Neil Peart News Updated

[ucsteve667]

"Astrology/astronomy is one thing, and it's not a very good example. Do you really think that science could prove how time began? How would they go about doing this? Can they even explain our perception of time? Does it move faster for some people than for others? Does it move faster for some species than others?"

 

wow....astrology has no science whatsoever to back it up so ts completely irrelevant here...Maybe you should try reading or listening to some current astrophysics and stuff and see that they are figuring a lot of this stuff out gradually. Space, Time and gravity being intrinsically linked, time moves differently depending on a number of factors Im not going to go into here. but yer remarks remind me a lot of the mindset that must have said hundreds of years ago "You cant sail that far, you'll fall off the edge of the world!"

Edited January 19, 2012 by ucsteve667

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Jan 19 2012, 01:14 AM)

That said, rushgoober, I have disagreed with alot of your opinions, but I appreciate your answer.  As I do everyone else's.  The thing I don't agree with is your answer makes it sound grey.  Like, if you can sleep at night...it's ok.  But last time I checked the Bible isn't very grey.  You either do certain things or you don't.  You said: QUOTE What's ultimately most important is to love and accept yourself and to do your very best not to judge yourself. Loving Rush doesn't mean you're going to hell. You can love the parts you love, disagree with the parts you disagree with and have that be ok inside of yourself if you choose to. That part is up to you though. If you really search your soul and decide that you can't do that because it contradicts some core belief you have and you need to let them go, then do that if that's what you need to be at peace with yourself, to love and accept yourself and not judge yourself. I would personally suggest not to be so hard on yourself. Know you're a good person doing the best you can with who you are right now and what you know.   From what I read in that paragraph is that for some it would be ok to listen to RUSH and God would be fine with it, if you can sleep at night. But for someone else who is conflicted, then to listen would be wrong and God would not be fine with it. The way I feel now is, I am a little conflicted, but I don't care. I enjoy RUSH and if that is wrong, then so be it. In your paragraph above it sounds like a double standard. One thing I thought about God is that He would not have double standards. But again, that could just be my hangup. You could be 100% correct. I have no idea. But I sincerely appreciate your answer. To love the music of a band, even if sometimes they veer into territory you disagree with doesn't seem particularly sinful to me or anything. I personally think God would be fine with it regardless of whether you're conflicted about it or not, but that's just my personal opinion. Then again, I don't believe in God as a judgmental God anyway, but one of love and compassion. If you're going to endeavor to be non-judgmental, then definitely do your best to not judge yourself, as you're ultimately the most important person in your life and the one you have to live with. That doesn't mean I think it's alright to go kill someone if you feel like it and it's ok as long as you don't judge yourself for it. You have to use your own moral compass to steer by (very peart-inent to use your clever pun ).   You speak of a double standard, but I'm saying to search your soul and determine what's right FOR YOU. I respect whatever decision you would come up with if it works for you. However, I could make a decision based on my morals and beliefs, and another person could make the complete opposite decision based on theirs. Is one wrong and one right? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Perhaps it's just people living their lives by the guidelines that make sense for them and they're both just fine. You could say, yes, but my belief structure specifies black and white, not shades of grey. I would argue that in many circumstances there is a lot of room for interpretation. For example, does your belief structure really specifically comment on whether you can still love and enjoy art by someone who doesn't share your beliefs? Maybe you could find examples that would say it's fine, and maybe you could also find examples that would say it's not fine. Maybe it really is open to interpretation.   In the end, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else says, you have to interpret that yourself and make the determination whether or not it's ok with you to be a fan or not. You say you're a little conflicted, but you don't care. Well, obviously you care at least some or you wouldn't bring it up. I'm just saying that maybe with a small shift of attitude and perspective (not changing your beliefs), maybe there's a way you can be more at peace with the situation and yourself, to let yourself off the hook some.

[ucsteve667]

[hunter]

QUOTE (New World Kid @ Jan 18 2012, 08:14 PM)

QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 07:12 PM) I disagree. Biological evolution cannot be directly observed. It's mechanisms can, but we can only indirectly observe it through the fossil record. Natural selection is fact. Speciation is still theory. A good one with loads of evidence as you say, but still theory and not directly observable. I'd like to see one instance of biological evolution (speciation) being directly observed. Ever had a cold one week, gotten over it, then caught it again?   That's proof of evolution. The cold virus that infected you evolved into something else, something new that your body wasn't familiar with fighting. Sure. But it is just a different strain of virus it has not evolved into something else. Just as a great dane is a different breed of dog than a chihuahua. They're look and may even behave quite differently but they're still both dogs. Not speciation.

[ucsteve667]

QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 19 2012, 10:04 AM)

QUOTE (New World Kid @ Jan 18 2012, 08:14 PM) QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 07:12 PM) I disagree. Biological evolution cannot be directly observed. It's mechanisms can, but we can only indirectly observe it through the fossil record. Natural selection is fact. Speciation is still theory. A good one with loads of evidence as you say, but still theory and not directly observable. I'd like to see one instance of biological evolution (speciation) being directly observed. Ever had a cold one week, gotten over it, then caught it again?   That's proof of evolution. The cold virus that infected you evolved into something else, something new that your body wasn't familiar with fighting. Sure. But it is just a different strain of virus it has not evolved into something else. Just as a great dane is a different breed of dog than a chihuahua. They're look and may even behave quite differently but they're still both dogs. Not speciation. "thats the thing about science, its true whether you believe it or not..."

