View Full Version : hey guys.... if you dont belive, ur gonna go to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
mastahboi
2004-06-19, 07:25
I cant see why people dont just believe?
all these christians are here, proving evoluction is wrong, why dont you just acept it and give ur life to christ?
its better then hell isnt it? if you dont listen to me, you wuill realy regrett it later on....
---Beany---
2004-06-19, 07:53
I'm not saying I know it all, but I know enough to know that you don't what your talking about.
What about the other religeons who also accept christ and god?
mastahboi
2004-06-19, 08:06
quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:
I'm not saying I know it all, but I know enough to know that you don't what your talking about.
What about the other religeons who also accept christ and god?
wat non christian religon excepts jesus as teh son of god who died for out sins?
Blow5hitUp
2004-06-19, 08:42
Fine, send me to hell than.
Phrensied Rabbits
2004-06-19, 13:40
'Believing' something for the sole purpose of not going to hell has got to be the shiziest cause for mass conversion in the history of missionary-ism
icantthinkofaname
2004-06-19, 15:49
quote:
hey guys.... if you dont belive, ur gonna go to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh well...
After reading up on a little bit of quantum physics I think that there is a god. However, I just don't believe anyone who tries to explain something that everyone just has ideas about. If I'm going to hell for questioning what you and others say of God, fine.
truckfixr
2004-06-19, 17:40
quote:Originally posted by mastahboi:
I cant see why people dont just believe?
all these christians are here, proving evoluction is wrong, why dont you just acept it and give ur life to christ?
its better then hell isnt it? if you dont listen to me, you wuill realy regrett it later on....
The only thing Christians have been able to prove , is that they are gullible enough to believe the misrepresentations of fact, half-truths, and outright lies presented by the Creation Scientists.
The greatest majority of people,Christian and non-Christian alike , don't even know what evolution actually is or how it really works. The Creationists use this lack of knowledge to their advantage .
You cannot prove that God exists.Therefor you cannot prove the validity of the bible (including heaven and hell) or any other religious text.Your faith is based on HOPE.
I cannot prove that God does not exist.I can however, prove that the bible(and all other religious texts)were written by men. Without proof of the existance of God,I cannot accept devine inspiration as the source of these texts.
I don't lose any sleep over the possibility of ending up in a hell that I don't believe exists.
"I cant see why people dont just believe?
all these christians are here, proving evoluction is wrong, why dont you just acept it and give ur life to christ?
its better then hell isnt it? if you dont listen to me, you wuill realy regrett it later on...."
People don't believe because of dipshit christians like yourself.^_- People can't just snap their fingers and suddenly believe in something. And evolution isn't "wrong". I believe that God created this and all other worlds, but to believe that no species on earth, including man, hasn't evolved since the Creation is pure idioticy.No one is going to serve the Lord because of your weak argument especially when it is combined with extremely loose spelling/punctuation.
He must be right!!!!! Look at all the!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!'s
!!!!!!!!!!!&11 (http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html)
Asheville
2004-06-19, 23:03
This thread is being hjacked!!! Bend OVER!
History of Jazz and Classical Music
Upon entering a modern record store, one is confronted with a
wide variety of choices in recorded music. These choices not only
include a multitude of artists, but also a wide diversity of music
categories. These categories run the gamut from easy listening dance
music to more complex art music. On the complex side of the scale are
the categories known as Jazz and Classical music. Some of the most
accomplished musicians of our time have devoted themselves to a
lifelong study of Jazz or Classical music, and a few exceptional
musicians have actually mastered both. A comparison of classical and
Jazz music will yield some interesting results and could also lead to
an appreciation of the abilities needed to perform or compose these
kinds of music.
