Quote of the day

Reader S writes:

i’d add to your list of things that fans wouldn’t believe about sogo artists and writers the amount of plastic surgery and the numerous varieties of cavorting (men with men, women with men, women with women, men with others’ wives, wives with others’ husbands, dogs with cats)….i guess because i have been “enlightened” as to the lives of some of the biggies in sogo for so long now it doesn’t phase me a bit and yet i have met several people in the past few months who seem utterly astonished that it’s not baptist sunday school hour every day and every night on all of those shiny prevosts rolling down the road.

i think the person who pointed to the biblical characters came close to getting it right somewhat. rumor is that noah was a drunk and paul liked boys [i.e. other males] and we all know about the deep darkness of david’s heart. i think some of these wal-mart shoppers forget that just because folks are up there singing about JEY-SUSS doesn’t mean said folks walked through some sort of heavenly sin/character flaw detector and then a subsequent acid bath of the soul before traipsing out on stage.

Email this Post

Comments

  1. Joe wrote:

    Doug-

    You need to let us know in NO uncertain terms, what rumor you may have heard that “Paul liked boys”.

    Please clarify. If you are interjecting this as any kind of “truth”, then the “truth” on your website is degenerating by the hour, not the day.

  2. Woody wrote:

    Here we go again. There is no evidence whatsoever that Paul “liked boys” as you say. Someone isn’t reading their Bible again. This is a notion put forth by homsexuals for the sole reason that Paul’s wife is never mentioned by name. Please stop trying to make everything and everyone gay. We get enough of that from Hollywood.

  3. Joe wrote:

    And sorry, Doug-

    Apparently that comment was from the learned Biblical scholar “S”- you just repeated it…

  4. RF wrote:

    Those weren’t the moderator’s words–just someone like you and I with an opinion. It was, I assume presented here for our entertainment.

    I love it when people are so quick to point fingers at the moderator, trying to find a flaw in his theology or whatever else is bothering them.

  5. Alan wrote:

    Is this what avery is becoming? Two posts in a row concerning the reported sins of those who travel and sing? Has this been an agenda all along? And Doug - is this the best you can do? In the case of this thread, it was reported by some anonymous poster by the name of S. One post ago, it came from Doug himself.

    It’s time for some insiders to weigh in… some of you who indeed travel the road in those shiny Prevosts. Show a little outrage, will you? You - and some of us - know that lurking behind these smears is a sad kernel of truth. No one is perfect of course, and there have been a few sad stories of human failure. But read this junk again - a whole lot of you have had a blanket indictment thrown over you. Since too many of the uninformed will read and believe this, they’ll look at you differently now at the product table, wondering what went on in YOUR bus last night. Thanks, S…and thanks, Doug. Those who love to live in the gutter just love this stuff. I think it’s time for some group owners to speak out now, and let the readers of this blog know what you would do if that ever went on in your group. This was painted more as a norm than a rare but sad occurance.

    I sat here thinking back to the times I rode on the buses of some great people and great groups. Never- Ever- did I see anything out of place. If I had, whoever was involved would be flying home the next day, quietly fired. And I hold to my belief that THAT’s the norm.

    S - we’re waiting for the source of your heinous rumor about Paul. Was it the enemy himself? I thought so. At the time Saul of Tarsus was converted to Christ, he was in training to be a (the?) leader of the Sanhedrin. After his conversion he traveled with the Gospel more than any Biblical character; he saw more people won for Christ than anyone else, with the possible exception of Jesus Himself. He saw more churches founded than any other New Testament figure. And ultimately, he laid his life down for the Lord. Your “rumor” is another lie from the pit, pal. That it was even given the space in this blog that it was is nothing but a disgrace. In that, it’s just like the rest of your uplifting post. We need to pray for this “S”, folks. He’ll never let us know who he or she is, but believe me - God knows.

  6. JW wrote:

    I agree with most of the other posters so far that this broad brush mud slinging reflects very, very poorly on this blog site.

    If it’s something or someone specific, fine. But just to paint with such a broad brush of mud and then nominate it as a quote of the day seems to go against anything you supposedly stand for here.

    No, I’m not trying to preach at what you can do because it’s your site. But, this really lowers my opinion of you and this site.

    As for “Reader S”, zero proof that Noah was a “drunk.” Yes, he got drunk that once which didn’t prove he’s a “drunk” like Otis Campbell. Plus, there is a possible reason he didn’t knowingly get drunk due to post Flood conditions.

    Pray tell where is the proof about Paul? Paul would also be a supreme hypocrite if that was true, not to mention extremely stupid to suffer what he did if that was true.

    As for “the deep darkness of david’s heart”, I would tend to disagree. He did an extremely awful thing for sure, no question. If you believed The Bible, you could check out David’s life afterwards as it was very tragic. But, David also had an extremely great heart after The Lord’s own heart for a great deal of his life reading about his life and The Psalms. He did some awesomely great things, and yes did some awesomely awful things at one point in his life.

    Yep, he was human. But, in contrast to most, he owned up to his sin and yes he paid very, very dearly.

  7. Leebob wrote:

    Dateline Nashville, TN - 6000 YEAR OLD MAN NAMED “S” REPORTS OF RUMORS THAT THE APOSTLE PAUL WAS, IN FACT, GAY.

    “Rumor is that noah was a drunk and paul liked boys [i.e. other males] and we all know about the deep darkness of david’s heart,” quipped the elderly gentleperson. While it is true that Noah did get drunk at one time, we now know that Noah was indeed an alcoholic.

    “We always suspected this,” said atheist spokesperson Nonbeliever. “Now we have indisputable proof from this eyewitness testimony. We have suspected that David had an ongoing problem with the women and this same man managed to know for certain that he had DEEP DARK ISSUES with all the pornography that was floating around.”

    “This last bit with Paul totally undermines anything he has written about the homosexual community so now we can live guilt free. All I can say is PRAISE GOD!”

    We at AVERYFINELINE NEWS have to report that this is a far stretch seeing as Paul’s only claim to his sexuality was that “it is better that you remain single as I am but if you cannot contain then it is okay to marry.” By all accounts of the man himself, Paul was single or, at the very least, a widower. He chose a life of active service to God upon his conversion. During his remaining days on earth he remained busy writing scripture, witnessing, and mentoring young Timothy for the ministry.

    The only sumation that we at AVERYFINELINE can make at this point in time is that spokesperson “S” has been afflicted with alzheimers thus affecting his ability to remember events as they happened. This should not surprise us at all due to his advanced age.

  8. Jake wrote:

    I keep hearing — via this website — how we would all be shocked to know the “real” behavior of our SG performers. But … it is always said with a cloat of anonymity. So I think it is time to put up or shut up.

    If our SG ministers are fooling around, I want to hear names. (Don’t worry — they can’t sue an anonymous person on a blog site.) Enough of this “teasing” by telling us that stuff goes on, how badly we would be shocked, but then leaving us hanging.

    If you don’t have the guts to be specific with the dirty laundry (which you have already hung out) — then let’s start hearing about the people and groups that consistently lead moral and exemplary lives are who provide a testimony in their behavior. I am sure there are a lot more of them than the hypocrites.

  9. SG Doc wrote:

    Cmon folks, this is just another episode of, Justify my Own Behavior”. Hosted by another “stark raving mad lunitic”! They’ll make any un-founded accusation to make their own life seen above the sinless line. Like this comment I found,

    Leviticus 18:22 in the KJV says “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination”

    their translation…

    “In other words, if two men have sex, neither should pretend to be a woman.”

    WOW no really, WWWOOOOOOOWWWW!

  10. J wrote:

    You know, they are just folks like me and you. I’ve been around this stuff all my life, which Im sorry to say is a long time. I have know some great people, wonderful scoundrels, scoundrels and scum. Like they say…it takes all kinds. I remember a long time ago a “sister” in the church telling me she didn’t think “quartet people’ should be allowed on the platform because she knew things about those people. I smiled inside and thought I know some things about those “preacher people” that would curl your toe nails…we are all just folks.

  11. Bari-Tone-Def wrote:

    What amazes me is that you people are just now speaking up and impressing upon the site owner your distaste for recent posts, quotes, blogs, etc. I did this a while back and was completely ignored. This is nothing new, go back a read a few entries, I think you will agree.

    This blog has become the “National Inquirer” of the SGM community. The next thing I expect to read is how your favorite female SGM artist has given birth to a “Bat Child”.

  12. Edward Smithfield wrote:

    Thanks Reader “S”.
    I too know the “in’s and out’s” of Gospel Music and unfortunately there are alot more “out’s” than “in’s” ;)
    So for the naive and just plain dumb -
    you will learn to over look it and say “HIS word shall not return void” and you can rare back and cast that stone… Being that you are without sin ;)

  13. cynical one wrote:

    Let’s not lose sight of the fact that “S” SAID it was rumor. He never said he though the stuff about Noah and Paul were true.

    I had never heard the part about Noah before (but he did get drunk enough after the flood, he didn’t even realize his sons had “known” him. As for Paul, I’ve heard that story before from people trying to promote the gay agenda. They claim that was Paul’s “thorn in the flesh”. They want to believe this as their justification for their own behavior. They also claim scientists have witnessed homosexual behavior among cows. “God made me this way.”

