Bound4Glory
New Member
Amen brother!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Priscilla Ann
Member
The Beatles were talented in their own way; however, their influence on our culture was certainly not a positive one.
Being the age I am, I remember Lennon's remark about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus Christ. As a Christian, I was offended then and am still offended by such an arrogant remark.
Being the age I am, I remember Lennon's remark about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus Christ. As a Christian, I was offended then and am still offended by such an arrogant remark.
T
Travelsong
Guest
Why would anyone be offended by the world behaving like the world? If you ask me, it sounds like feigning offense. Do I have to appreciate the buildings of only Christian architects, or am I permitted to admire the aesthetic beauty of any structure? same question with art. Can I admire any old beautiful painting or is a painting forbidden to me once I find out it's author didn't accept Jesus as Lord?
The Beatles were not Christians. Their music however was brilliant, and the vast majority of it is not antichrist in any way.
The Beatles were not Christians. Their music however was brilliant, and the vast majority of it is not antichrist in any way.
J
jacob62
Guest
As a former guitar/piano/drum player,I can tell you the Beatles were the most influential/original/musical geniuses of their time and probably for awhile to come.That is fact not flattery.After I gave it up(listening/playing),I realized Satan also led the band once.God is still delivering and getting it out of my heart.Take a look at all the big figures of country/rock/blues/jazz,and you will find endless tragic stories.Dont let them be your gods.
When this fab four got down to work and in
the studio ..they didn't mess around they
worked hard and were competitive.
They didn't rest on their laurels they pushed
for new sounds and arrangements...the
"Beatles Anthology" is a must read.
George Martin in my opinion was the 5th beatle
he knew how to direct their creative fire and
actually produce a record.
It was a joy to listen to a Beatles album
because you knew you were going to get a great
song on every LP they did not let up from top
to bottom the play list was quality. Today you
might get 2 to 4 songs on a playlist you like,
then the rest is tolerable.
Moody Blues came close on most of their albums
but not all....Crosby,Stills,Nash,and Young
close...no it all comes back to the beatles
in the short period they put out hit records
and then quit, they were prolific and consistently
great...thats consistently great!
the studio ..they didn't mess around they
worked hard and were competitive.
They didn't rest on their laurels they pushed
for new sounds and arrangements...the
"Beatles Anthology" is a must read.
George Martin in my opinion was the 5th beatle
he knew how to direct their creative fire and
actually produce a record.
It was a joy to listen to a Beatles album
because you knew you were going to get a great
song on every LP they did not let up from top
to bottom the play list was quality. Today you
might get 2 to 4 songs on a playlist you like,
then the rest is tolerable.
Moody Blues came close on most of their albums
but not all....Crosby,Stills,Nash,and Young
close...no it all comes back to the beatles
in the short period they put out hit records
and then quit, they were prolific and consistently
great...thats consistently great!
Yep!
Keep heapng praise on the godless mind numbing hedonistic bugs.
Nothing satanic about that!
I suppose you could call Ghengis Khan a great man. Or maybe Ayatolla Khomeini. Or Napoleon. Or Hitler. After all, just look at how they united people.
The music of the beatles is only great in its own context. That of the world, the flesh and the devil.
Great company to keep, yessirree you betcha!
And just look at what they gave to society for its betterment! Wow! Just the sort of stuff I want my grandchildren to emulate. Ridicule of our Saviour. Rebellion. Hedonism. Outright satanic drug use. Yep! What great contributors! And just think! They did it all on a couple gittarz and some drums!
Back in the USSR! Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try. No hell below us! Amen brothers John Paul Ringo and George! PREACH IT!
I am not surprised that professing christians would extol the virtues of these good clean wholesome innocent looking young boys! After all, they emulate everything that is good. And their music! Wow!
But it is not anti-christ in any way at all. Don't you dare say it is!
In HIS service;
Jim
Keep heapng praise on the godless mind numbing hedonistic bugs.
Nothing satanic about that!
I suppose you could call Ghengis Khan a great man. Or maybe Ayatolla Khomeini. Or Napoleon. Or Hitler. After all, just look at how they united people.
The music of the beatles is only great in its own context. That of the world, the flesh and the devil.
Great company to keep, yessirree you betcha!
