that I do not share any religious beliefs does not take away my interest in that part of the radio business.
I am also a diabetic but would tell you that is no excuse for bad behavior not specifically related to the disease (which can and does cause victims to get very testy at certain times). In my life I have found Christians to be among the most unforgiving people and the most devout are the worst. I often say that religions are the most divisive things on the face of the Earth.
Now you have gone off the tracks. Typical of religious people when challenged.
You would expect that the Vatican would have what they consider the ultimate authority on everything precious to the Catholic religion. That is no surprise. What is, is that it cannot be backed up and no one can determine who the actual authors were. That doesn't come from my faulty history but from historians having no axe to grind who spend countless years trying to ascertain the truth behind the book.
There is absolutely no question that George Washington lived. You might be able to challenge whether or not he actually chopped down a cherry tree but you cannot disprove that he lived. No such history follows Jesus and significantly, no well-respected and trustworthy scholars of his day wrote about him. They cannot even agree on what his given name might have been as there are several given names attributed to that theoretical person.
We are all aware of the folklore surrounding historically important people. My example would be Robin Hood. I personally can find no authoritative proof that he did, in fact, exist but I think he might have. I do not spend time debating it with others who do not believe. Likewise, neither you nor I will ever convince the other of the existence of Jesus, the virgin birth or a dozen other supernatural events surrounding his life and propagated by people with a vested interest in his existence. We all should know that you cannot prove a negative and that is what you have challenged. We also know that you did not provide any facts to back up your statement that "Every single atheist who has tried to disprove the literal bodily resurrection of Christ has become a devout Christian." 2,000 years afterward it is quite impossible to prove anything that has no scientific basis.
Religion, in general, is a business and as such it propagates unscientific events then challenges your intelligence if you don't ascribe to the faith element. It was undoubtedly the first human attempt at a form of authority as nothing works quite as well as hate for the misunderstood and fear of the unknown. It is still working quite well these days.
COMPONENTS of the Bible were available by 80 A.D. but scholars tend to date the writing of Revelation around 96 A.D.
Scholars indicate that the first recognizable and trustworthy "Canon" was assembled about 170 A.D. and what we today call The Bible was not assembled and approved by councils until 390 to 397 A.D.
They no doubt had much of the essential ingredients on display in Rome in 80 A.D. But you don't have to search for dates very long to realize at least FIVE component books of the Bible where authored AFTER 80 A.D. And then there were BRUTAL arguments and councils for the next 300 years over which books were credible and accepted.
We who make up "The Church" give our friends a lot of reasons to be skeptical about what we claim.
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Yes, it is true that some folks hold CCM musicians to a higher standard. Other folks do not. Among the various faith traditions within the Christian church, there are different interpretations of how Christians are expected to behave. There are some Christians who believe that salvation is earned through good works and avoidance of acts of sin. There are others who believe that salvation cannot be earned because it is a gift of God. There are yet others who believe that salvation is predestined, but that those who are elected for salvation will display behavior that reveals that they are among the elect.
I am one of the Christians who believes that Christians aren't perfect, they're just forgiven. Therefore, I believe that they should not be held strictly to any standards. However, it is difficult to separate the messenger from the message, so I personally have issues with unrepentant sinners. That's a personal issue for me, because I shouldn't feel that way, so I need to repent of that attitude and strive to overcome it, even if I know I cannot succeed.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
Without being a self-righteous Pharisee - I had to balance the message being delivered through the lyrics and the lifestyle of the artist. All Christians are sinners saved through grace, and all continue to sin - although hopefully not habitually. If an artist gained notoriety by making public statements against Christianity, had a very publicized addiction to drugs, alcohol, or lust - it did seem hypocritical to me. Therefore, they become an embarrassment to the faith. If I openly played songs by people who were an embarrassment to the faith and the good name of Jesus Christ, it would definitely make us seem like we were endorsing their sin, or at the very least ignoring it. When there was no sin - as the case with Amy Grant who was in a bad situation - I proudly continued playing her music and gave the whole story to anybody who called in concerned about it. In other cases, where adultery was clear like Sandy Patti
- however she spells her last name this week - we would have pulled her music if she had fit our format. She didn't. Poor Sandy - I remember her in 1980 at a Billy Graham concert when she was thin, and absolutely gorgeous. I wish she had gotten a handle on that overeating for her health sake. Her music was definitely CHR and creative. I wish she had continued producing hot AC and CHR style music. Then she would have fit the format. We had no shortage of Hot-AC, CHR, and Christian rock artists until the praise and worship movement hit us like a ton of bricks. After that stuff started, it actually pushed us into a straight Christian rock format because that was being produced while Hot AC and CHR vanished overnight. We spent hours at Long's Christian book store previewing CD's and making our own Christian rock format, because there was no support from the labels. Those cute promotional CD's from Sparrow, etc. were full of praise and worship. Nope - not right for us or our audience.All that made it doubly difficult to screen for potential phonies. Sparrow and the other labels were at least doing some of the work for us. The web was in its infancy, there was no Google to research artists. We were really "out there" with our necks on the chopping block if some Christian rock artist was a phony or a trojan from the world. The lyrics of the songs only helped us - they weren't a guarantee. Our secret weapon, though, was the lyrics and sometimes the overall tone of the artist. If everything was pointing to Christ, and very little towards the artist themself, it there was humility and surrender to Christ in the CD, some intangibles, we felt pretty comfortable. With a lot of prayer that we didn't make a mistake - I am proud to say not a one of our songs or artists was ever found publically to be in sin. This was at the same time as Sandy Patty fell, Jimmy Swaggart fell, and several others. So the problem was primarily in the gospel, praise and worship, and AC CCM ranks. Very little in the ranks of Christian rock artists.
At what point would you re-add an artist who has fallen? What words or actions would you look for?