    But obviously most of us reading here (or at least most of us who post here) do not believe that. Most of us know that God doesn’t intend us to have homosexual relations any more than he intends for us to have heterosexual adultrous relationships, or to steal, lie, take His name in vain, or any of the other things He commanded against.

    Also, Doug didn’t state the rumor. If you’ll notice, he’s just bringing S’ quote to our attention. Don’t shoot the messenger.

  14. Joe wrote:

    Bari-Tone-Deaf-

    I have gotten so upset by some of the unadulterated drivel Doug has posted here in the past, I even wrote him privately on a couple of occasions, and we corresponded privately.

    What has gotten so many truly bilious at the moment, is the combination of his total lack of burden at the heresy of Hemphill, and the posting of a comment a day later, as “comment of the day”, with this horrific statement about the apostle Paul.

    I do know this. Just a few short years ago, many of the big names in SGM read this blog daily. Not any more. I have heard from a number that they never bother anymore- it is just a total waste of their time.

    Why so many of us keep coming back and wasting OUR time, I don’t know, other than to try to defend the Lord and His Word, which both seem to be under daily attack.

    If Doug really defended the “gospel” part of the music he claims to know, love, and follow, a whole lot of us would be a whole lot happier. That he seeks to tear down the fabric of the music and its message on a regular basis- this is what, to so many, is so terribly upsetting.

    There are many, many groups out there, working hard week after week, and living the evidences of spiritually-changed lives. The Inspirations, who have had pretty unblemished testimonies for 30 years or more. Same with Dave, Duane, and Neil; the original Couriers. Same for the Mark Trammel Trio; same for the Hayes Family, same for the Dixie Melody Boys and an absolutely wonderful Christian gentleman, Ed O’Neal; same for the Whisnants; same for the McKameys; same for Michael Lord and Lordsong; same for Stan Whitmire, the Collingsworths,….how long should I go on?

    Every one of these wonderful groups and a hundred more have been tarnished by the broad brush of anonymous “S”, posted here so courageously by our website host.

    Doug- our hope is that you really can do better. Maybe at this stage of your life, you really can’t. If that is the case, close down the site. You’re not doing anybody any favors.

  15. BUICK wrote:

    Doug, you get a lot of posts on these threads. Once in a while, you lift out a quote as a start to a new thread. You’ve used excerpts from mine a couple of times and I was always flattered that you thought I had said something worth elevating to the HomePage. (You’ll probably never do that again after you read THIS contribution.)

    I am surprised that you would elevate these lines from “Reader S”. Either it diminishes you because you believed what he wrote was worthy of the HomePage or, if that is not what exposure on the HomePage means, it diminishes the meaning I attached to your printing my input on the HomePage.

    So, Doug, come clean with us. Did you really believe “Reader S” had made an intelligent and insightful contribution to this blog? Or are you the internet equivalent of a shock-jock and you will post anything that you believe will stir-up controversy within the cyber-community?

    Doug, do you believe Noah was a drunk (lifestyle, not merely a lapse); that Paul was gay and that there was deep darkness in David’s heart?

    “Reader S” seems to imply that the immoral SG artist is the norm and any who are living what they profess are the rare exception. Doug, you elevated this issue to the front page, so tell us: is this what YOU believe, too? Is that why you decided to give such prominence to “S’s” post?

  16. Videoguy wrote:

    Alan,

    One of the requirements for Sanhedrin candidates: married.

  17. Woody wrote:

    Thanks Videoguy. I have spent some time researching this today to refresh my memory. I knew there was some reason I thought Paul had a wife. In studying back, historians believe he was widowed. A bachelor would not have been accepted into the Sanhedrin.

  18. Alan wrote:

    Videoguy and Woody, you are correct. I’m in the Atlanta airport without a lot of time to check this out, but as I recall, they also had to be 40 years old. Was Paul a widower as some historians suggest? It might be true. Consider this: In his own words, looking back over his life as a Jew who “profited in the Jewish religion above all his peers”, he stated that for Christ, he had suffered the loss of all things. Some suggest that when he became a follower of Christ, his wife left him. We’ll never know until Heaven, if we even learn then. Anything we try to fill in a Scriptural gap is sanctified speculation at best. As for his “thorn in the flesh”, I side with his failing eyesight. There’s ample proof of that for me.

    And here’s proof that despite a totally ridiculous comment being quoted, one written from the coward’s castle, and in total nonspecific generality, a good and profitable discussion can ensue.

    Ready to board…must run.

  19. Glenn wrote:

    SG Doc,

    I really enjoy this blog, but really agree that this post is nothing more than Doug’s wanting to “push people out of their comfort zone”. At the same time, I think that anyone who takes Leviticus seriously is not it touch with the world today.

  20. Ocean View wrote:

    Doug:
    The quote from S was more of the same old, same old red meat you like to toss to the readers when you think things are too quiet. You can do so much better. That kind of lazy shortcut is beneath your intellect.

    Joe and others:
    Please do not post a list of those you assume to be above reproach. It’s just unwise, for so many reasons.

    To everyone:
    We are all very needy people, but we have a great Savior. We need to pray without ceasing for each other (and ourselves), that God will do a new and great work in the hearts of those who create and perform the music, and those who listen.

  21. Alan wrote:

    A final thought on Saul of Tarsus (later the Apostle Paul) and the Sanhedrin. I based my thoughts on Acts 22:3, where we learn that he was being taught by perhaps the greatest Rabbinical scholar of the day, a man named Gamaliel. History seems to record that Gamaliel was the renowned leader of the Sanhedrin. It’s somewhat unlikely that Gamaliel would invest his time in the teaching and training of Saul, if not for a leading position in that governing body. If this is a stretch, please forgive me. This is another area that we can’t be dogmatic on, but the hints given have led me to my thoughts….

    Not long ago I read something that was neat, at least to me. And again, since I wasn’t there, I can’t attest to it. :-) A Jewish historian (Josephus, perhaps?) wrote that when Gamaliel died, all of Jerusalem was abuzz with the news that his body had been anointed with 75 pounds of precious spices. Until then, that weight of spices had exclusively been reserved for a prince. It thrilled me to think that Joseph of Arimathea anointed the body of his Lord with 100 pounds of precious spices…exclusively the weight of burial spices reserved for a King.

    A long way from sgm, admittedly; but it
    really made me smile.

  22. BUICK wrote:

    Doesn’t it say A LOT that Doug gets more worked up about people hogging the electrical outlet at an internet cafe than he does about a well-known Gospel singer and songwriter who denies the deity of Jesus?

    Seriously, deadly seriously, where are our priorities? In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, your outlet and your wi-fi connection won’t seem very important. But the deity of the Lamb who sits upon the throne will be ultimately and eternally important.

    Get a grip, ya’ll. To put it in the vernacular, if this ain’t important, there ain’t nothin’ that’s important!

    (Glenn, #19, I just went back and looked again to make sure and I can confidently say that the book of Leviticus is still in the Bible, which is God’s inspired Word and thus, to be taken seriously. If that makes me out of touch with this world, PTL!!! I’ve been trying to be “in it” and not “of it” for half a century. You encourage me with the thought that I might be getting closer to that goal. One day, my feet will lose ALL touch with this world and I’ll be in the next. I really can hardly wait!!)

  23. Joe wrote:

    Glenn-

    How much of Leviticus do you intend to throw out? If you are referring to the Levitical reference stating that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord, then also read Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Cor. 6:9-12.

    Ocean View-

    Please do not assume that naming names is an assumption. Many of us know these people on a personal basis.

    But you are making an assumption as
    well; that Doug “can do so much better.” He used to be able to so do. Lately, we’re not so sure…..

  24. Irishlad wrote:

    #15Buick.Why are you so keen to hear Doug’s personal views? Do you suspect him of heretical leanings?Do you want to bring him out of the closet? That being the case,say he agreed with S.what then?depart in a cloud of righeous indignation screaming”heretic heretic,woe onto ye who blog here”.

  25. Irishlad wrote:

    #21 righeous should have been righteous.Apologies.

  26. Daniel J. Mount wrote:

    I am amazed this has gone for 20 comments and nobody has mentioned Romans 1. Paul could not have been a sodomite and written what he did in Romans 1.

  27. Irishlad wrote:

    Jtoe, Buick,Alan et al,are you really trying to drive the free thinkers(who happen to enjoy sg)away from this site because they don’t subscibe to your fundamentalist viewpoint? It’s like this;i could argue the point endlessly with you about matters theological,i was brought up in it(Baptist) and i’ve heard all the rhetoric there is to hear. Mostly when i post it’s about the music itself,i don’t start a knowingly contentious debate(i just join in one already started someone might add)however,debating purely the music is becoming as jaded as the genre itself thus the departure to innuendo land.

  28. Irishlad wrote:

    #23 sorry Joe hard to post on cell phone.

  29. GospelMusicFan wrote:

    Thank you, Daniel!

    Here is Romans 1 in its entirely.