And just look at what they gave to society for its betterment! Wow! Just the sort of stuff I want my grandchildren to emulate. Ridicule of our Saviour. Rebellion. Hedonism. Outright satanic drug use. Yep! What great contributors! And just think! They did it all on a couple gittarz and some drums!
Back in the USSR! Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try. No hell below us! Amen brothers John Paul Ringo and George! PREACH IT!
I am not surprised that professing christians would extol the virtues of these good clean wholesome innocent looking young boys! After all, they emulate everything that is good. And their music! Wow!
But it is not anti-christ in any way at all. Don't you dare say it is!
In HIS service;
Jim
The Beatles began by singing typically catchy pop tunes in the early 60's but by 1964 they were using marijuana, by 1967 they were openly advocating the use of drugs. No doubt about it they were geniuses!
By his own testimony Lennon had already tripped out on LSD 1000 times and was writing under the influence of speed! Brilliant! - why didn't Bach think of that! Of course it was long before the 'fab four' began to follow the path of Eastern religion, but when all of them, except Harrison found it to be unsatisfying they began to express the philosophy of nihilism (which is endemic in modern rock music). Songs such as "Eleanor Rigby" and "A Day in the Life" viewed life as having neither meaning or purpose.
My offence with their lyrics, lifestyle and legacy is not feigned - it is Scriptural for God said "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15). I am afraid the music of the Beatles was not "brilliant" it was and is bile. It is an affront to the holiness of God.
By his own testimony Lennon had already tripped out on LSD 1000 times and was writing under the influence of speed! Brilliant! - why didn't Bach think of that! Of course it was long before the 'fab four' began to follow the path of Eastern religion, but when all of them, except Harrison found it to be unsatisfying they began to express the philosophy of nihilism (which is endemic in modern rock music). Songs such as "Eleanor Rigby" and "A Day in the Life" viewed life as having neither meaning or purpose.
No.
Yes.
You are now comparing apples with oranges.
The question is not whether the author/composer/artist/ or architect is Christian, it is whether or not the art form is moral or immoral. As for the Beatles, well look at the fruit. Their catchy tunes soon gave way to an album which Time magazine described as "drenched in drugs". They, alongside others of course, led a generation into drugs, despair, futility and Eastern ideology.
My offence with their lyrics, lifestyle and legacy is not feigned - it is Scriptural for God said "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15). I am afraid the music of the Beatles was not "brilliant" it was and is bile. It is an affront to the holiness of God.
The list of "greatest rock 'n' roll bands of all time" goes like this:
1. Led Zeppelin
2. The Who
And then everyone else. Don't get me wrong, The Beatles were great, but their early stuff sounds like bubblegum pop music.
I would place Rush and AC/DC ahead of them. (But not Kiss, do I get points for that?)
(Well, okay. AC/DC is pushing it, but definitely Rush.)
1. Led Zeppelin
2. The Who
And then everyone else. Don't get me wrong, The Beatles were great, but their early stuff sounds like bubblegum pop music.
I would place Rush and AC/DC ahead of them. (But not Kiss, do I get points for that?)
(Well, okay. AC/DC is pushing it, but definitely Rush.)
T
Travelsong
Guest
No.
Yes.
You are now comparing apples with oranges.
The question is not whether the author/composer/artist/ or architect is Christian, it is whether or not the art form is moral or immoral. As for the Beatles, well look at the fruit. Their catchy tunes soon gave way to an album which Time magazine described as "drenched in drugs". They, alongside others of course, led a generation into drugs, despair, futility and Eastern ideology.
My offence with their lyrics, lifestyle and legacy is not feigned - it is Scriptural for God said "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (1 John 2:15). I am afraid the music of the Beatles was not "brilliant" it was and is bile. It is an affront to the holiness of God. </font>[/QUOTE]Absolute silliness. Architecture may be functional, but it is a form of expression and therefore is equally qualified to be called art. It is not apples and oranges to make a comparison between architecture and any other form of art.
If a musician drops acid and writes a beautiful tune, then he has simply created a beautiful tune while on acid. Any sin which results from drug use is between the user and God. It's called personal accountability.