[hunter]

QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 18 2012, 08:22 PM)

QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 11:04 PM) QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 18 2012, 07:59 PM) QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 08:12 PM) I disagree. Biological evolution cannot be directly observed. It's mechanisms can, but we can only indirectly observe it through the fossil record. Natural selection is fact. Speciation is still theory. A good one with loads of evidence as you say, but still theory and not directly observable. I'd like to see one instance of biological evolution (speciation) being directly observed. heres one of many... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/201...-off-australia/ Nope. Still a shark. And if this hybrid can actually produce offspring it shows that what scientists have classified as separate and distinct species are in fact not. The bacteria is closer but it is still bacteria. weak... its just more proof that life evolves over time to adapt to its surrounding conditions. for all we know now in another 250 million years they might grow lungs and become amphibious So now you think the actual science you're espousing is a weak argument? It's not weak. It's actual biology. Science. Hybrids are most often infertile so likely doomed to extinction. Just look at mules. Maybe these "new" sharks aren't infertile. Maybe we will end up with a new type of shark. But it is still a shark. Not evolved.   Just to be clear I believe in evolution. My degree is in it. I just said it's not directly observable. It's based on inference from observed evidence. Still to me a matter of some faith since I've never seen it happen. No one has. I've seen cat fish and octopi "walk" quite a way across open ground. Very compelling. But they're still just catfish and octopi. I also believe in God. Some say the two are mutually exclusive, but based on observable evidence and experience in my life I have faith. Both beliefs reasonable conclusions based on evidence observed by me. Am I going to tell you what you should believe or try to convince you of God's existence? Nope. I wouldn't begin to argue that as those are personal experiences specific to me, and you wouldn't begin to accept it as evidentiary. And I wouldn't expect you too. I would, however, expect you to accept known scientific principles such as the hybrid case above if you're going to use science as the basis for your stance on the matter.   We all know nobody is going to change anybody's mind on these issues. Especially in a Rock Band Forum. Hmm. You think these kinds of discussions go on in Britteny Spears forums?   Neil has sparked conversation and lively debate. And isn't that what art is suppose to do?   Cheers.

[hunter]

QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 19 2012, 07:14 AM)

QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 19 2012, 10:04 AM) QUOTE (New World Kid @ Jan 18 2012, 08:14 PM) QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 07:12 PM) I disagree. Biological evolution cannot be directly observed. It's mechanisms can, but we can only indirectly observe it through the fossil record. Natural selection is fact. Speciation is still theory. A good one with loads of evidence as you say, but still theory and not directly observable. I'd like to see one instance of biological evolution (speciation) being directly observed. Ever had a cold one week, gotten over it, then caught it again?   That's proof of evolution. The cold virus that infected you evolved into something else, something new that your body wasn't familiar with fighting. Sure. But it is just a different strain of virus it has not evolved into something else. Just as a great dane is a different breed of dog than a chihuahua. They're look and may even behave quite differently but they're still both dogs. Not speciation. "thats the thing about science, its true whether you believe it or not..." Right up until another scientist comes along and says," Oh that. Well about that. We had that all wrong."

Edited January 19, 2012 by hunter

[ucsteve667]

QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 19 2012, 10:31 AM)

QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 18 2012, 08:22 PM) QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 11:04 PM) QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 18 2012, 07:59 PM) QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 08:12 PM) I disagree. Biological evolution cannot be directly observed. It's mechanisms can, but we can only indirectly observe it through the fossil record. Natural selection is fact. Speciation is still theory. A good one with loads of evidence as you say, but still theory and not directly observable. I'd like to see one instance of biological evolution (speciation) being directly observed. heres one of many... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/201...-off-australia/ Nope. Still a shark. And if this hybrid can actually produce offspring it shows that what scientists have classified as separate and distinct species are in fact not. The bacteria is closer but it is still bacteria. weak... its just more proof that life evolves over time to adapt to its surrounding conditions. for all we know now in another 250 million years they might grow lungs and become amphibious So now you think the actual science you're espousing is a weak argument? It's not weak. It's actual biology. Science. Hybrids are most often infertile so likely doomed to extinction. Just look at mules. Maybe these "new" sharks aren't infertile. Maybe we will end up with a new type of shark. But it is still a shark. Not evolved.   Just to be clear I believe in evolution. My degree is in it. I just said it's not directly observable. It's based on inference from observed evidence. Still to me a matter of some faith since I've never seen it happen. No one has. I've seen cat fish and octopi "walk" quite a way across open ground. Very compelling. But they're still just catfish and octopi. I also believe in God. Some say the two are mutually exclusive, but based on observable evidence and experience in my life I have faith. Both beliefs reasonable conclusions based on evidence observed by me. Am I going to tell you what you should believe or try to convince you of God's existence? Nope. I wouldn't begin to argue that as those are personal experiences specific to me, and you wouldn't begin to accept it as evidentiary. And I wouldn't expect you too. I would, however, expect you to accept known scientific principles such as the hybrid case above if you're going to use science as the basis for your stance on the matter.   We all know nobody is going to change anybody's mind on these issues. Especially in a Rock Band Forum. Hmm. You think these kinds of discussions go on in Britteny Spears forums?   Neil has sparked conversation and lively debate. And isn't that what art is suppose to do?   Cheers. Fair enough, I guess it remains to be seen if they can propagate further, but I think the probability is good. but since these things do take more time than my lifespan allows I do have to go on tested and proven evidence, sadly I wont be here for the first amphibipous sharks 300+ million years from now.   and I whole heartedly agree, snarkyness aside that we would not have such lively debate on Beyonce's msg brds.... carpe diem!