    Romans 1
    1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

  30. Alan wrote:

    #27 - Irishlad: I can only speak for myself, but no, I’m not trying to drive anyone away from here. Interestingly, though, GospelMusicFan just quoted Romans 1 in its entirety. Since quoting the Bible here is often a thread-breaker, I’m wanting to keep the thread going. Maybe read verse 22 above? It quite accurately reflects much of the “free-thinking” that mankind has engaged in for centuries. Your free will (a gift from God, btw) allows you to rebel against anything from your upbringing. But that really isn’t “free” thought; it’s just another form of bondage, if it leads a person away from God’s thoughts. And in God’s great scheme of things, that’s perfectly alright. He allows us to do that. But He’ll eventually win, and every mouth will be stopped and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. One of the books that will be used to judge the ungodly will be the Bible, that some of us choose to believe is His word. Certain things have been attacked here lately that are important to some of us. They’ve been peripheral to music, yes. But they’re far more important than music to many who frequent this site.

  31. BUICK wrote:

    IrishLad, I am not actually trying to drive free thinkers away from SG music or this site. (In fact, Doug has not seen fit to post a contribution I sent in which I said that I am not in favor of blocking the distribution or the use of Joel Hemphill’s music. God spoke to Balaam through a donkey and He can still speak to people through them. But since I used the KJV word instead of “donkey” that probably didn’t get past the censor.)

    You are free to think what you want about Obama and McCain. I haven’t entered into any of the political debates on this site and I believe you can be a Christian and vote left or right.

    You are free to think what you want about the Inspirations, EHSSQ, GVB or any other group you’d like to name.

    You are free to think what you want about SGM, CCM, PWM and any other style of music.

    As far as I am concerned, you are free to think what you want about Doug, Joe, Alan, me or anyone else.

    But you are not free to think what you want about who Jesus is. At least not and be regarded as a brother in Christ. In II Corinthians 11:3-4, the apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote:
    “I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.”

    Now, if you don’t think Scripture is the Word of God, you have wiggle room. If you don’t think Paul was inspired, you have wiggle room. If you don’t consider yourself a disciple of Jesus, you have wiggle room. BUT - if you call yourself a Christian, if you believe the Bible to be the Word of God and if you believe Paul was an inspired author, you have no wiggle room about who Jesus is.

    And as to why I am calling Doug out on this issue, it is because Scripture indicates that we are NOT to put up with the presentation of a Jesus different than the one that Paul preached. And since the Bible says not to put up with it, I do not intend to put up with it.

    So, man up, Doug. As the Lord asked of Peter, who do you say that Jesus is? Don’t hide in a cloak of silence and cower behind “Reader S”. Jesus said that you must confess him before men if you want him to confess you before the Father.

    And, since you have stepped into this topic and cited me specifically, what about you, IrishLad? Who do you say that Jesus is? Are you a free thinker who will easily put up with people promoting a Jesus other than the one Paul preached? Or do you believe that he is Immanuel, which means “God with us”? From his birth and not AFTER he had lived a sinless life in the power of the flesh, as some seem to imply.

    If you think that discussions about the hair-styles and hair-pieces of EH, BG, Jake Hess, Tim Riley and others is the important topic of the day, have at it. Split the hairs, strain at the gnats and swallow all sorts of camels. But DO NOT expect me to sit silently while I read that the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth is an unimportant matter of opinion among Chfistians.

  32. Carol wrote:

    What’s interesting (in a really uninteresting-I-check-this-blog-maybe-once-every-two-weeks kind of way) is how most of you have latched on the homosexual thing-as you always do-and virtually ignored the posting’s reference to extramarital affairs by the heterosexuals. I guess sleeping with a diesel sniffer while your wife is at home with your child isn’t as bad as a guy kissing a guy. Gheesh. It’s like those of you who post here regularly are on a witch hunt for the gays and lesbians sometimes. We get it. You hate gay people. You’ve made that abundantly clear. But that’s a different issue.

    Bottom line: as a whole, the people on stage in SG are not sinless. Last I checked, they don’t claim to be. However, if you insist on that, then you need to find somewhere else to spend your energy. I am an “insider,” I know a lot more than most of you would ever want to hear and obviously more than you would believe, and, yet, I still maintain that, weaknesses and poor judgements aside, most of the hearts are in the right place.

    Now, for the love of God, move on.

  33. Carol wrote:

    And did someone really say “man up,” to Doug? “Man up?” I believe 1990 called and would like it’s phrase back. LoL

  34. Joe wrote:

    Carol-

    There has been NO ONE here, to the best of my memory, that has ever excused any extramarital infidelity of any kind. Scripture is very clear on that as well. The homosexual aspect of this present thread is solely due to another blatant statement, this one posted by Doug from an anonymous source.
    No one here “hates” homosexuals. What we are tired of are the repeated times this subject is mentioned in an unBiblical way (especially this last one), and we are forced to respond. You want us to move on? Ask Doug never to repeat this kind of nonsense.

    And Irishlad- “free thinkers” are incompatible with the truths of Scripture. It is either God says it and I believe it, or my own free thinking gets me totally lost. Eternally lost. Read again Alan’s post, above.

  35. Charlotte wrote:

    #19, Your comment about not taking Leviticus seriously stayed with me all night… I know what you are referring to, re: the homosexuals… BUT… do you believe that it is ok to “lie” down with animals??? Do you think it’s ok to “sleep” with your mother-in-law, your aunt, your sister? I could go on, but you get the point…If you think it’s wrong, or you think it’s a sin, well, it’s in Leviticus, do we just do away with parts of it??? NO, of course not… Jesus and his word is the same yesterday, today, and forever… My prayer is that one day YOU experience a personal relationship with the LORD, and know what is right and wrong… Oh and one more thing, though we live in this world TODAY, we are not to be “part” of it… We are to come out and be a separate people..

  36. Alan wrote:

    Carol - I’m not sure what you’ve read since your last visit here two weeks ago. Evidently not enough, though.

    Plenty of the readers of this blog probably know too much junk already. No one would dare to excuse it. You claim to be an insider, which you may well be. If so, then even more than others, you should know better than to once again throw out another little hunk of red meat - a veiled, implied line, and yet another “If only you knew….” One of the things some of us have tried to emphasize is to either name names or keep quiet on the subject. Words have consequences, and so did yours.

    Nor did you read enough to realize that not a single poster here was bashing gays. Had you cared to read, you would have noticed that the ridiculous words of an anonymous poster were highlighted, in which he advanced a “rumor” that the Apostle Paul liked little boys, and added the little caveat “(i.e. men)”. If that sits fine with you, then there’s not a lot more to say. Some of us who would much rather read about music felt a need to defend a beloved apostle. And before that, many had to take a stand against a dangerous doctrinal error espoused by a man in sgm. Perhaps you should read those threads.

  37. Ocean View wrote:

    Joe #14 and #23:
    I’ve enjoyed your postings on other threads; you’ve had some excellent responses to substantive topics. One in particular made me want to stand up and cheer!

    But I’m just wondering why you’re letting Doug push you into a defensive mode and falling into the trap of trying to refute S’s statement with exceptions to his/her “rules.”

    S’s statement only points out that he/she is very jaded and in need of help and prayer, and probably does know people who are not living the private lives they should. (That is true outside the music industry as well — since every human being needs a Savior.)

    Also, S clearly has a lack of respect for the Scriptures, because of the tone/attitude shown, and the erroneous content of the 2nd paragraph.

    Again, I strongly suggest that making a list of artists and putting “unblemished testimony” next to their names will ALWAYS be an assumption, based on your finite knowledge of them. Even if you know them on a personal basis (and you most likely do not live in their homes with them or have the ability to read their minds), you cannot possibly vouch for them to that degree — and they do not need you to do so. God will take care of their reputations. Let’s trust Him with that.

    And finally, let’s just let the statement from S be its own self-condemnation.

  38. Joe wrote:

    Ocean View-

    That was an excellent post. You, others, and even my brother, who occasionally reads this blog, have all advised me that naming names was inappropriate. And you all are correct. I really do know many I mentioned personally, but as the Lord is the final Judge of all men and women, I am confident enough in their testimonies (at least as far as I know them), to leave them to Him, for reward for consistent lives. So I won’t do that again.

    As well, your remarks about the now-famous “S” and his/her deviant theology and apparently bitter view of believers, are also taken as you have given them.

    I guess what really irks me, is…of all the worthwhile mail and comments Doug no doubt fields, why he would post such a pile of camel dung as the “quote of the day”. Maybe he just wants to see us all implode (or explode!). I don’t know. But far too often, he writes or posts comments which, as I said before, seem to try to tear down the very fabric and testimony of gospel music as well as its performers. And its not just “the glass is half-empty” syndrome. So often, its “the glass is dirty-who cares how much water is in it?”

    Sigh. We hope for better. Maybe we’ll get it. And then again,…

  39. JoJo wrote:

    Sounds like you biblical scholars have determined that homosexuality is indeed a greater abomination that eating shellfish. I assume also that you never shave or cut your hair, nor do you wear cloths made from two different fabrics. And, how about that skin of a pig thing and eating pork. Oh well, just take the things from the bible that suit you.