You are correct about one thing. All works must be judged on their own merits. The Beatles wrote some of the best music ever recorded, and that was my only point.
Travelsong, the legacy of the Beatles and the whole sixties era is all around us to be seen, from the rise in drug use, to the undermining of sexual morality, to the increased antipathy to the things of God, to the modern love affair with all things Eastern. You can polemic all you like about architecture and art. At the end of the day the Beatles influence was not positive, but negative, they were not geniuses but reprobates and they were not great as Scripture accords greatness. Worship if you will at the feet of atheistic Lennon and his vain 'imagination", as for me, I prefer to think on those things which are virtuous and praiseworthy in keeping with Php 4:8.
T
Travelsong
Guest
You are judging everything but the music on it's own merits. The music itself is fantastic stuff, plain and simple. Who made it is irrelevant.
It's like saying "Puff The Magic Dragon" is an evil song because of the secret meaning behind it. Are you going to judge the song on it's own merits or are you going to attatch all of the drug culture etc. etc. that went with it? Taken on it's own merits it is nothing more than a fine childrens song.
It's like saying "Puff The Magic Dragon" is an evil song because of the secret meaning behind it. Are you going to judge the song on it's own merits or are you going to attatch all of the drug culture etc. etc. that went with it? Taken on it's own merits it is nothing more than a fine childrens song.
So, if we do not agree with your opinion, we are not judging the music on its own merit. Sorry to burst you bubble, but I do not like it and will not listen to it. Nor will I say that it is great because you say we should. I respect your opinion and agree that you can say whatever you want to about it. However, that goes both ways. You, also, need to respect our opinions and not tell us we are wrong for saying we do not like the Beatles music.
Of course; we have nver resolved the old debate with Aaron over the evil supposedly inherent in music. Is the Beatles bad because of of lyrics, lifestyle and influences (drugs, religion, etc), or the beat and genre, or is it all. Those putting them down the harshest would generally say all. It seems the debate is the real issue to them, and the other (more legitimate, and more provably sinful) issues are just the proof that it is the music is bad. Of course, the other side separates the bad stuff from the music, but usually on a premise of neutrality of music.
But the issue both sides miss is the spirit behind the music. Yes; the music was ingenious, as it is a aesthetic quality that makes music appreciable int he first place, and even rock critics cite A University of Seattle study acknowledging that rock is based on "mathematical formulae" and "calculated frequencies" that affect the body as well as the mind. This is what it has made it as well as jazz and other forms so catchy. And the Beatles mixed in other styles, such as Classical; which gave it extra flavor. (and there was even a Classical CD remaking the songs of the BEatles). They also bore a great influence on people like Stevie Wonder, also known as a musical genius.
But still; rather than being as simple as just a beat, or syncopation, or even copying some elements from certain places being what is decisive, it is the spirit behind which it was produced that makes it good or bad. And spiritually, the Beatles, of course were not good. Now there are many people, including profess Christian performers, and including those whose styles may be traditional, who may have had a questionable spirit. But the Beatles were overt with the drugs and false religion. I grew up on Abbey Road, and it is a big part of what gave me my musical taste. Still; looking back, what were many of the songs about? I know some of it picked up from Yellow Submarine. Then, I heard how Lucy in the Sky was baout drugs. I had heard no such negative association with any of the Abbey Road songs; but if they did that with that song; then this album, released in that same hippie period of theirs probably was spiritually not better. I had bought the CD in my early Christian life, but then decided to get rid of it when I learned about the Spirit behind music, and especially as I entered this debate. I had been interested in other Beatles albums, and was also interested in Steely Dan, who had a similar style of veiled references to who knows what. I got the album I was most familiar with, (the one with "Peg"), and Donald Fagen's first solo album) but at least knew enough back then to refrain from getting any more of either group, though I was later convicted further to get rid of what I had. I had also collected almost the entire Earth Wind & Fire set, and they too were musically genius, and the leaders in R&B/funk. They had supposedly become Christian, but the last 2 albums had gone back into the paganism. Then I listened closely to a rare early album, and got the spiritual chills (as as an intellectual, I rarely have "spiritual" experiences like that). So then I got rid of the whole collection.