[Running Rebel]

QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 18 2012, 10:57 PM)

QUOTE (Running Rebel @ Jan 18 2012, 03:10 PM) I want to bring this back up to those that are saying somehow that the recent topic is new or boring. Obviously, you can find anything boring, (wysiati), I mean drum solos can be boring to some, eh? So, not everything is going to excite everyone, but Neil has been consistent throughout Rush's history with approaching these topics, and well, they are insteresting, informative, and well, fun. QUOTE Philosophy and religon are inherantly intertwined. Religion survives because it answers three questions that every reflective person must ask. Who am I? Why am I here? How then shall I live? These are themes that has set Rush apart from much of the mindless drivel of modern music's lyrics.   In 1973, before he was famous Stephen Hawking said, "The answer to the question 'why is the universe [the way it is]?' is 'because we are here.'" This was the era, or start of the concept of the anthropic priniciple and the further study of Newton's "curves and lines of "Grand Designs". And Neil was obviously a fan.   QUOTE Proponents of the anthropic principle suggest that we live in a fine-tuned universe, i.e. a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" to allow the existence of life as we know it. If any of the basic physical constants were different, then life as we know it would not be possible.   And Hawking's Weak Anthropic Principle, and what he reiterated recently on his 70th birthday,   QUOTE 'It is no surprise that we observe the physical constants to be finely-tuned. If they weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe them.'   Why are we here? Because we're here Roll the bones Why does it happen? Because it happens Roll the bones   In the old days, (for me), we called all this stuff, "trippy", but what good stoner hasn't thought of these things and said, "whooooahhhh!" I mean if Cygnus didn't get you interested in Black Holes surely you can at least appreciate how intersting cosmology could be,   In a uniform expanding universe, every observer sees herself at the center of the expansion, with everything else moving outwards from her.   You move around The small gets big. It's a rig It's action - reaction - Random interaction. So who's afraid Of a little abstraction?   As someone who was known to stay home pouring through Ayn Rand novels or The History of Philosophy, someone who was ever more questioning of things, Neil became a huge inspiration or beacon to search for answers, (if only because I felt I wasn't alone in this).   I mean, are we in fact our own Prime Movers?   I set the wheels in motion turn up all the machines activate the programs and run behind the scene   To ponder that you have to at least view the world of Natural Science, the   Wheels within wheels In a spiral array A pattern so grand And complex     And yet,   Time after time We lose sight of the way Our causes can't see Their effects.   And though, Freewill made me familiar with Pascal's wager, it also gave me one of my favorite concepts and views in my search for life's answers,   Each of us A cell of awareness Imperfect and incomplete Genetic blends With uncertain ends On a fortune hunt That's far too fleet... Brilliant attempt at trying to reel this thread back into a lyrical context...too bad its just a minor speed bump on the road to a wonderful distracting debate on evolution. Im sure the professor would smile at these exchanges... so totally hooked lately on the cosmos and wheels within wheels in a spiral array... btw Thanks. I was busy yesterday and adding things on and off and probably should have edited it to make it a little more coherent. I think it was you (without looking) that posted Dr. Tyson's video, and I want to mention what a huge fan I am of his as well. I hear he is remaking Sagan's Cosmos as a TV mini-series documentary which will likely be the standard and most influential thing done in ages.   I read new things and then see something new in the lyrics all the time and it's something I love about Rush.   We discuss/argue banter about things like evolution in SOCN and I was trying to keep with the mods wishes and keep it more about "the value" of Rush and Neil's athiestic viewpoints and dispel or discuss what I see as myths, missrepresentations, or our own viewpoints on that part of it. What I think happens is that many who percieve, or well are religous tend to see the topic (athiesm) with loss aversion. That is people want to protect their views, (sometimes fiercely), and view the concept of athiesm as an attack of sorts against them. No one wants to lose something they already have, even if it's a belief. I suppose this is natural. No one likes to be told their beliefs are wrong on either side. Loss aversion can blind us to looking openly at opposing viewpoints though. Not listening to Rush is like not watching Moneyball because Brad Pitt is an athiest. It's just kinda dumb. imho   I think we all need to be open and willing to listen. Probably because athiests are inundated with Christianity throughout our lives, and see or hear it constantly in radio, TV etc., we are a little more immune to seeing it. It doesn't bother me to someone make a reference to God. I don't get mad at church signs or billboards. I don't think about whether the actors or artists are athiest or Christian or Jewish or Muslim.   I am simply trying to point out that Neil's views aren't attacks against your values most likely. We all mostly share the same values and have the same goals. Moderate Christians most likely have more in common with Athiests than they do religous extremists.   We simply want the right to have non-belief as much as you want the right to keep it. We do this by keeping it out of government and respecting separation of church of state.   So aside from Neil being an athiest, is there a particular view or value that anyone dissagrees with? Is there a song or lyric that offends them and why? Is there something that inspires you? Can you learn something?   I say this, because I truly believe Neil is one of the best modern song writers and love to share and discuss his views, or the topics of the songs. I hate for someone to not give it a chance and miss out on the awesomnicity of Rush.   If you want to discuss athiestic or religous viewpoints I am always more than willing in SOCN. You know, like why you evolution is true because you share the same dna as a carrot.

[Running Rebel]

[Running Rebel]

[EveryNerveAware]

QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 19 2012, 11:33 AM)

Right up until another scientist comes along and says," Oh that. Well about that. We had that all wrong."

That's the great thing about science, it invites scrutiny and questioning which religious beliefs do not. We are willing to re-write scientific fact when the advancements in science reveal better information.

[Running Rebel]

QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 19 2012, 10:31 AM)

QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 18 2012, 08:22 PM) QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 11:04 PM) QUOTE (ucsteve667 @ Jan 18 2012, 07:59 PM) QUOTE (hunter @ Jan 18 2012, 08:12 PM) I disagree. Biological evolution cannot be directly observed. It's mechanisms can, but we can only indirectly observe it through the fossil record. Natural selection is fact. Speciation is still theory. A good one with loads of evidence as you say, but still theory and not directly observable. I'd like to see one instance of biological evolution (speciation) being directly observed. heres one of many... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/201...-off-australia/ Nope. Still a shark. And if this hybrid can actually produce offspring it shows that what scientists have classified as separate and distinct species are in fact not. The bacteria is closer but it is still bacteria. weak... its just more proof that life evolves over time to adapt to its surrounding conditions. for all we know now in another 250 million years they might grow lungs and become amphibious So now you think the actual science you're espousing is a weak argument? It's not weak. It's actual biology. Science. Hybrids are most often infertile so likely doomed to extinction. Just look at mules. Maybe these "new" sharks aren't infertile. Maybe we will end up with a new type of shark. But it is still a shark. Not evolved.   Just to be clear I believe in evolution. My degree is in it. I just said it's not directly observable. It's based on inference from observed evidence. Still to me a matter of some faith since I've never seen it happen. No one has. I've seen cat fish and octopi "walk" quite a way across open ground. Very compelling. But they're still just catfish and octopi. I also believe in God. Some say the two are mutually exclusive, but based on observable evidence and experience in my life I have faith. Both beliefs reasonable conclusions based on evidence observed by me. Am I going to tell you what you should believe or try to convince you of God's existence? Nope. I wouldn't begin to argue that as those are personal experiences specific to me, and you wouldn't begin to accept it as evidentiary. And I wouldn't expect you too. I would, however, expect you to accept known scientific principles such as the hybrid case above if you're going to use science as the basis for your stance on the matter.   We all know nobody is going to change anybody's mind on these issues. Especially in a Rock Band Forum. Hmm. You think these kinds of discussions go on in Britteny Spears forums?   Neil has sparked conversation and lively debate. And isn't that what art is suppose to do?   Cheers. This whole post is (sorry) somewhat nebulous. If you have a degree in biology than you should understand speciation and given the timescale involved you likely wouldn't be able to witness it.   The act of catching speciation in the act is nearly impossible, but to say that no one has ever observed speciation is just being willfully ignorant.   Another problem with the idea of speciation is that the term and idea of species is somewhat nebulous. A common definition of species is a population of organisms that can interbreed resulting in offspring that are also able to interbreed. This definition has a couple problems. What if only 1% of one population can interbreed with another population? Are those distinct species? What if two populations never mate in the wild due to completely different mating practices, but do mate when pressured to by isolation (e.g. in a lab). Are they different species?   The list of known speciation events is enormous and you can start with some of the popular ones inDarwin's finches, Apple maggot fruit fly, Madeira island house mice and hundreds of plant examples.   But, every known science from cosmology, biology, astronomy, geology, genetics, and so forth validates evolution. In every instance they corrobarate each other. Descent through modification is how things evolved and that is a fact. It is not in question.

[EveryNerveAware]

QUOTE (Running Rebel @ Jan 19 2012, 04:52 PM)

Descent through modification is how things evolved and that is a fact. It is not in question.

 

 

[Principled Man]

QUOTE (Running Rebel @ Jan 19 2012, 03:52 PM)

The act of catching speciation in the act is nearly impossible, but to say that no one has ever observed speciation is just being willfully ignorant.

 

It's the same with the age of the Earth, continental drift, erosion, and the age and size of the Universe. Some people just can't handle the intellectual task of thinking about the immense periods of time involved in natural processes. They want things to happen NOW, so they can see it and talk about it NOW.

 

It's really a childish mentality = I want it NOW! And if you can't show it to me NOW, then you're WRONG. It doesn't exist......

 

 

[Presto-a RUSH fan!]

rushgoober, ucsteve667 and others who responded to my questions, thanks. I really appreciate your honesty and your thoughtfulness.

 

As for me, I am conflicted. I won't argue that. But I seem to have no problem with Neil's lyrics. That statement kinda contradicts itself but that is me. My problem is with the complaining Christians who have such a problem with them. If you don't like them, don't support RUSH. Which is my original statement. I personally will like RUSH and listen regardless of my religious beliefs. And yes, even though I may feel a little conflicted about it. But the people who want him to move on and write something that they like, well they may need to move on. Because Neil is going to write what Neil feels in his heart.

 

That said, the name Clockwork Angels and the first 2 songs should answer any questions as to what this album will be about. If you have major problems with it or it interferes with your faith, don't buy it or listen to it. I obviously don't have "major" problems because I can't wait for it.

 

For me, I will remain the hypocrite I am. Inside me something tells me that listening to songs like Faithless and singing them and loving them is probably not what "God" would want from his followers. I guess if I am right I will have to take that up with Him on the day I die. If I am wrong, well then I will fade away into the universe.

 

I am just so sick of this argument about Neil. Especially from Christians. You can say you don't like it because it's boring or whatever but I bet if you are honest with yourself it's because you don't feel that way at your core. Of course I could be wrong.

 

Again, I will be using my freewill to listen and enjoy it regardless. I just wish those who are so against Neil's lyrics would just either go away or drop it.

 

It's called CLOCKWORK ANGELS AND THE FIRST 2 SONGS I THINK ANSWER ANY QUESTION AS TO WHAT IT WILL BE ABOUT. IT MAY BE A STORY, BUT THE STORY WILL MOST LIKELY BE BASED ON HIS DISDAIN FOR RELIGION.

 

GET OVER IT OR MOVE ON.

 

Or not. Keep posting the same arguments over and over and over and over.

 

I just can't wait until it comes out so we can talk about what we know rather than what we think we know.

[Running Rebel]

I'm getting off the evolution bandwagon after this post.

 

I have an interest in organic food and agriculture. One example of showing speciation happens frequently in the risks of overprescribing antibiotics: the more we (and farm animals) take antibiotics, the higher the chance that a microbe will mutate into one resistant to the drug.

 

This is in-your-face evolution, species mutating at the genetic level and adapting to a new environment (in this case, an environment contaminated with antibiotics). The proof of this can be easily achieved in the laboratory by comparing original strands of bacteria with those subjected to different doses of antibiotics.

 

It's simple and conclusive, since the changes in the genetic code of the resistant mutant can be identified and studied.

[Apollo]

QUOTE (eshine @ Jan 13 2012, 12:27 AM)

because we all know people of faith gently and quietly go about their business without ever throwing it in the face of non-believers.

A lot of people of faith do just that.

This is an interesting thread that I just discovered, and I would like to ask everyone who is telling the complaining Christians here to suck it up or deal with Neil's opinions how they would feel if Neil started writing songs that were pro-organized religion like people said Live started doing. You would probably be just as annoyed as the Christians are now.