Let's begin with a look at the histories of the two. The music
called classical, found in stores and performed regularly by
symphonies around the world, spans a length of time from 1600 up to
the present. This time frame includes the Renaissance, Baroque,
Classical, Romantic and Contemporary periods. The classical period of
music actually spans a time from of 1750 to 1800; thus, the term
Classical is a misnomer and could more correctly be changed to Western
Art Music or European Art Music. European because most of the major
composers up till the 20th century were European. Vivaldi was Italian,
Bach was German, Mozart and Beethoven were Austrian; they are some of
the more prominent composers. Not until the twentieth century with
Gershwin and a few others do we find American composers writing this
kind of art music. For the sake of convention, we can refer to Western
Art Music as Classical music.
Jazz is a distinctively American form of music, and it's history
occupies a much smaller span of time. Its origins are found in the
early 1900s as some dance band leaders in the southern U.S. began
playing music that combined ragtime and blues. Early exponents of this
dance music were Jelly Roll Martin (a blues player) and Scott Joplin
(ragtime). The terms "Jazz" and "Jazz Band" first surfaced in the year
1900. Some say this occurred in New Orleans, although similar music
was played at the same time in other places. The most prominent
exponents of this early music, called Dixieland Jazz, included Louis
Armstrong and Sidney Bechet. After World War I, Jazz music had evolved
and was aided by the development of the recording industry. The
small dance band ensemble grew into the larger orchestra known as the
"Big Band". The music of the Big Bands became known as "Swing." Two of
the more famous Swing band leaders were Tommy Dorsey and Harry James.
In the late 40s and through the 50s, a different kind of Jazz became
popular. This music, played by a very small ensemble, was much more
sophisticated and complex . Its rich harmonic changes and melodic
counterpoint were not conducive to dance. It became known as "Bop,"
with Charlie Parker and Dizzie Gillespie being the early proponents.
In the last twenty years there has been a combination of Jazz with
popular music of the US and Latin America. This modern Jazz music has
been called "Fusion." Present day exponents include Pat Metheny and
Chic Corea. There has also been a return to the sound of Bop in the
last ten years by such musicians as trumpeter Winton Marsalis and his
brother Branford, a saxophonist.
Let's focus on the instrumentation of the two kinds of music. In
Classical music, both large orchestras and small ensembles are used.
But generally, the greatest and most prominent compositions are for
the larger symphony orchestra. The largest part of the orchestra is
the string section consisting of violins, violas, cellos and string
basses. These instruments were invented very early in medieval times
but really matured into their present form during the late 18th
century. The wind instruments, comprised of brass and woodwinds, took
longer to mature. The brass section in particular did not posses the
ability to play chromatically (in all keys) until the advent of valves
which allowed the length of the instrument to be changed while
playing. This occurred around the middle to late 19th century.
Consequently, the brass instruments are less prominent in the music of
Bach, Mozart and Beethoven along with their contemporaries. Late 19th
and early 20th century composers make use of a very large orchestra
with all the fully developed wind instruments. Some of the master
orchestrator/composers of this time were: Wagner, Rimskey-Korsakov,
Ravel and Stravinsky. Currently, composers also make use of the full
orchestra but with the addition of increasingly larger percussion
sections which add many unique and unheard of sounds than in earlier
music.
Early Jazz music was played in small ensembles making use of
clarinet, tuba, cornet, baritone, drums, and piano. Dixieland groups
of New Orleans had similar instrumentation. During the Swing era,
larger groups were employed to achieve more of an orchestral sound.
The Big Bands of the this era were predominantly wind orchestras
containing alto and tenor sax sections, trumpet and trombone sections,
along with piano and drums. When Bop music arrived, the alto saxophone
and trumpet were the preferred instruments of the major soloists who
were backed up by piano, string bass and drums. With the advent of
Fusion, electric instruments such as the electric guitar and keyboard
synthesizer became prominent.