  40. Wade wrote:

    I gotta say a BiG Amen to Jo JO & The Irish Dude!!!

  41. Irishlad wrote:

    #31Buick,most apologists including yourself use Paul when you’re quoting the Bible, that’s fine. Paul was a gifted orator,eloquent writer with unmatched rhetoric coupled with an unique intellect.What theologian then or now is going to argue with him.Therefore when he decides to tell Timothy that the scriptures are God’s own inspired words who’s going to disagree? My point is they’re still Paul’s words(inspired by the Holy Spirit you say)so where’s the proof in that.You have no problem with that, whereas i do.Just say you’d been born 200 years ago and reading your KJV bible you read a verse from one of the apocryphal books,which were included then,to you it would have been the inspired word.Even Martin Luther included other books in his translations, in other words the bible you read today has been edited by man. Was that inspired by God?

  42. Joe wrote:

    JoJo-

    There are things, under the Law, that do not carry over into the day of grace. You have mentioned several. Homosexuality is NOT one of them.

    As you may have read, posted here, the entirety of Romans 1, the NT clearly states that this abomination is STILL a violation of God’s moral law. It is one of the most blatant ways of denying the sovereignty of God.

    Also stated clearly in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, it is one of the reasons why a human being will be kept out of Heaven. If you have never read these 2 passages, please study them.

    God did not annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah for eating shrimp, pulled pork sandwiches, or for wearing dacron/polyester suits. See Gen. 18:20.

  43. JM wrote:

    I have two thoughts relative to this particular discussion:

    1) I had a brief four year SGM career many years ago. The quartet with whom I was singing had some degree of regional distinction, but never acheived any degree of national fame. One particular weekend, we found ourselves sharing an outdoor singing venue with a well-established and respected trio. During the weekend of singing, the trio leader took me aside and tried to convince me that our lead singer and pianist were homosexuals and that our tenor was unfaihful to his wife. I assured this gentleman that none of these accusations were evident to me and that I was in a better position to see these supposed sexual sins than he was. The long and short of it was that even years after I left that group there was never any reason to believe these accusations brought by a SGM heavyweight. In my years of association with SGM and various churches and congregations, I can affirm that many people seem to get some form of perverse delight in trowing mud at another’s reputation, particularly when the accusation revolves around sexual sin. Sin, of any kind should grieve us, as it does the Lord. However, I am equally grieved by the one who sees it as their mission to expose the sin of others. God will judge and he alone. What can possibly be gained by having each of us run around pasting various types of “scarlet letters” of each person we feel has committed some type of sexual sin? And while I would not want to stand before God as a homosexual or as one who was unfaithful to their spouse, I also would not want to stand before him as one who believed it was edifying to uncover and expose hidden sexual sin. My God have mercy on us all!

    2) This particular thread suggests to me that our blog master has chosen to venture down the Jerry Springer road of fine prose. To elevate this offering from S as a “Quote of the Day” seems to indicate a lack of respect for this audience. It is akin to crying out “Fire” in a crowded auditorium. Our host knows that this group contains a vast array of theologically predisposed individuals, many of whom hold dearly to certain points of view. Want to generate a few days worth of venom and animosity and heat without light? Throw some chum into the waters, like homosexuality or abortion or infidelity or wealthy ministers and watch the posters tear each other to pieces! It’s sad that our blog master knows us so well that he can, at a drop of the hat, play us for fools. Doug: You are a gifted man, who is capable of illuminating hidden areas of God’s wonderful creation through the use of your exquisite prose. You also seem to enjoy being the referee at too many mud wrestling matches. While both may have entertainment value, I trust that you will rethink the level of discourse that you choose to bring to this site. You can either choose to point out the flaws in the body of Christ or assist in helping to bind up those wounds. Your site and your choice. May God direct our choosing!

  44. BUICK wrote:

    #41, 200 years ago in Ireland, most people believed the apocryphal books were Scripture. But that is not necessarily true in the U.S. and certainly not among Biblical scholars. The reason they are called “apocryphal” is because they are texts of uncertain authenticity and questionable authorship. Even the earliest canons acknowledged them as of spurious repute. Likewise, the earliest canons DID contain Paul’s writings and Paul is quoted in other canonical books. Those who dispute Paul’s inspiration do so, not because his message is uncertain, but because it makes them uncomfortable. I know of no one who quotes Paul because he was “a gifted orator,eloquent writer with unmatched rhetoric coupled with an unique intellect.” We quote him because his words were/are the very words of God. If we are going to start picking and choosing which parts of the Bible are inspired and which are not, we set ourselves up to judge Scripture rather than allowing Scripture to judge us. I’m not qualified to stand in judgment of the Word and neither are you. (And I do not mean academically qualified. I need make no apologies for my educational qualifications and academic background.)

    I do believe that God inspired the authors of Scripture AND that He has preserved a reliable record of His Word so we know His will.

    Your parsing of Scripture reminds me of an Englishman I knew who said that sex outside of marriage was not sin. His reasoning was that “Thou shalt not commit adultery” did not refer to sexual sin. He said that the issue that was addressed was the practice of mixing weed seed in with the wheat and “adulterating” the grain as a way of cheating in commerce. He contended that “Thou shalt not commit adultery” was a command to conduct fair business practices. (BTW - the Hebrew is not vague on this subject…”adultery” is a sexual sin and not a business practice.) Will it surprise you to know that he was having an affair? When anyone wants to argue that Scripture doesn’t mean what it plainly says, I wonder what sin he is trying to justify. And when people want to exclude certain verses, chapters books and/or authors from Scripture, I always wonder what there is in those passages that they wish were not in the Bible. HARDLY EVER is it a matter of critical, scholarly study of the text that has led a person to this position. NEARLY ALWAYS it is an expression of the poverty of one’s heart and not the richness of his mind. I’ve seen it before too often not to be suspicious when I see it now.

  45. Ocean View wrote:

    #39 JoJo and others:
    It’s really invaluable to know that Jesus himself pulled from the Old Testament to reiterate that a “one flesh” relationship is between a man and a woman, that God joins it together (Matthew 19, and Mark 10).

    Even if people try to leave the apostle Paul out of the discussion, the words of Jesus are impossible to explain away.

  46. Irishlad wrote:

    Buick, if you get a chance go to www greatsite.com(history of how we got our Bible)let me know what you think,i found it a great overview.

  47. Glenn wrote:

    It seems to me that everyone who posted a response to JoJo made her point more salient.

  48. BUICK wrote:

    IrishLad - Thanks for the link to www.greatsite.com. It is aptly named and I have bookmarked it.

    As you will know, that site presents a history of the English Bible. While they acknowledge 1000 years of New Testament history before the focus of their attention, they state:
    “Our starting point in this discussion of Bible history, however, is the advent of the scripture in the English language with the “Morning Star of the Reformation”, John Wycliffe.”

    That is about 1380 AD. By the early 300’s AD, Athanasius had already determined a canon of Scripture that is exactly the same as the 27 books of our current New Testament. On April 8, 1546, the Council of Trent, on behalf of the Catholic Church, determined exactly the same 27 books as being the inspired writings of the New Testament.

    You will note that every one of Paul’s epistles is there and have been accepted as Holy Scripture since about 300 AD. In your post #31, it was Paul’s writings with which you were taking issue. I have not bothered to take the time and space required to address the issue of the apocryphal books or the pseudepigraphic writings because they do not add to nor take away from the question of Pauline inspiration. I will say that, having studied the apocrypha and the pseudepigrapha, I do not see a problem with anyone studying those books. There is nothing in them that will contradict the doctrine or history presented in the 66 books of the Bible. They do not, for instance, dispute the divinity of Jesus. And since that was the point under discussion, that is the place to which we need to come back.

    You had stated that people like me use Paul when we are quoting the Bible. It is true that I do because I believe Paul to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit to write most of the epistles we have in our Bible.

    But since the issue is whether or not Jesus was divine, how about John 1:1-14? Or do you want to exclude John’s gospel, too? Matthew 1:23 - unless you want to exclude Matthew from the Bible. Hebrews 1:1-3 (since Joel Hemphill quoted from Hebrews to try to refute the divinity of Jesus) or is it just the first chapter of Hebrews that we are to leave on the cutting-room floor?

    You took issue with my citing the apostle Paul. May I quote Jesus? In John 10:30, he said, “I and the Father are one.” Or do you also question whether Jesus can be trusted?

    I accept the Pauline epistles as the inspired Word of God. Even if someone does not, there is ample information elsewhere in Scripture to lead a reasonable person to know that Jesus is presented as God in the flesh.

    Questioning the canonicity of specific books in the Bible is OK. It can be a fruitful and rewarding study if one is willing to invest the time and effort to do a thorough job of research on the topic. But if the topic for discussion is the divinity of Jesus, there is so much evidence for that throughout Scripture that raising the subject of the canon becomes, at best, a distraction and at worst a smokescreen.

    So how ’bout it Laddie? Do you believe that Jesus was and is God? Who do YOU say that he is?