The most disappointing thing about this controversy to me is that Rush always used to symbolize universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along, like the beautiful final part of Hemispheres says. I have always found Rush's music to be positive and thought-provoking but that no longer seems to be the case. With S&A and apparently Clockwork Angels he has turned very negative and is obviously provoking Christians with juvenile cracks like "sky god" in his blog. He is now as obnoxiously strident in his crusade against religion as he accuses religious zealots of being. He has become a zealot himself and it is hard to believe he ever wrote beautiful words about balance.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Apollo

[Running Rebel]

QUOTE (Apollo @ Jan 19 2012, 05:21 PM)

QUOTE (eshine @ Jan 13 2012, 12:27 AM) because we all know people of faith gently and quietly go about their business without ever throwing it in the face of non-believers. A lot of people of faith do just that. This is an interesting thread that I just discovered, and I would like to ask everyone who is telling the complaining Christians here to suck it up or deal with Neil's opinions how they would feel if Neil started writing songs that were pro-organized religion like people said Live started doing. You would probably be just as annoyed as the Christians are now. The most disappointing thing about this controversy to me is that Rush always used to symbolize universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along, like the beautiful final part of Hemispheres says. I have always found Rush's music to be positive and thought-provoking but that no longer seems to be the case. With S&A and apparently Clockwork Angels he has turned very negative and is obviously provoking Christians with juvenile cracks like "sky god" in his blog. He is now as obnoxiously strident in his crusade against religion as he accuses religious zealots of being. He has become a zealot himself and it is hard to believe he ever wrote beautiful words about balance. QUOTE A lot of people of faith do just that.   And very many don't. They are the problem.   QUOTE This is an interesting thread that I just discovered, and I would like to ask everyone who is telling the complaining Christians here to suck it up or deal with Neil's opinions how they would feel if Neil started writing songs that were pro-organized religion like people said Live started doing. You would probably be just as annoyed as the Christians are now.   It depends. Honestly if he was writing from an evangelical perspective I don't think any of us would even be here. There are bands like Kansas and others with religous themes that I enjoy, and I know many athiests would say the same.   QUOTE The most disappointing thing about this controversy to me is that Rush always used to symbolize universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along, like the beautiful final part of Hemispheres says.   Well, that is kind of the point of the album, especially Snakes and Arrows. The world wasn't getting along and religon played a big part in it. Assuming priveledge and holding religon above reproach is simply wrong. The irony is that Neil was talking about truth then, and truth now,   Let the truth of love be lighted Let the love of truth shine clear Sensibility Armed with sense and liberty With the Heart and Mind united In a single perfect sphere   and doin it from an athiestic perspective even then. One mind, without a God.   QUOTE I have always found Rush's music to be positive and thought-provoking but that no longer seems to be the case.   Well, not all Rush's music was positive. I could list many songs that weren't even from early on where he bashed the US in Beneath, Between and Behind. And Witch Hunt is anything but, but yeah, most it is most often thought provoking. I can't even think of a "rah rah cheery song" off the top of my head.   QUOTE With S&A and apparently Clockwork Angels he has turned very negative   I wouldn't say negative as much as contemplative, thought provoking generally is.   QUOTE and is obviously provoking Christians with juvenile cracks like "sky god" in his blog.   Well, most people think of God as being up. Calling it a ground God wouldn't make sense. And in that sense it's not prejudicial to the thousands of sky Gods out there.   QUOTE He is now as obnoxiously strident in his crusade against religion as he accuses religious zealots of being.   I wish he was more strident, but unfortunately a few comments doesn't make him strident or a zealot. He is simply stating his belief and responding to criticisms against him by those zealots.   QUOTE He has become a zealot himself   Say it over and over and maybe it will make it true. QUOTE and it is hard to believe he ever wrote beautiful words about balance.   And it's hard to believe that you've ever understood much of what he's been writing about, imho.

[Presto-a RUSH fan!]

QUOTE (Apollo @ Jan 19 2012, 06:21 PM)

QUOTE (eshine @ Jan 13 2012, 12:27 AM) because we all know people of faith gently and quietly go about their business without ever throwing it in the face of non-believers. A lot of people of faith do just that. This is an interesting thread that I just discovered, and I would like to ask everyone who is telling the complaining Christians here to suck it up or deal with Neil's opinions how they would feel if Neil started writing songs that were pro-organized religion like people said Live started doing. You would probably be just as annoyed as the Christians are now. The most disappointing thing about this controversy to me is that Rush always used to symbolize universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along, like the beautiful final part of Hemispheres says. I have always found Rush's music to be positive and thought-provoking but that no longer seems to be the case. With S&A and apparently Clockwork Angels he has turned very negative and is obviously provoking Christians with juvenile cracks like "sky god" in his blog. He is now as obnoxiously strident in his crusade against religion as he accuses religious zealots of being. He has become a zealot himself and it is hard to believe he ever wrote beautiful words about balance. While I can't disagree with a lot of what you said. I say this. I am a Christian (again, a terrible one) and I LOVE RUSH. My answer to Christians who are complaining about the lyrics is, DO NOT BUY IT, DO NOT SUPPORT RUSH AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.   As a "Christian" I would be annoyed if Neil started writing all Christian lyrics. BUT, I would still probably like the music and still probably find some of the lyrics amazing, as most of the time, even a song that goes against my "beliefs" like Faithless, I find thought provoking and poetic and I love it.   As a Christian, again, apparently not a good one, I just wish people would stop and move on. Neil writes what is in his heart and mind and if you don't like it, DON'T LISTEN OR SUPPORT THEM!   Why is it ok for "Christians" to trumpet their beliefs on the mountaintop but anyone with a differing view should just keep it to themselves? I think Neil's hatred of religion is that it divides people. Even Christians can't agree on what the Bible says. Catholics don't believe in a rapture. Born again Christians do. So I think in Neil's mind, IMO, he thinks that religion is a major stumbling block to a world of "universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along" quoted from your post. I don't happen to agree with Neil on that. I think that the Christian faith, when applied correctly, can be an agent to bring universal peace. But the problem, and you can see it by turning on the news every night, is that people use it to judge and divide. Two things they should not do as Christians. That is God's job. I have been a republican since I was 20 years old. I would now say I am an Independent because I can't stand the hypocrisy of the republican party. Almost every candidate for the rep nomination says God told them to run for president and that they would win. Well, either God was just messing with them or they are full of shyt. I choose the latter.   Anyway, I applaud Neil for sharing his beliefs and am blown away by the sheer brilliance and the poetic story telling nature of them.   I just can't grasp the hypocrisy of people saying Neil is trumpeting his beliefs on us, why can't he just stop and write something that doesn't go against my belief structure....but they are still my favorite band and I love the way Neil wrote lyrics like Hemispheres and 2112. Last time I checked you don't have to buy, listen or contribute in anyway to RUSH.   I mean, it's a forum. Feel free to share your feelings on how you don't like the direction of Neil's lyrics or his religion bashing. But at the same time, he is writing what he wants, which is his "GOD GIVEN RIGHT" at least in the United States (well for the time being anyway) and if you don't like it, don't buy the album, don't listen to it, don't go to the concerts and don't support RUSH.   Or just continue and saying that it's ok for people to have freedom to believe what they want and write about what they want, then on the other hand criticize and malign him for doing just that.   I don't know. I just don't get it. But then again, no one ever said I was very smart.     Edited to say that I am done posting to this thread. I am tired of myself.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Presto-a RUSH fan!