After they apologize?
After they admit wrong doing as well?
After they repent?
After they apologize?
After they admit wrong doing as well?
After they repent?
The Apostle Paul wrote, "Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from good will: The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely...but the latter out of love....What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.".
Pretty much explains it for me.
Pretty much explains it for me.
R
rbrucecarter5
Guest
That would be very difficult - the world loves to say "I told you so" when a Christian falls publicly. While forgiveness is freely given when a sinner repents - God does not remove the consequences. David was forgiven. He repented. At the end of his life he would have nothing to do with a hot young girl - he learned his lesson. But God did not remove the consequences of his adultery. It was foretold by prophets, and it all came to pass. David is still a man after God's own heart, in the line of Jesus, and the father of Soloman. But the sword never left his house his entire life. Children died or were horribly affected by David's sin. This does not bode well for a Christian artist who repents. God's love is endless and Christ's forgiveness unconditional, but I am afraid the consequences of sin are not a part of the deal. If I ran an AC Christian station, I could not in good conscience every play Sandy. Somebody in the world would post all over social media - "see K____ plays music from an adultress!" They would be wrong to do that. But the integrity of the cause of Christ and Christ's witness in the world must remain untarnished. Would you even bother walking into a church pastored by Jimmy Swaggart? Jim Bakker? Would you play songs like "Morning Has Broken" by Cat Stevens - now that he has abandoned the faith for satan's lies in Islam? There just isn't any point. Their message, which was a beacon of light and truth is now just a memory. Ichabod - the glory departed. God appoints new ministers to replace fallen. I think it is the responsibility of somebody who became a very public embarrassment to Christ to quietly live a life reflecting their repentence, keeping out of the limelight so as not to become a stumbling block to others.
If there weren't consequences to sin - they why would it be a thing to be avoided? People mess up their lives every day, it is unfortunate but true. It disqualifies them from many freedoms they previously had. Look at the case of Oscar Pistorius. He did more to mainstream people with disabilities than many people could. He gave all of that up with one gunshot. Now disgraced and in prison.
Would I be open to playing an artist who fell? In Amy Grant's case, she did not fall. I made that clear. If a different artist, one who fell hard into sin, and it made tabloids - supposing they repented, went on a speaking tour of churches explaining to people how they fell, encouraging them not to make the same mistakes - something like pornography - how it dragged them down, and now they speak against it. If they get really well known in a recovery ministry, help others out of the same sin, it is clear to everybody at least in the church that they really have changed - then yes. I would play them. But a reputation - once destroyed - take a lot of work to restore. A lot! Like I said - sin has consequences. God promises to forgive the penalty. But He never promises to remove the consequences.
Once again someone backs my comment about religion being the great divider.
Just what does playing a popular song with inoffensive lyrics have to to with the artist who is a member of another religion? For some of the reasons I have illustrated here I really despise religions but I don't let that ruin the enjoyment I get from performers who are public about their faith - even in religions which I would call cults.
My mother used to call this "cutting off your nose to spite your face" and I agree. Unless you believe that any such innocent action as listening to a secular song invites a satan into your life I truly feel sorry for you...and for the people around you. I cannot imagine a more sterile life than isolating yourself among these people.
God and satan are nothing by voices in one's head. It is not wise to trust the voices.
God is much more then a voice in my head.
Mr. Carter's response reminds me of when Jim Bakker showed himself to be the false prophet that he was. Rev. Jerry Falwell, on a radio program, said that Jim could seek forgiveness, but should never again lead a ministry like before. In other words, the consequences for his betrayal remain. It is interesting to note that Cat Stevens has a brand new CD out. Since he's going by his "Cat Stevens" name again, I wonder if that means that he's rid himself of the poisonous radical Islamist mess he got himself into, which included going so far as supporting the murder of author Salmon Rushdie.
Mr. Carter's response reminds me of when Jim Bakker showed himself to be the false prophet that he was. Rev. Jerry Falwell, on a radio program, said that Jim could seek forgiveness, but should never again lead a ministry like before. In other words, the consequences for his betrayal remain. It is interesting to note that Cat Stevens has a brand new CD out. Since he's going by his "Cat Stevens" name again, I wonder if that means that he's rid himself of the poisonous radical Islamist mess he got himself into, which included going so far as supporting the murder of author Salmon Rushdie.
At best, your conscious. At worst, something much more sinister.
Saying there are prophets is like saying that there are people who are clairvoyant. If that's true how come none of them are rich?
So, people are allowed to lie and cheat once but then lose their jobs? And who gives forgiveness, themselves? Seems like behavior on the honor system.
His name as a performer was always Cat Stevens. He used his Islamic name only when he retired from performing. Most fans would remember both names but anyone he is trying to reach with his new music would not necessarily remember. I have no idea what is in his head but really doubt he would reject whatever religious beliefs he once held so the answer is probably just to use a name most people would remember and possibly to separate himself from the issues Western nations are having with Islam currently.
BTW, Yusuf Islam was not a radical nor did he ever publicly support the killing of Rushdie. What he said was IF he was ordered by higher authority to kill Rushdie, would he? To that he responded yes but that is very different from supporting his death. Your statements are biased and erroneous.
I am a huge fan of Cat Stevens. He is one of the very few performers I go see in concert every chance I get and I have every album he has made. John Denver is the only other one. That said, he is a performer and I enjoy his performances. I do not know the man other than what I see on stage and I could care less what his religious beliefs are. I do not judge people on their religion, or lack of it, other than to keep in mind they may be subject to irrational behavior.
Last edited:
A
Avid Listener
Guest
Stevens didn't write that hymn. It was first published in 1931, 16 years before Stevens was born!
Maybe you should spend more attention to the message instead of condemning messengers.
- Status