  49. BUICK wrote:

    BTW - Jesus was not crucified for being a good man or even a sinless man. He was crucified because he said he was God. The Jews liked good men and the Pharisees especially liked the thought of people not committing sin. But they thought it blasphemy for a man to claim to be God. While some today may be unsure about Jesus, the Jews of his day had no doubts about who he claimed to be.

    Jesus was executed because he claimed to be God. If he claimed it but was not God, he was delusional or deceitful. I would not want to be considered a Christian if the Christ was either delusional or deceitful.

  50. Bob M. wrote:

    Wow.

    I don’t know what’s worse…..this whole thread, or the fact that I actually read all 46 previous comments. ALL of us have better things to do with our valuable time.

    Who are any of us to judge or accuse? We better be sure we ourselves are clean before God. I know I struggle with that every day of my life, even as I have served as a song leader in a Baptist church for the past 20 years. During that time I have slept with women out of wedlock (before I married), undergone counseling for anger issues, gotten married, messed around with women again, and struggle with porn. So if you all would like to judge or condemn people, start with me. I can handle it. EVERY ONE OF US IS A SINNER. Thank God I’m saved by grace. Are you?

  51. Bubba wrote:

    Anyone else find it interesting/disgusting that christianity is one of the few places where underachievement is socially acceptable and sometimes worn as a badge of honor under the guise of grace?

  52. Alan wrote:

    Bob M. - I hate to say this, after your honest comment, but I think you missed the point.

    I doubt there’s one Christian who has ever read this blog that isn’t aware of our own failures and shortcomings. The longer we know Christ and the more we study Him and His Word, the more graphic our own sinful nature becomes. Concurrently, even our shallow understanding of God causes us to realize just how infinitely holy He is. I can’t remember anyone here shouting how holy and perfect they are.

    Nutritionists tell us that to a large degree, we are what we eat. Spiritually, that holds true as well. If we continue to fill our minds and hearts with the things of Christ, it will change our thinking, our lives, and our service for Him. Conversely, when we fill our minds with garbage, that becomes the driving force.

    What some of us are upset about, is that this blog has been denigrated to live in the spiritual gutter too much of late. As well, it’s been of the worst sort, veiled innuendo. Since I’ve been reading this blogsite, there have been occasional visits to the lower realms, but in the last weeks, we’ve been asked to spend way too much time there. This site used to be a whole lot better. It can be again. Or, at least I hope it can be. Only time will tell.

  53. Bob M. wrote:

    Perhaps I did miss your point Alan. MY point is that those who would take this blog to the gutter should do a gut check on themselves before gossiping about SG artists or anyone else. If we find this blog in the lower realms, do something else. Things like this interfere in interpersonal relationships with real people, and most assuredly with God through His Son Jesus Christ.

  54. Joe wrote:

    A comment to those upset at many of the responders who have accurately (AGAIN) reiterated the Bible’s view on homosexuality (and again, only re-reviewed as a subject because Doug has re-posted on it, this time in a particularly unsettling way)…

    For those of you who feel Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians, and other parts of God’s Word are outdated and not applicable for whatever reason-

    I give you this quote from St. Augustine, apropos to some of the comments on this board:

    “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

  55. Alan wrote:

    And Bob M., I seem to have missed your point. I apologize for that. And you are so correct - that was a lingering thought of mine as I read some of the junk here. It was as if several posters reveled in their new knowledge that not every public person was “perfect”. And, I wondered why. Many people struggle with a prurient desire to learn all of the gossip and failures of others. A quick look at the magazines at the supermarket check-out line shows that. But why here, on a site devoted to this segment of Christian music and those who perform it? And chances are, there might be a few who enjoy knowing that others are as human as they are, and have failures too. And that bothers me. How much better would it be if we chose to feature the highest common denominator rather than the lowest?

    But you are so right - I find that I have more than enough to do to keep myself in line with what God demands, and it doesn’t leave a lot of time to try and find fault with others. But, having said that, it doesn’t absolve me of responsibility to try and share in discussions of critical theology and/or comments that are way out of line, Biblically.

  56. nonSGfan wrote:

    Alan has a pretty good view on this subject, however I would argue that Saul of Tarsus was ALREADY a member of the sanhedrin, because of the work he was doing for them (delivering orders of punishment for christians). AND IF that is true, he would have HAD to have been married.

    Also, I think all of this “Smut” and “garbage” that many of you are talking about coming out on SG singers, is simply God allowing deeds done in secret to come to the light.

  57. Blake Edmondson wrote:

    For awhile I really enjoyed reading the insights on this website. Now I realize it has turned into a place for posters and AVERY(who posted this garbage on his main page) to smear SG music and blaspheme against the word of God. I have too much fear of God to call the apostle Paul gay. I’d be afraid God would Annanias and Saphira me (pardon spelling). This will be my last post, and the last time I come to this site.

  58. Alan wrote:

    Sorry, Blake - I’ve enjoyed your past posts. I only hope that you read it one more time to see this.

    And, a big Amen to your words above. One thing so terribly missing today is indeed the fear of the Lord. He hasn’t changed, only we have, and the church at large. Today, God’s just that great big fuzzy, warm being in the sky somewhere who loves us all. Sin is rarely mentioned these days, nor is repentance. Why should these alien concepts be, anyway? We’re all God’s children, He loves us unconditionally, and He’s just what we’d like to be. In another post, I mentioned how “dumbed-down” the church has become. When you only say what’s popular, never speak on any part
    of the Bible that might threaten anyone or (worst of all) dare to drive any away whose offerings build and sustain these kingdoms of and for man, the end result is exactly what we’ve seen here. A lack of healthy reverence for the God Who is. Stick around a little longer, will you, Blake?

  59. Blake Edmondson wrote:

    Alan,
    I guess you’re right. The only we can fight garbage like this is to post. It’s just that am constantly shocked and sickened by what some people are willing to write when nobody will find out who they are. Makes you wonder how long God will let this go on with his “church.” Makes me feel he’s coming back really soon.

  60. Alan wrote:

    Thanks, Blake. Glad to have you “back”. I think it’ll take someone to throw a gauntlet down to Doug, and flat-out ask him to be less incendiary in what he posts. It’s his blog, of course, and he can do whatever he wants. But lately, it really did get sickening. Also frightening…given your words on the fear of the Lord. I also wish he and his “interns” would not post any comments from those who toss out any vague and implied smears against artists. They’re not the least bit uplifting, and drag us down as a church.

    The last few posts have actually been on SG music, and I’m glad that things are headed back on track.

  61. BUICK wrote:

    RE: #59 - Maranatha. Amen, Maranatha. (Come, Lord Jesus. Yes!! Come, Lord Jesus.)

  62. Leebob wrote:

    The closer I get to God the more I see my sin. This does not excuse it nor does it mean I accept it. If I do not excuse it in myself I then am accepting the rest of the “judging” verse that so many people are willing to leave out. I accept the same judgement with which I judge, not in a condemning way, but in a discerning way. If you are going to live the lifestyle, accept the discerning spirit with which many on here are trying to use, some a bit overzealous, but sharpening the skill nonetheless.

  63. Christian Lady wrote:

    Alan & Blake I agree with you… Another thing WHY do we (the churches) think we need to change anything in order to bring in the kids… Specifically here I am talking about the Contempory Rock Music, if you will… In my opinion this is bringin too much of “the WORLD” into our worship… We are getting away from Christ and him dead, buried and risen… There are too many watered down preachers and churches that don’t preach the “hard” stuff–re: the truth…Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever!!!!!!!

  64. apathetic wrote:

    Oh, Lord Church Lady enters the conversation. Could it be ……….ssssssssSatan????? The evils of Contemporary Rock Music. Times change, music changes with it. Bringing too much of the World into our worship, because it sounds like secular music. Southern Gospel is the christian attempt to sound like Country music. What’s the difference? The genre. You like the country sound and don’t like rock. The GVB doesn’t sound anything like what David wrote or sang unto the Lord. Am I going to call it “Worldly” for that. No. Time marches on, march with it or be trampled by it.

  65. Leebob wrote:

    We are still getting on to style as opposed to substance. I am an avid SG fan and wouldn’t trade what I do for anything. That being said there are two reasons in the Bible for music: singing to God and singing about God. CCM is good about singing to God, not so much when it comes to singing about God. SG on the other hand is all about God but not so much on the too God side of things. You need both in order to do it right.

    No I don’t think you have to bring in “head bangers” to draw the kids in but it wouldn’t hurt the older crowd to embrace some of what the kids are listening to either. “Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever” refers to His Character and has nothing to do with how we choose to worship.

  66. apathetic wrote:

    Very well said Leebob.

  67. Blake Edmondson wrote:

    Unfortunately, christian lady, I agree with Leebob. I for one say that if the music exalts and uplifts Jesus Christ why can’t it be used in worship. I don’t think the music of the 19th century sounded the same as today, but that doesn’t make today’s music wrong. I for one don’t care for it, but who am I to say in what venues God can work. I’m as old-fashioned fundamentalist as it comes, when it comes to issues of faith and doctrine, but I think we need to quit splitting hairs over the unimportant stuff.

  68. NonSGfan wrote:

    The reason we have the modernistic styles of worship that resemble WORLDLY music, is because people arent getting “Saved” today. They are “Receiving Christ” (Non biblical) and “accepting him” (non biblical). Ppl arent CHANGING, they are remaining the same, with a “Positive confession”.