[Presto-a RUSH fan!]

QUOTE (Running Rebel @ Jan 19 2012, 07:33 PM)

QUOTE (Apollo @ Jan 19 2012, 05:21 PM) QUOTE (eshine @ Jan 13 2012, 12:27 AM) because we all know people of faith gently and quietly go about their business without ever throwing it in the face of non-believers. A lot of people of faith do just that. This is an interesting thread that I just discovered, and I would like to ask everyone who is telling the complaining Christians here to suck it up or deal with Neil's opinions how they would feel if Neil started writing songs that were pro-organized religion like people said Live started doing. You would probably be just as annoyed as the Christians are now. The most disappointing thing about this controversy to me is that Rush always used to symbolize universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along, like the beautiful final part of Hemispheres says. I have always found Rush's music to be positive and thought-provoking but that no longer seems to be the case. With S&A and apparently Clockwork Angels he has turned very negative and is obviously provoking Christians with juvenile cracks like "sky god" in his blog. He is now as obnoxiously strident in his crusade against religion as he accuses religious zealots of being. He has become a zealot himself and it is hard to believe he ever wrote beautiful words about balance. QUOTE A lot of people of faith do just that.   And very many don't. They are the problem.   QUOTE This is an interesting thread that I just discovered, and I would like to ask everyone who is telling the complaining Christians here to suck it up or deal with Neil's opinions how they would feel if Neil started writing songs that were pro-organized religion like people said Live started doing. You would probably be just as annoyed as the Christians are now.   It depends. Honestly if he was writing from an evangelical perspective I don't think any of us would even be here. There are bands like Kansas and others with religous themes that I enjoy, and I know many athiests would say the same.   QUOTE The most disappointing thing about this controversy to me is that Rush always used to symbolize universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along, like the beautiful final part of Hemispheres says.   Well, that is kind of the point of the album, especially Snakes and Arrows. The world wasn't getting along and religon played a big part in it. Assuming priveledge and holding religon above reproach is simply wrong. The irony is that Neil was talking about truth then, and truth now,   Let the truth of love be lighted Let the love of truth shine clear Sensibility Armed with sense and liberty With the Heart and Mind united In a single perfect sphere   and doin it from an athiestic perspective even then. One mind, without a God.   QUOTE I have always found Rush's music to be positive and thought-provoking but that no longer seems to be the case.   Well, not all Rush's music was positive. I could list many songs that weren't even from early on where he bashed the US in Beneath, Between and Behind. And Witch Hunt is anything but, but yeah, most it is most often thought provoking. I can't even think of a "rah rah cheery song" off the top of my head.   QUOTE With S&A and apparently Clockwork Angels he has turned very negative   I wouldn't say negative as much as contemplative, thought provoking generally is.   QUOTE and is obviously provoking Christians with juvenile cracks like "sky god" in his blog.   Well, most people think of God as being up. Calling it a ground God wouldn't make sense. And in that sense it's not prejudicial to the thousands of sky Gods out there.   QUOTE He is now as obnoxiously strident in his crusade against religion as he accuses religious zealots of being.   I wish he was more strident, but unfortunately a few comments doesn't make him strident or a zealot. He is simply stating his belief and responding to criticisms against him by those zealots.   QUOTE He has become a zealot himself   Say it over and over and maybe it will make it true. QUOTE and it is hard to believe he ever wrote beautiful words about balance.   And it's hard to believe that you've ever understood much of what he's been writing about, imho. I am breaking my word (hypocrite) of not posting in this thread again (see my above post) to say

[Running Rebel]

QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Jan 19 2012, 06:47 PM)