Ironically; the reason I was immature enough in the faith to get that stuff in the first place was because the only Christian teaching I had heard on music was that it was all bad because of the African "jungle beat" (defined by too much syncopation,and even beats accented instead of odd), and that only Christian European ("western") classical culture preserved God's "standards" in music. This taught by those who believed that the whole pre-civil rights era of the country was godly; and that the political and social changes since then were part of what were destroying the country. But this was obviously false and uncriptural.
So both sides should reconsider what makes music good or bad. Yes, there are a lot of acts out there that have a lot of talent, but that does not make them "good". And they may do many spiritually bad things, but that does not make the whole style of music "bad". (And even with rock or jazz performers crediting their being high or in meditation (both of which may open one up to demonic influence) for some of the sounds they produced, still, the demonic influence is not the sounds, but the act of tapping the power within apart from God. The creativity that makes good peasing music is from God; but we are to go to Him to replease this talent in us, not drugs or other religion/philosophy).
http://members.aol.com/etb700/ccm.html
But the issue both sides miss is the spirit behind the music. Yes; the music was ingenious, as it is a aesthetic quality that makes music appreciable int he first place, and even rock critics cite A University of Seattle study acknowledging that rock is based on "mathematical formulae" and "calculated frequencies" that affect the body as well as the mind. This is what it has made it as well as jazz and other forms so catchy. And the Beatles mixed in other styles, such as Classical; which gave it extra flavor. (and there was even a Classical CD remaking the songs of the BEatles). They also bore a great influence on people like Stevie Wonder, also known as a musical genius.
But still; rather than being as simple as just a beat, or syncopation, or even copying some elements from certain places being what is decisive, it is the spirit behind which it was produced that makes it good or bad. And spiritually, the Beatles, of course were not good. Now there are many people, including profess Christian performers, and including those whose styles may be traditional, who may have had a questionable spirit. But the Beatles were overt with the drugs and false religion. I grew up on Abbey Road, and it is a big part of what gave me my musical taste. Still; looking back, what were many of the songs about? I know some of it picked up from Yellow Submarine. Then, I heard how Lucy in the Sky was baout drugs. I had heard no such negative association with any of the Abbey Road songs; but if they did that with that song; then this album, released in that same hippie period of theirs probably was spiritually not better. I had bought the CD in my early Christian life, but then decided to get rid of it when I learned about the Spirit behind music, and especially as I entered this debate. I had been interested in other Beatles albums, and was also interested in Steely Dan, who had a similar style of veiled references to who knows what. I got the album I was most familiar with, (the one with "Peg"), and Donald Fagen's first solo album) but at least knew enough back then to refrain from getting any more of either group, though I was later convicted further to get rid of what I had. I had also collected almost the entire Earth Wind & Fire set, and they too were musically genius, and the leaders in R&B/funk. They had supposedly become Christian, but the last 2 albums had gone back into the paganism. Then I listened closely to a rare early album, and got the spiritual chills (as as an intellectual, I rarely have "spiritual" experiences like that). So then I got rid of the whole collection.
Ironically; the reason I was immature enough in the faith to get that stuff in the first place was because the only Christian teaching I had heard on music was that it was all bad because of the African "jungle beat" (defined by too much syncopation,and even beats accented instead of odd), and that only Christian European ("western") classical culture preserved God's "standards" in music. This taught by those who believed that the whole pre-civil rights era of the country was godly; and that the political and social changes since then were part of what were destroying the country. But this was obviously false and uncriptural.
So both sides should reconsider what makes music good or bad. Yes, there are a lot of acts out there that have a lot of talent, but that does not make them "good". And they may do many spiritually bad things, but that does not make the whole style of music "bad". (And even with rock or jazz performers crediting their being high or in meditation (both of which may open one up to demonic influence) for some of the sounds they produced, still, the demonic influence is not the sounds, but the act of tapping the power within apart from God. The creativity that makes good peasing music is from God; but we are to go to Him to replease this talent in us, not drugs or other religion/philosophy).
http://members.aol.com/etb700/ccm.html
David M Walker
New Member
Priscilla Ann
Member
chipsgirl:
I'm an Elvis girl too. Nice to meet another one!
Priscilla Ann
I'm an Elvis girl too. Nice to meet another one!
Priscilla Ann