How has each of these kinds of music been transmitted to later
generations of musicians? Early in the evolution of classical music, a
system of notation was gradually developed which for the most part
remained stable from the Renaissance on. This gave the composer
control over how his compositions were to be played. Throughout the
history of Jazz, however, notation was more like a rough sketch. This
was because the syncopated rhythms of ragtime and the melodic riffs of
the blues were not easily notated. Also, early Jazz musicians were not
formally trained; they usually learned by ear. Some songs were
transcribed and written down, but not in precise ways. Jazz music
became more of a passed on tradition that a musician learned through
interaction with other players. In a similar way, the modern Jazz
musician must rely on previous recordings to get a feel for the
style and technique which he desires to learn from. But in classical
music, one composer can learn from an older composer by looking at and
analyzing the music that the previous composer wrote down. Likewise,
classical musicians can master the parts they must play by practicing
the music that has been written or published beforehand. These two
approaches to passing on tradition are both valid. However, without
the recording medium Jazz music might have developed much differently
than it has.
The cohesive element that keeps a musical group together is also
an interesting contrast. In Classical music, the conductor uses a
baton and plays the orchestra as if it were his instrument; he looks
at a complete score of all the events happening in the composition and
interprets these events based on his knowledge and intuition of what
the composer intended. Jazz groups rarely utilize conductors. The
swing era employed them for the sake of keeping the larger sized group
together but other jazz styles did not and do not to this day. The
drummer of the Jazz ensemble provides the beat that keeps the group
together but even he is interacting with the other soloists as the
song is performed.
Perhaps the most interesting point of comparison between the two
types of music is in improvisation. Improvisation is the ability to
play and compose spontaneously "on the spot" while the music is
playing. This has been an important element of Jazz from it's
inception. Although improvisation was less prominent during the swing
era, it regained importance with Bop and onward. Early Jazz was
improvised, using ragtime and blues as a loose structure. In the swing
era, popular songs were arranged by an arranger and soloists played
improvisations over the repeating sections in order to lengthen the
song for dancing. With the advent of Bop, improvisation assumed great
importance. The musicians memorized the chord changes to a song, along
with the melody, but then played very loosely and in the end
substituted new chords along with greatly embellishing the original
melody to the point of being unrecognizable. These factors, along with
the ability to interact with each other, became important and remains
so in the Fusion music of today.
In Classical music, modern listeners are mostly unaware of the
fact that many of the great composers of the past were not only
excellent performers but also great improvisers. Starting with J.S.
Bach (1685-1750), the greatest composer of the Baroque era, he in fact
made his living through his great skill as an improvisor. It was
common for the Lutheran Church organist of his day be able to
improvise on choral melodies and Bach was considered one of the
greatest at this. There are written accounts of other composers
improvisational abilities including Mozart (1756-1791), Beethoven
(1770-1829), and Franz Liszt (1811-1886). Yet, as time went on,
improvising gave way to the composer's desire to exert complete
control over his music. By the late 19th century, improvising was rare
and not used at all in public performances of classical music.
In summation, we can say that Jazz and Classical music represent
two approaches to Art Music. The Classical composer or performer has a
long and rich body of music in written form that he uses to learn from
while the Jazz musician uses a body of recorded music to learn.
Because of it's small size, the modern Jazz ensemble allows loose
interaction while the symphony orchestra's large size and diversity of
instruments provides many different sounds and wide dynamic range. In
classical music the composer strives for control; he uses printed
music to guide and direct the musicians through the conductor. In Jazz
music, the songs are loosely composed, thus forming a basis for
individual expression within an ensemble. When you go to hear a
symphony, you hear an orchestra conducted by the conductor playing a
composition. When you go to a Jazz club you hear a small jazz ensemble
interacting and improvising a song. Both of these kinds of music
provide rich expression and detail to the serious listener. They take
different paths to reach their final form but give a person equal
opportunities to appreciate the creative output of each.
truckfixr
2004-06-19, 23:18
quote:Originally posted by Asheville:
This thread is being hjacked!!! Bend OVER!
History of Jazz and Classical Music
Upon entering a modern record store, one is confronted with a ...