QUOTE (Apollo @ Jan 19 2012, 06:21 PM) QUOTE (eshine @ Jan 13 2012, 12:27 AM) because we all know people of faith gently and quietly go about their business without ever throwing it in the face of non-believers. A lot of people of faith do just that. This is an interesting thread that I just discovered, and I would like to ask everyone who is telling the complaining Christians here to suck it up or deal with Neil's opinions how they would feel if Neil started writing songs that were pro-organized religion like people said Live started doing. You would probably be just as annoyed as the Christians are now. The most disappointing thing about this controversy to me is that Rush always used to symbolize universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along, like the beautiful final part of Hemispheres says. I have always found Rush's music to be positive and thought-provoking but that no longer seems to be the case. With S&A and apparently Clockwork Angels he has turned very negative and is obviously provoking Christians with juvenile cracks like "sky god" in his blog. He is now as obnoxiously strident in his crusade against religion as he accuses religious zealots of being. He has become a zealot himself and it is hard to believe he ever wrote beautiful words about balance. While I can't disagree with a lot of what you said. I say this. I am a Christian (again, a terrible one) and I LOVE RUSH. My answer to Christians who are complaining about the lyrics is, DO NOT BUY IT, DO NOT SUPPORT RUSH AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.   As a "Christian" I would be annoyed if Neil started writing all Christian lyrics. BUT, I would still probably like the music and still probably find some of the lyrics amazing, as most of the time, even a song that goes against my "beliefs" like Faithless, I find thought provoking and poetic and I love it.   As a Christian, again, apparently not a good one, I just wish people would stop and move on. Neil writes what is in his heart and mind and if you don't like it, DON'T LISTEN OR SUPPORT THEM!   Why is it ok for "Christians" to trumpet their beliefs on the mountaintop but anyone with a differing view should just keep it to themselves? I think Neil's hatred of religion is that it divides people. Even Christians can't agree on what the Bible says. Catholics don't believe in a rapture. Born again Christians do. So I think in Neil's mind, IMO, he thinks that religion is a major stumbling block to a world of "universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along" quoted from your post. I don't happen to agree with Neil on that. I think that the Christian faith, when applied correctly, can be an agent to bring universal peace. But the problem, and you can see it by turning on the news every night, is that people use it to judge and divide. Two things they should not do as Christians. That is God's job. I have been a republican since I was 20 years old. I would now say I am an Independent because I can't stand the hypocrisy of the republican party. Almost every candidate for the rep nomination says God told them to run for president and that they would win. Well, either God was just messing with them or they are full of shyt. I choose the latter.   Anyway, I applaud Neil for sharing his beliefs and am blown away by the sheer brilliance and the poetic story telling nature of them.   I just can't grasp the hypocrisy of people saying Neil is trumpeting his beliefs on us, why can't he just stop and write something that doesn't go against my belief structure....but they are still my favorite band and I love the way Neil wrote lyrics like Hemispheres and 2112. Last time I checked you don't have to buy, listen or contribute in anyway to RUSH.   I mean, it's a forum. Feel free to share your feelings on how you don't like the direction of Neil's lyrics or his religion bashing. But at the same time, he is writing what he wants, which is his "GOD GIVEN RIGHT" at least in the United States (well for the time being anyway) and if you don't like it, don't buy the album, don't listen to it, don't go to the concerts and don't support RUSH.   Or just continue and saying that it's ok for people to have freedom to believe what they want and write about what they want, then on the other hand criticize and malign him for doing just that.   I don't know. I just don't get it. But then again, no one ever said I was very smart.     Edited to say that I am done posting to this thread. I am tired of myself.   Good post.

[Presto-a RUSH fan!]

QUOTE (Running Rebel @ Jan 19 2012, 09:53 PM)

QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Jan 19 2012, 06:47 PM) QUOTE (Apollo @ Jan 19 2012, 06:21 PM) QUOTE (eshine @ Jan 13 2012, 12:27 AM) because we all know people of faith gently and quietly go about their business without ever throwing it in the face of non-believers. A lot of people of faith do just that. This is an interesting thread that I just discovered, and I would like to ask everyone who is telling the complaining Christians here to suck it up or deal with Neil's opinions how they would feel if Neil started writing songs that were pro-organized religion like people said Live started doing. You would probably be just as annoyed as the Christians are now. The most disappointing thing about this controversy to me is that Rush always used to symbolize universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along, like the beautiful final part of Hemispheres says. I have always found Rush's music to be positive and thought-provoking but that no longer seems to be the case. With S&A and apparently Clockwork Angels he has turned very negative and is obviously provoking Christians with juvenile cracks like "sky god" in his blog. He is now as obnoxiously strident in his crusade against religion as he accuses religious zealots of being. He has become a zealot himself and it is hard to believe he ever wrote beautiful words about balance. While I can't disagree with a lot of what you said. I say this. I am a Christian (again, a terrible one) and I LOVE RUSH. My answer to Christians who are complaining about the lyrics is, DO NOT BUY IT, DO NOT SUPPORT RUSH AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.   As a "Christian" I would be annoyed if Neil started writing all Christian lyrics. BUT, I would still probably like the music and still probably find some of the lyrics amazing, as most of the time, even a song that goes against my "beliefs" like Faithless, I find thought provoking and poetic and I love it.   As a Christian, again, apparently not a good one, I just wish people would stop and move on. Neil writes what is in his heart and mind and if you don't like it, DON'T LISTEN OR SUPPORT THEM!   Why is it ok for "Christians" to trumpet their beliefs on the mountaintop but anyone with a differing view should just keep it to themselves? I think Neil's hatred of religion is that it divides people. Even Christians can't agree on what the Bible says. Catholics don't believe in a rapture. Born again Christians do. So I think in Neil's mind, IMO, he thinks that religion is a major stumbling block to a world of "universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along" quoted from your post. I don't happen to agree with Neil on that. I think that the Christian faith, when applied correctly, can be an agent to bring universal peace. But the problem, and you can see it by turning on the news every night, is that people use it to judge and divide. Two things they should not do as Christians. That is God's job. I have been a republican since I was 20 years old. I would now say I am an Independent because I can't stand the hypocrisy of the republican party. Almost every candidate for the rep nomination says God told them to run for president and that they would win. Well, either God was just messing with them or they are full of shyt. I choose the latter.   Anyway, I applaud Neil for sharing his beliefs and am blown away by the sheer brilliance and the poetic story telling nature of them.   I just can't grasp the hypocrisy of people saying Neil is trumpeting his beliefs on us, why can't he just stop and write something that doesn't go against my belief structure....but they are still my favorite band and I love the way Neil wrote lyrics like Hemispheres and 2112. Last time I checked you don't have to buy, listen or contribute in anyway to RUSH.   I mean, it's a forum. Feel free to share your feelings on how you don't like the direction of Neil's lyrics or his religion bashing. But at the same time, he is writing what he wants, which is his "GOD GIVEN RIGHT" at least in the United States (well for the time being anyway) and if you don't like it, don't buy the album, don't listen to it, don't go to the concerts and don't support RUSH.   Or just continue and saying that it's ok for people to have freedom to believe what they want and write about what they want, then on the other hand criticize and malign him for doing just that.   I don't know. I just don't get it. But then again, no one ever said I was very smart.     Edited to say that I am done posting to this thread. I am tired of myself.   Good post. Thanks!   Oh shyt! I broke my vow to not post in this thread again for the second time. Thank God I'm a hypocrite!

