|
Terath -> RE: "Jesus make me rich"- article on Carrie Underwood (3/19/2008 11:50:57 PM)
|
Wow. Even though I agreed on most of the points, this is one of the most hate-filled works I've ever read, Christian or not. Why do I think that? Take a look at some of the wordings.
quote:
I think the image of Underwood and "SELF magazine" is an appropriate description of her personal testimony. Notice the words on the magazine she is promoting..."sexier"..."rich"..."American idol." Is this conducive of a young lady who is serving the Lord?
Nothing particularly bad here. This is where most of the work should dwell.
quote:
Only a total heathen fool would contend that partially exposing a woman's breasts is acceptable.
Alright, I agree that's it's rather un-Christian to take part in such photo shoots, but has the writer ever heard of tact? There's a better way to say that. I felt offended, and I agreed with it. Imagine if someone disagreed with it.
quote:
In fact, most people who go to church are religious; BUT, lost without Jesus Christ, and on their way to Hell to burn forever.
Again, true, but this isn't the place for a "fire and brimstone" speech. Better to combat such things with soft words that cary power rather than strong words that only offend.
quote:
Might offend some fans if you DEFINE your beliefs huh Carrie?
Perhaps not, but it would offend the record label. Don't forget that once you're signed on, you're mostly their tool. There's some personal choice involved, but don't even think that an artist, especially in the pop industry, has full control over their work. My guess is that even the most pious and open Christian wouldn't be able to say such things if they were signed to the same label. Idol winners are controled from the moment they enter the contest, because the same companies own Idol and the record label they are get the deal to.
I won't quote the paragraph on Catholics, simply because I take issue with the whole thing. I get the feeling, when I read it, that the writer is trying to make out Catholics to be part of a cult. Not so. Catholics have some details that are extraneous when compared to Protestantism, but isn't their core doctrine correct? They believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all as a part of the Trinity, correct? I can't say for sure if all Catholics are saved, but I can't say the same for Protestants either. To attack Catholics on such a flimsy basis just shows ignorance. Tell me where in the Bible it says it is wrong to have a priest talk to God for you. There is no basis for it in Scripture, absolutely, but is harmful? No. It may be doctrinely incorrect, but that doesn't condemn them. The only place I really take issue with Catholics is on the issue of worshipping Mary. Even then, you don't try to make them angry with hateful words.
quote:
The Apostles NEVER sang the Gospel to anyone, they spoke it. There is NO mention of singing on the Day of Pentecost, when at least 3,000 souls were saved.
So? That's not to say they never sang. I suppose that makes it wrong to sing as a way to send a Godly message? Don't forget, many of the Psalms were designed to be sung. And the Bible does mention singing in Heaven in Revelation, if I'm not mistaken. Singing in the Bible is more often than not used as a medium to praise God than to convey a message anyway, am I right? So even if the music ultimately means nothing, there's no reason to spout of such comments. Again, tact would definitely improve this article.
quote:
When someone like Carrie Underwood, who claims to be a Christian, who grew up in church, who sings about Jesus, and yet FAILS to put forth the Gospel of Jesus Christ--something is very wrong. Please read my article, Religious Rock; NOT, Christian Rock. Is it too much to ask, for professed "Christian" entertainers to present the simple plan of salvation on their websites? Yes, because they would be REJECTED by the world. Don't be fooled! Any professed "Christian" entertainer that fails to present the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ is serving mammon (money), Not God.
Yes, it would be too much. The record labels control the artist, plain and simple. Just because they sing for a secular audience and sing "spirutual" or "religious" songs doesn't make them servants to money. You'll need more evidence to back up such heinous charges against a fellow Christian.
quote:
I did not write this article to be unkind, nor to personally attack Miss Underwood in any way. I only wrote this article because when ANYONE claims to be a Christian, and is influencing millions of people Like Carrie Underwood, they must accept the great responsibility that goes alone with such fame. Carrie Underwood has the POWER of influence over people, and I believe she is sending a horrible message to young people today. I believe it is utterly hypocritical for Carrie Underwood to sing about "Jesus Taking The Wheel," while at the same time promoting "SELF magazine." You can't have it both ways Miss Underwood! Either you're going to follow the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word, or else you're going to follow YOURSELF. Self has no place in the Christian's life, "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me" (Matthew 16:24). The "cross" which Jesus spoke of is the PERSECUTION mentioned in John 15:19, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." The Apostle Paul stated in 2nd Timothy 3:12, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." This is the cross which Jesus expects each of us to bare. We should all speak the Truth of God's Word to lost sinners, and the Truth often makes people mad.