  69. Leebob wrote:

    Example: hair

    The conviction is that man should not look like a woman. Preferance is how we ascertain what that point is.

    nonsgfan….I agree with the “receiving Christ” and “accepting Him” but not with the WORLDLY part which is a matter of opinion. Many of the people who hold to that line of thinking, (linking WORLDLY music to the other) were the same ones who had the boys get off the bus at camp and straight to the haircut line and give the girls coulottes (sp?). Changes on the outside but nothing on the inside leading to dead churches inside and and non-influential outside.

    It is still style over substance and I will keep harping on this until some of you get it straight.

  70. nonSGfan wrote:

    I agree with Christian Laday, I believe that the “progression” of alot of our music is nothing more than an attempt to appeal to the fleshly and worldly nature that is in all people. That nature is to be subject to the spirit daily, and our spirits transformed by the renewing of the mind. The modernism of music is not because we have “Preferences” but because we have “Flesh” that we wan’t to appease, while at the same time appeasing the conscience by saying “Jesus”. It’s the devils attempt to keep our lives and minds saturated with the world, while lightly stroking our conscience with “positive, encouraging” words.
    ooooooh yea, here it comes.

  71. nonSGfan wrote:

    PLUS, you’re totally wrong on the “long” issue. Everybody knows the difference in long and short innately. You can talk bad about dragging them to the haircutting line all you wan’t, but compare THAT generation to THIS one. Worldy means “inspired and comparable in most points To the world”, in my opinion.

    PS. I was raised “Pentecostal Holiness”.

  72. Leebob wrote:

    At what point does it cease to be of the Spirit and then “worldly”? Is this determined by nonSGfan or Leebob? You and I have no clue about the mindset of the people who listen to a particular type of music as your post suggests. Scripture does not address this directly except that we are to not be controlled by the flesh but by the Spirit. Music will control our spirit. Saul had David play his harp for him to calm his own spirit. Our songs about heaven may actually put a smile on some peoples face, present reader excluded I am sure. As I have told our audiences, we may put a smile on your face but Christ will put joy in your heart. Putting “my chains are gone, I’ve been set free, my God, my Savior has rescued me” with Amazing Grace is an awesome concept and certainly NOT a worldly song musically but something about that when I put the two together does release any anxiety I mey feel.

    I am reminded of how offended many of the saints of the past were when the then “music of the world” crept into the church in the form of Hymns. Those scoundrels dared to use the music of the taverns and turn it into something that glorified God even to this day.

    People, especially our more “mature” saints, cannot handle change in the least bit, hence the incredible number of church splits through the years over carpet and which side the piano is sitting. I speak as one who fought change for a long time. If we don’t like it we attribute it to the devil, supposedly adding affliction to those who oppose us. I finally came to the place Paul did where Christ, whether in pretense or in truth, was being preached. I cannot control how they preach it but if Christ and Him crucified, buried, and risen again is preached I rejoice.

  73. Leebob wrote:

    I guess bald is holiest of all then….NOT!!!

  74. Leebob wrote:

    Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

    Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

    Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
    Galatians 5:19-21

    Unless you place music in the “such like” category you will not find it in there. In fact, I cannot even find a dress code in there. So nonSGfan, please educate me because I am here willing to learn but please, use some Scripture and get away from the opinions.

    A most unusual thing has happened over the course of my discussions with you nonSGfan: the more you talk the more, I become a SG dude who likes CCM. I have found my place in the unusual position of arguing for CCM because of some of the outlandish reasoning behind the position that you and others like you have taken.

  75. nonSGfan wrote:

    Of all the times i’ve heard christian rock and rollers say “the old hymns came from old bar tunes”, I’ve never heard ONE offer any historical evidence to confirm it.
    I dare you to show me PROOF that the hymns came from bar tunes. And don’t go googling either. I have over 4,000 books in my library, many dealing with history, and there is NOTHING to suggest this. There is NO evidence for this claim.

    Lets compare messages….

    “tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take him at his word, just to rest upon his promise, just to know thus sayeth the lord”.

    COMPARED To…….

    Livin’ on the edge of obnoxious
    They call me raucous
    I’m a freak, I can’t stop this
    Ardently enthused about God
    No hand-me-down nod
    Your gonna get all I got
    High-steppin’ from the twenty on in
    Knees to my chin
    I’m rollin’ deep in momentum
    Burnin’ with the hard core flame
    No shame in this game
    I’m followin’ my heart not my brain”.
    Toby Mac.

    “I’m a freak”. okay????
    At what point does it cease to be of the Spirit and then “worldly”?

    I’ll tell you at what point…

    At it’s origin.

  76. Joe wrote:

    NonSGFan-

    This might amaze you- but I wholeheartedly agree with you. One of my personal studies is how hymns came to be. I will not suggest that the old gems were inspired as was God’s Word…not at all- but there WAS Spiritual inspiration to the old hymns, that so much of CCM is sadly lacking.

    As one example- take It IS Well With My Soul. HG Spafford wrote it aboard an ocean liner, on his way to the UK to meet his wife, who was saved alone when her ship went down, and they lost their three daughters. Heartsick, he wrote those immortal words over the very spot his girls drowned…and very little since has come close.

    Study how The Ninety and Nine was written. Or God Moves in a Mysterious Way.

    Now there are exceptions, as far as CCM goes. How Deep The Father’s Love To Us and In Christ Alone are two such examples. If I Could Only Imagine is another. We Will Glorify yet another.

    But too man are lifeless, hopeless, directionless, and could apply to almost any “god”. Sadly, alot are scarily empty like the example above.

  77. Howland Sharpe wrote:

    I miss the Thrasher Brothers…..

  78. Leebob wrote:

    NonSGfan

    That is even WAY beyond my point. You see, now you are talking substance over style. See how easy it is to agree. Before you have always emphasized the style. NOW you finally are talking substance. Thank you for finally coming to the conversation and what I have been talking about

    You do talk like it is every song that has this same issue. So what do you do? You take the worst example and use that to make a point. When I said “at what point” I was talking about the style that you have been hammering on. Now you have finally gotten on substance and when you do that, most of the time you will find that we agree.

  79. nonsgfan wrote:

    I may be a little OVER zealous in this subject, I’m a little closed minded. I disagree with you though, I believe that even STYLE can be an attempt to mirror a world system of music. If you REAAAALLLY study church music history, church music had a TOTAL different sound, feel, and style than secular music untill about the 1950’s. More “liberal” pastors began to see a need to pull from secular music and incorporate it into the church. There should be a distinction in the worship to a Holy God and the glorification of sensuality, sexaulity, sin, transgression, drugs, alcohol, murder ETC. There SHOULD be a distinction. THINK REAL HARD about this. The same tones, sounds, styles, that usher people into a spiritual sleep in the world, is given christian lyrics and then we call it “Gospel”. I believe substance AND style should be stark opposite of what we see in our corrupted society. It is at my church, let me JUUUST tell ya.

  80. apathetic wrote:

    NonSGFan,
    by the reasoning you have offered here, then you will admit that ALL southern gospel music is an “appeal to the flesh” since it has “progressed” from the psalms that David wrote for the Lord in an attempt to sound like country music?

    Are the CCM lyrics you posted valid since they didn’t come from you vast library?

    Also, I am glad that Jesus had a flat top hair cut and a clean shave so He can make it to Heaven with your “Holiness” crowd.

  81. Leebob wrote:

    Not even worth my time anymore. you win.

  82. nonsgfan wrote:

    first of all, Christ did NOT have long hair. The only sculptures and paintings we have are of people who didnt see him face to face. Paul saw Christ and then said “its a shame for a man to have long hair”. And we “Holiness” people (as for my church) don’t believe these things are prerequisites for heaven, but personal convictions that have produced God’s POWER in the midst of our circle. The plain power of the Bible is intellectualized away. We say “welllll thats not for today”. Okay then, Romans 1 isnt for today. And John 3:16 isnt for today. You cannot pick and choose what is for today and what is not. IF YOU PEOPLE WOULD STUDY, it’s the “Holiness” men and women that brought Christ to america, it’s the “Holiness” people that have preached to the nations, not baptist, nor catholic, but holiness. Wesleyin theology, along with methodism had “Holiness” roots.
    Apathetic, my assesment is this; if you are inspired to compose gospel music according to a pattern that you have learned from a secular system, it’s wrong. Jack Hyles, a famous Baptist preacher taught that if you saw a movie star cut their hair a certain way, and go get your hair cut like him, it was sin, because it was emulation of the world. I’m questioning the SOURCE of inspiration behind this music, The Holy Spirit, or our own flesh.

  83. apathetic wrote:

    I guess Samson, Samuel and all Nazarites were shameful then. If your hair’s too long, there’s sin in your heart. LOL How long is long? I’ve heard the holiness crowd preach against it touching the collar. So was Jesus hair above the collar? I still didn’t hear the beard mentioned, or open toe shoes, or only wearing a white long sleeve shirts.