...provide rich expression and detail to the serious listener. They take
different paths to reach their final form but give a person equal
opportunities to appreciate the creative output of each.
Your post is more interesting than the original subject.
Better to reign in hell then serve in heaven... Fuck you...
quote:Originally posted by mastahboi:
I cant see why people dont just believe?
all these christians are here, proving evoluction is wrong, why dont you just acept it and give ur life to christ?
its better then hell isnt it? if you dont listen to me, you wuill realy regrett it later on....
I'm Christian, and all i have to say is that your wrong. Why should people believe in something when they don't want to??
quote:Originally posted by mastahboi:
wat non christian religon excepts jesus as teh son of god who died for out sins?
Damn it I know there is one they have like a million damn gods and jesus is one of them I dont rember the name but because of their philosophy they had no problem accepting jesus along with all the other gods
mastahboi
2004-06-20, 07:42
well, this website, http://www.youthinchrist.da.ru
should explain things for you.
---Beany---
2004-06-20, 11:24
quote:Originally posted by mastahboi:
wat non christian religon excepts jesus as teh son of god who died for out sins?
Many Indian religeons accept that various incarnations of God appeared on Earth, such as Jesus, Buddha, Krishna as a means of showing us the way back to god.
You're right, Jesus is the way, but not the only way. Just one of the quicker ways. And you don't go to heaven simply by believing in him. Your spiritual growth is faster if you follow his examples and understand his teachings.
[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 06-20-2004).]
Keltoiberserker
2004-06-20, 12:25
He never said he was the way, and he never called himself god.
Keltoiberserker
2004-06-20, 12:26
quote:Originally posted by mastahboi:
I cant see why people dont just believe?
all these christians are here, proving evoluction is wrong, why dont you just acept it and give ur life to christ?
its better then hell isnt it? if you dont listen to me, you wuill realy regrett it later on....
Now, you'll go to Hell. Hurry up and bag my groceries.
CukieMunster
2004-06-20, 17:10
How could I go to places that don't exist?
Have you ever considered the fact that non-believers also don't believe they are going to hell?
Judging by your grammar, spelling, and username, I'm gonna go ahead and place your age at somewhere around 12-14. While its real nice of you to try save me from certain damnation, I would much rather take spiratual advice from somewhere slightly older and whos been living with their faith and developing it for years, not some stupid little "saved" 13 year old whos been brainwashed by his parents since he could talk. Fuck off, you stupid little shit.
Keltoiberserker
2004-06-21, 08:21
I'm assuming he's a Ruskie.
Aphelion Corona
2004-06-21, 21:48
quote:Originally posted by CukieMunster:
How could I go to places that don't exist?
Shrooms?
soafdrummer
2004-06-21, 22:04
quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:
Shrooms?
hahaha, classic
Lycentross
2004-06-21, 22:06
mastahboi if your an example of the type of people going to heaven please send me to hell!!!!!!!!!!(there my post is now as urgent as yours)
i won't listen to someone with the username "mastahboi"
40ozTOfreedom
2004-06-21, 22:21
quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:
The only thing Christians have been able to prove , is that they are gullible enough to believe the misrepresentations of fact, half-truths, and outright lies presented by the Creation Scientists.
The greatest majority of people,Christian and non-Christian alike , don't even know what evolution actually is or how it really works. The Creationists use this lack of knowledge to their advantage .
You cannot prove that God exists.Therefor you cannot prove the validity of the bible (including heaven and hell) or any other religious text.Your faith is based on HOPE.
I cannot prove that God does not exist.I can however, prove that the bible(and all other religious texts)were written by men. Without proof of the existance of God,I cannot accept devine inspiration as the source of these texts.
I don't lose any sleep over the possibility of ending up in a hell that I don't believe exists.
well you saved me some time on typing. furthermore, i would like to say: i believe that religion was just made as a crude form of law, that would make people stay in line.
LostCause
2004-06-23, 00:24
This has gone on long enough.
Cheers,
Lost