I find this humourous, claiming not to want to attack anyone, then going right on ahead and attacking full force. And while Jesus did urge to deny ourselves, what does "ourself" mean? Unless I'm mistaken, in this verse it means our sin nature and our own desires, right? So how does singing this song make her somehow promoting herself? We are to expect persecution, but there's no need to invite it.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not even a fan of Carrie Underwood, this song, or the genre entirely. But I think that this article is more filled with the author's hatred for music that doesn't praise God directly every five seconds. Why do I say this? I just gave the rest of the site a read, and I was appalled and disgusted. I though this was bad when I first read it. I would suggest staying away from anything that has to do with music on this site, because the words are so hateful I'm somewhat loathe to quote them. Note: The faint of heart should not read further.
quote:
There's no FILTH in America today as immoral, and indecent, as Country Music television (CMT). To no surprise, CMT often features the immoral and lascivious filth of HEE HAW. They ought to be called the "HEE HAW Whores" instead of the "HEE HAW Honeys." God only know how many families have been destroy by the influence of the godless whores on HEE HAW. Of course, God-hater and whoremonger, Hugh Hefner, has been honored on the HEE HAW show. Hell will be hot!
Now, I'm not a fan of CMT or th show, but for anyone to spew such vile filth is unforgiveable.
quote:
During a 1993 Oprah Winfrey interview, Michael Jackson, explained the reason for some of his filthy sexual gestures during his concerts:
"It happens subliminally. IT'S THE MUSIC THAT COMPELS ME TO DO IT. You don't think about it, it just happens. I'M SLAVE TO THE RHYTHM."
(The Evening Star, Feb. 11, 1993, p. A10)
Nothing about the lyrics! It's the MUSIC!
How can the Holy Spirit of the Bible use such wicked, fleshly music!
Regardless of the lyrics!
This is just an excuse by Jackson for what he does, but to latch onto to it as truth, and then use it to justify his hate is equally sickening.
I must admit, some of this garbage does make me laugh. The "satanic salute" that he harps on so much can mean many things. He claims Bush is part of the Illuminati or someting because he threw the horns at his inaguration. Bush said it was the Texas U "hook'em horns," to which the author is skeptical, but doesn't openly refute. The the article goes on to say does this or this or this person- a list of at list 50 different people-have anything to do with Texas U? Well of course not. People throw the horns for different reasons. Some use it as an honest to goodness satanic gesture. Those from Texas U use it to support their sports teams. In Italy, it was a prank akin to "bunny ears." (They invented it by the way-no Satanic meaning here) For metal fans, it is not a praise of Satan, but it simply means "That's metal, and I'm rocking" sort of thing. And then he goes so far as to say Hellen Keller developed the "I love you" hand sign as a prais to satanic imagery. Again, vile despicable insults against perfectly normal events and people.
Also, I happened to read about the author's thoughts on "The Number of the Beast," by Iron Maiden, perhaps the mot misunderstood song in history. The song came from one thing, and one thing only: a dream Bruce Dickinson had. Not a satanic, evil, whatever dream. Just a bad dream. The quote that he claims has been used about every contraversial song Iron Maiden's ever maid. It reall has nothing to do with a specific song. The majority of their catalouge involves songs such as "Sign of the Cross," "Phantom of the Opera," "Rime of the Ancient Mariner," "Aces High" (WWII from the perspective of a British pilot), and "Flight of Icarus." Iron Maiden revels in songs about famous works of literature, history, etc. And the song in question is warning against Satanism, not a promotion for it. This is a view also held by Nicko McBrain, the current drummer of Iron Maiden, who is an open Christian. This author has a self professed hate for anything he disagrees with. Certainly not a picture of Christian love.
He also cites a quote from dc Talk stating that they would like to talk to Marilyn Manson about 80's music sometime, and construes it as a support for his work. If I wanted to talk to Anthony LaVey about, say, his kids, does that make me a Satanist? I should sure hope not.
I could go on, but you get the point. The author is simply prejudiced. I would disregard anything said by him unless backed up by Scripture, and relevant Scripture at that. I haven't seen much relevant scripture, or even an attempt to look at any other view but his own.
|
|
|
|