    I am also glad that you can question the Holy Spirits influence on others. I wonder if Dottie Rambo was inspired by the Holy Spirit when she wrote “He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw the Need” to the tune of “Danny Boy”. Wonderful song, but it can’t be Godly since it is written to the tune of a secular song.

    I guess Toby Mac, Third Day, Casting Crowns and the like should be sure they write their lyrics with lots of thee’s, thou’s, comest, etc. Yeah, that will reach out to the lost in today’s world.

  84. apathetic wrote:

    Guess you can’t have a shaven head or, baldness either;

    Leviticus 21:5 They shall not make baldness upon their head

    Isaiah 22:12 And in that day the Lord, the Lord of armies, was looking for weeping, and cries of sorrow, cutting off of the hair

    Isaiah 3:24 And it shall come to pass, [that] instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; [and] burning instead of beauty.

  85. Leebob wrote:

    I came back to see what other faulty reasoning you would be using and cannot pass this up! Personal convictions = preferences, although for you I get the feeling you WOULD probably die for some of this stuff.

    The hair style today is shorter hair (FAR shorter from when I was growing up) so I suppose the thing to do would be to grow my hair long so I do not emulate the world. The gay community is very well known for being neat in their appearance so perhaps we should dress sloppy as to not “emulate” the world. That is the whole problem, your focus is on “not being like the world” rather than being like Christ. The same preachers that taught these things also had blended suits, clearly a violation of levitical law. Based on this reasoning,
    I guess the toupee was SG’s answer to not looking like a skinhead. There is a hole in every argument and your’s is gaping.

    Just because a preacher, Baptist or not, says something does not make it to be true. I reference Joel Osteen for this point. This same preacher you quoted was found out to not be everything he was proclaiming as well. When I found out the situation I was devestated because I had such high regard for the man.

    My pastor and music minister are soul winning, spirit led men of God. They stand on the Word and are strong supporters of missions. They also are open to using some CCM, as well as SG and P&W. Notice I did not say all music because they have a mind that God gave them to discern what should and should not be used. NONSGFAN - you are a man given to extreme positions that have been proven indefensible, having holes in them at best. If you choose to lead your church that way it is your prerogative and is not for me to say. However, to get on here and tell everyone else how wrong they are and how right you are smacks of arrogance of the highest order.

  86. music lover wrote:

    i was raised “apostolic” which is very close to the holiness faith. this blog is a prime example of why i am not that anymore!!!
    CONFUSION!!!!!!! it’s the thing that god said he is not the author of.. you know??? i was raised this way my whole life, and these people will actually fist fight you on issues that other people don’t agree on… i wander what kind of musical instruments they have at their church???? ps. if he says that his “holiness” church has never sang “god on the mountain” i’ll pay peg to go there and sing it myself!!!! he’s still god ha ha ha

  87. BUICK wrote:

    C’mon y’all. Leave Nonsgfan alone. He’s got over 4000 books in his library so he must be right. (Over 4000 books and I’ll bet some haven’t even been colored in.)

  88. nonSGfan wrote:

    #1- I didn’t quote the OLD testament ONNE time. The issue of long hair on women, and short hair on men was raised by Paul the Apostle. In the new testament (apathetic) Read 1 Corinthians 11. It’s interesting you people think i’m talking old covenant when it’s the NEW that tells you this principal. Shows your biblical ignorance.

    #2- There is NO NO NO NO evidence to support the claims against Jack Hyles, other than ONNNNEEEE disgruntled FORMER member. (leebob)

    #3-Confusion isn’t caused by the Word, it’s caused by people trying to intellectualize their way OUT of the word. God isn’t the author of confusion. If you’re confused, it’s not God. (music lover)

    #4- Buick- i’d rip you like a paper bag in a debate and you know it, you little wimp. LoL .

    NOW, let me tell you a FEW MORE THINGS…

    Leebob so ridiculously said “The hair style today is short”. The hair style has ALWAYS been short for men. Nazarene’s took the vow to not cut the hair, because it was a symbol of devotion. Long hair- Long devotion. It was RESTRICTED TO ONLY THAT TRIBE, and done away with in the new covenant by the establishing of a NEW prinicpal by Paul the Apostle. When God created man and woman, do you think he created man with LONG hair?? or Short? And when he created woman, did he create her with SHORT hair, or long? I beleive the created man with short hair and woman with long, and thus establishing a New Testament Church principal through the Holy Ghost using Paul, to bring people back to the place of the beginning.

  89. nonSGfan wrote:

    Also, it doesn’t take a rocket Scientist to see when a man has long hair. If you look, and somebody asks you, “is it long or short” you’ll say “Long”. Nobody calls Guy stinking Penrods hair “Short” becasue that would be ridiculous. Nobody calls Mark Lowry’s hair “Long” because that would be ridiculous. You people and your illogical logic. “How long is long, how short is short”. DUH, it’s commom sense, and it DOESNT vary from person to person. You’re falling into the trap of relativism. Whats right to me may not be right to you, whats wrong to you may be wrong for me. ALSO, LeestinkingBob, I wouldn’t die for anything but Christ.

  90. George Lane wrote:

    The Bible is the only book I worry about and it doesn’t take a library of 4000 to interpet it. It takes conviction by the Holy Spirit. That is all we are accountable for.

  91. Leebob wrote:

    If you won’t die for nothing but Christ, to which I applaud, then it is not a conviction.

    The point I was making is that your whole focus has been on not being like the world. I am quite certain that Adam looked in teh water and said something to the effect, “Man my hair is long!” After which he went to the local barber and got a trim. Better yet, he grabbed a sharp rock and chopped it off a little bit at a time. The only thing that is ludicrous is your claims. I have been told in the past that if it is on the ears and collar it is sin. Book chapter and verse for THAT one please. I don’t disagree that Guy’s hair is long and Mark’s hair is short. That leaves alot of room in between and once again you have to go to extremes to make a point. There are some others that I would question but I do not want to give you the opportunity to make “stinking” their middle name.

    The world alters their hairstyle for men. Lately, it leans more toward the short side. My point is maybe now we should lean the opposite way since the whole problem is not being like the world. The focus you have is lateral rather than vertical.

    And if you don’t mind sir, I have addressed you with respect every time. I ask that you do the same for me. In terms of the rules of debate you have totally lost it which places me in the drivers seat.

  92. Leebob wrote:

    One other thing sir - I am neither disgruntled or former member when it comes to Jack Hyles. Everything I have said is with a smile on my face and joy in my heart. I did however know several of his members and I will leave things at that.

  93. freddyfastbeat wrote:

    nonsgfan. Why don’t you just shave your head and go naked! If you believe getting a haircut you like that you have seen on anyone, not just an actor/actress imulates worldly ideas then you need to sell your computer and have your internet service canceled because of all the other garbage you can find on the web. I assume you make your own clothes and grow your own food too. In theory you shouldn’t even be reading blogs and especially commenting on them. Music is a universal laguage and its very hard not to borrow licks riffs rolls and melodies from any genre. I’m sure there are country musicians that have borrowed tons of stuff from SG.Alot of Sg and Country artists use the same studios and studio musicians. Does that make them evil sinners that are trying to sugar coat the word? I think not.

  94. nonSGfan wrote:

    You’re not telling me anything I don’t know. I know artists who hire Rascal Flatts musicians to play on their SG records. Also Leebob, I was not saying YOU were the disgruntled member, I’m saying the rumors started on him were by one.

    It’s pretty bad when i’m called an “Extremist” because I believe men should be manly, and women should be feminine. The up-rising of sexual confusion began when feminine and masculine walls of seperation began to get tore down. To this day, on the bathroom door, you have a short haired man and a long haired woman (in a dress) to distinguish the difference in the little boys room and the little girls room. I use hateful tones for entertainment sake Leebob, and NO you haven’t been respectful everytime you’ve commented, in fact your sarcasm flows like a raging river. Just because somebody told you that if your hair touches your collar it’s sin, doesn’t mean thats what I believe. That’s ridiculous, my hair is touching my collar RIGHT NOW because I need a kneck shave.
    I BELIEVE there should be a distinction between man and woman through action, appearance, talk, gesture, hair, dress, and EVERYTHING else. You break down ONE barrier and all come crumbleing down. You people are so blind, it’s the small foxes that spoil the vine, it’s these LITTLE issues that have caused the feminization of America, and sexual confusion. A rock doesn’t become smooth by one terrential rain, but by years of water flowing over it little by little. FOR EXAMPLE, if you were in church in the 1950’s, Baptist, methodist, or Pentecostal, Women would have long hair, wear dresses, and be very womanly. Men would have short hair, and dress nice in suits and ties. THE SEXUAL revolution began in the 60’s and continued to spawn in the 70’s, and it LEAKED into the church. STUDY HISTORY, IT WAS UNKNOWN untill society did it. Leebob, what a useless point. To say that because some unsaved men have short hair we shouldnt. They’re obeying a commandment they haven’t received yet, doesn’t mean you shoul disobey the bible.
    “Doesnt nature teach you that its a shame for a man to have long hair”. It doesn’t say “SIN” it says “Shame”. Lets me know that even though it may not seperate me from God, he’s NOT happy with it.
    OR paul was wrong?
    The bible isnt authoritative?
    Its open to personal conviction?
    hmmmm…..

  95. Leebob wrote:

    But at what point, WHAT POINT, is it considered long? One school and denomination made it the collar up through the mid-80’s, including the great Jack Hyles that you mentioned earlier. Now you tell me it isn’t. See the confusion. I am every bit a man as the day I was born, not feminized or anything else.

    My point is that you cannot give me a definitve answer on what long is? There are some things that are conviction: men should look like men. Preference would be one denomination placed that to mean at or above the collar, another wil let it go to the bottom of the collar and you will be ready to fight to the death over that inch.

  96. Leebob wrote:

    And no, at NO time have I resorted to personal attacks against thee. I have not used “stinkin” even for entertainment purposes and I most certainly have not gotten to the point of screamin’ at everybody that disagrees with me.

  97. apathetic wrote:

    “God created Adam with short hair” LOL that’s one of the funnier things I have read on this blog. God mus have invented “Bo Rics” on the 8th day to keep it short as well.

    “I know artists who hire Rascal Flatts musicians to play on their SG records” Oh my goodness!!! They are surely going to Hell and their music is a disgrace. I bet the person doing the artwork, photography, duplication, packaging, heck, the people working at the paper factory where the CD insert materials are made, I bet they are ALL Christians too. If not, that CD is not of God!!!

  98. nonSGfan wrote:

    Wrong, I am not wiling to fight to death over that one inch. I don’t think you can pinpoint a certain length as Long or Short, so I agree with you on that; what I’m saying is that if you give that one INCH, Guy Nimrod, exscuse me, Penrod, will take 2 feet. Think of all the people Guy Nimrod, I mean penrod, has ministered to…..thousands….perhaps millions………and then look at how many he HASN’T ministered to because he refused to cut his GIRLY hair. His reason for having girly har???

    “My wife liked it”. Glad that the wifey’s comments trumps Paul the Apostles.

  99. nonSGfan wrote:

    Apathetic, So I take it you don’t believe that there is an anointing for music? It’s just a talent thing?? You think the same hands that strum to the lyrics of…Ooo, Ooo, Ooo-come on,
    Still feels good-oh,oh,oh
    that old t-shirt you wear to bed
    Hangin’ off your shoulder by a thread
    The one you ripped off me when
    We first met
    Still feels good

    WAAAIIIIT it’s not about anointing, or dedication, or GOD, it’s about SALES, and money, and talent.

    Anybody who believes i’m going to change my beliefs, please raise your hand…..

  100. nonSGfan wrote:

    Also, God DID create man with short hair, and women with long hair. There HAD to be a distinction OTHER than penis and vagina.

    LOL

  101. BUICK wrote:

    NonGospel, it is not the length of the hair that makes a man manly. This video will show you (from the good old KJV) what makes a man manly:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDxcyqeRc-4

  102. music lover wrote:

    this blog has almost as many posts as the young harmony thing ha ha ha ha!!!! thats crazy…

  103. Leebob wrote:

    nonSGfan, The main people that get offended at the music or hair or whatever are Christians, not the non-Christians. The purpose of the scripture about our liberties is to not be a stumblingblock to the lost and a stumbling to the weaker Christian. Interestingly, the loudest people screaming are usually those who should be the most mature in the Lord. There are probably far more that Guy has ministered to as opposed to not ministered to, but then again, I don’t know and neither do you. At least his message is accurate. This is where I use Paul’s Philippians chapter one that “whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being preached.

    The reasoning that you use presumes that SG cannot possibly minister to Church of Christ parishioners because most of it includes music. Therefore we must reach everybody so let’s do everything accapella. That is showing the absurd by being absurd.

    It is not possible to reach everybody and that is why God uses all types of people, even you nonSGfan, to reach people. This is what I choose to accept rather than a cookie cutter Christian approach.

  104. BUICK wrote:

    And LeeStinkingBob, I blame you for this. I was minding my own business, happily reading other comments on other threads having put this TOTALLY distasteful sequence of blasphemy, drivel and innuendo behind me and YOU, on the “Open Thread”, invited all of us back into this cesspool of self-righteous, phariseeical legalistic nonsense.

    If NonGospel wants to go back to a religion of externals, acts of righteousness and salvation by works (and haircuts), let him go. Arguing with him is like wrestling with a pig in the mud: before long, you realize the pig enjoys it. If he thinks the Nazarites were a tribe, let him think it. It won’t do him any harm and it won’t do the Kingdom much harm.

    (BTW - I don’t have to worry about long hair any more…I don’t have to worry about any hair any more. I do try to keep my nose-hair and ear-hair short but I try not to be legalistic about it.)

  105. BUICK wrote:

    #99 - I raised my hand. I believe God can still change a hardened heart.

    (Hey, if hair is long but REALLY curly so it doesn’t touch the ears or collar, like an afro, does that count as long?)

  106. apathetic wrote:

    SG Fan, I believe that if you had no idea that it was “Rascall Flatt’s” musicians that played on a CD you would be none the wiser. Every musician in Nashville that is playing on Southern Gospel CD’s has played on secular music CD’s as well. If you own a car lot do you only sell cars to Christians? If you own a barber shop (which you should with all of your emphasis on short hair and outward appearance) would you only cut the hair of Christians? I don’t think so.

    As I said earlier, with your mentality, why stop at the musicians? How about the guy who did the artwork? Took the pictures? Did the mixing, mastering???? Made the plastic that the CD’s are enclosed in?

    You are going to be mighty lonely in your little corner of Heaven.

  107. Leebob wrote:

    BUICK, I only invited you. Your curiosity got the best of you adn you couldn”t resist.

    Sincerely,

    Leestinkingbob

  108. Leestinkingbob wrote:

    Kind of like “every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust…”

  109. BUICK wrote:

    LeeStinkingBob, you are, of course, correct. I just thought maybe I could blame someone else for the ulcer this is going to give me.

    (I’ve never met you, LSB, but I’ve grown to love you in the Lord through what you’ve written here and elsewhere on this site. I appreciate your heart and your soul…and your way with words. Now don’t no one go and try to make somethin’ dirty out of that!)

  110. cdguy wrote:

    Doug, Doug, Doug, Doug, Doug!!!

    Please deliver these folks from their folly!!!

  111. Not Beavis wrote:

    I don’t want to get a legalistic about it, but all of you are using “letters” that are commonly used to spell curse words. In the future, please refrain from using the letters G,D,S,M,O,E,C, … well, you get the picture.

  112. freddyfastbeat wrote:

    I have come to the conclusion that we ALL need to agree to disagree, and stick to our own convictions on this topic and not worry about someone else’s opinion. God knows the heart and thats what matters. Some people need to quit judging others by appearence and leave the judging up to The Lord. It is His place to judge, not ours.

  113. Leebob wrote:

    freddyfastbeat, just when things were lightening up around here. nonSGfan will be here shortly to correct you my friend. BTW - I agree with you.

    Buick, I’ll take the buck as you pass it on to me. Won’t be the first time I have been accused of giving someone an ulcer. I think I am going to blame and sue Dell for this computer ruining my eyesight.

    Thanks for the kind comment.

    Not Beavis… too funny!

  114. matt wrote:

    I was hoping for someone to shed some light on the comment Doug originally started this discussion with. No one has, as far as I could tell.

    Some of these comments have made for very interesting reading. Most of them make me glad I’m a Mennonite. :-)

  115. NonSGfan wrote:

    Buick, you don’t read well. I never said external acts of righteousness SAVE you. Nothing saves you other than faith in the blood of Jesus. If a man has short hair, never curses, always prays, gives to the poor, but NEVER repents and believes, he’s not saved. BUT however, I believe that IF you’re saved, fruits of righteousness should begin to grow from that seed that is deeply planted. ALSO buick, The term “Tribe” in hebrew means “Group, clan, or a people led by a chief”. THAT was the reason for that terminology. Not “Tribe” in the sense of Indians, but group. Apathetic, just because it is done in the music industry doesn’t mean it is RIGHT.
    I DONT THINK people are going to hell for not believing the way I do. I HAVE NOT ONCE said people are going to hell for these things. My argument is that the CHURCH is BETTER OFF being DIFFERENT than the world than LIKE the world. We had POWER, annointing, authority, influence, and PRESTIGE when we held these standards that you people don’t know about because of spiritual corruption. Study how women and men used to look and dress and act and talk in the early days. THEY WERE IN STYLE,(meaning they looked presentable and not dirty) but also in modesty-and decency. My grandma ALWAYS dressed great, but never PROVOKED lust through sensual clothing. Look up Billy Sunday, Ray H. Hughes, Phoebe Palmer, people that changed the world, they ALL held STRONG convictions. I could tell amazing stories of God’s marvelous power that i’ve seen in our church, that I HAVE NOT seen as I travel and preach in the charismatic and most pentecostal churches today. we’ve lost the closeness, depth, and richness of godliness in our lives.
    Freddyfastbeat
    1 Corinthians 2:15. Read it.

  116. NonSGfan wrote:

    CDGUY Doug doesn’t want any of this. I’m still surface level

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked * Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

*

*