[lerxt1990]

QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Jan 19 2012, 09:02 PM)

QUOTE (Running Rebel @ Jan 19 2012, 09:53 PM) QUOTE (Presto-a RUSH fan! @ Jan 19 2012, 06:47 PM) QUOTE (Apollo @ Jan 19 2012, 06:21 PM) QUOTE (eshine @ Jan 13 2012, 12:27 AM) because we all know people of faith gently and quietly go about their business without ever throwing it in the face of non-believers. A lot of people of faith do just that. This is an interesting thread that I just discovered, and I would like to ask everyone who is telling the complaining Christians here to suck it up or deal with Neil's opinions how they would feel if Neil started writing songs that were pro-organized religion like people said Live started doing. You would probably be just as annoyed as the Christians are now. The most disappointing thing about this controversy to me is that Rush always used to symbolize universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along, like the beautiful final part of Hemispheres says. I have always found Rush's music to be positive and thought-provoking but that no longer seems to be the case. With S&A and apparently Clockwork Angels he has turned very negative and is obviously provoking Christians with juvenile cracks like "sky god" in his blog. He is now as obnoxiously strident in his crusade against religion as he accuses religious zealots of being. He has become a zealot himself and it is hard to believe he ever wrote beautiful words about balance. While I can't disagree with a lot of what you said. I say this. I am a Christian (again, a terrible one) and I LOVE RUSH. My answer to Christians who are complaining about the lyrics is, DO NOT BUY IT, DO NOT SUPPORT RUSH AND MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.   As a "Christian" I would be annoyed if Neil started writing all Christian lyrics. BUT, I would still probably like the music and still probably find some of the lyrics amazing, as most of the time, even a song that goes against my "beliefs" like Faithless, I find thought provoking and poetic and I love it.   As a Christian, again, apparently not a good one, I just wish people would stop and move on. Neil writes what is in his heart and mind and if you don't like it, DON'T LISTEN OR SUPPORT THEM!   Why is it ok for "Christians" to trumpet their beliefs on the mountaintop but anyone with a differing view should just keep it to themselves? I think Neil's hatred of religion is that it divides people. Even Christians can't agree on what the Bible says. Catholics don't believe in a rapture. Born again Christians do. So I think in Neil's mind, IMO, he thinks that religion is a major stumbling block to a world of "universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along" quoted from your post. I don't happen to agree with Neil on that. I think that the Christian faith, when applied correctly, can be an agent to bring universal peace. But the problem, and you can see it by turning on the news every night, is that people use it to judge and divide. Two things they should not do as Christians. That is God's job. I have been a republican since I was 20 years old. I would now say I am an Independent because I can't stand the hypocrisy of the republican party. Almost every candidate for the rep nomination says God told them to run for president and that they would win. Well, either God was just messing with them or they are full of shyt. I choose the latter.   Anyway, I applaud Neil for sharing his beliefs and am blown away by the sheer brilliance and the poetic story telling nature of them.   I just can't grasp the hypocrisy of people saying Neil is trumpeting his beliefs on us, why can't he just stop and write something that doesn't go against my belief structure....but they are still my favorite band and I love the way Neil wrote lyrics like Hemispheres and 2112. Last time I checked you don't have to buy, listen or contribute in anyway to RUSH.   I mean, it's a forum. Feel free to share your feelings on how you don't like the direction of Neil's lyrics or his religion bashing. But at the same time, he is writing what he wants, which is his "GOD GIVEN RIGHT" at least in the United States (well for the time being anyway) and if you don't like it, don't buy the album, don't listen to it, don't go to the concerts and don't support RUSH.   Or just continue and saying that it's ok for people to have freedom to believe what they want and write about what they want, then on the other hand criticize and malign him for doing just that.   I don't know. I just don't get it. But then again, no one ever said I was very smart.     Edited to say that I am done posting to this thread. I am tired of myself.   Good post. Thanks!   Oh shyt! I broke my vow to not post in this thread again for the second time. Thank God I'm a hypocrite! Over/under for songs with faith as a theme.....one way or the other........   4.     BU2B counts as 1.

[ucsteve667]

QUOTE (Apollo @ Jan 19 2012, 05:21 PM)

QUOTE (eshine @ Jan 13 2012, 12:27 AM) because we all know people of faith gently and quietly go about their business without ever throwing it in the face of non-believers. A lot of people of faith do just that. This is an interesting thread that I just discovered, and I would like to ask everyone who is telling the complaining Christians here to suck it up or deal with Neil's opinions how they would feel if Neil started writing songs that were pro-organized religion like people said Live started doing. You would probably be just as annoyed as the Christians are now. The most disappointing thing about this controversy to me is that Rush always used to symbolize universal peace or envisioning a future where everyone could respect each other and get along, like the beautiful final part of Hemispheres says. I have always found Rush's music to be positive and thought-provoking but that no longer seems to be the case. With S&A and apparently Clockwork Angels he has turned very negative and is obviously provoking Christians with juvenile cracks like "sky god" in his blog. He is now as obnoxiously strident in his crusade against religion as he accuses religious zealots of being. He has become a zealot himself and it is hard to believe he ever wrote beautiful words about balance. I love old Kansas, Cat Stevens, old U2, Black Sabbath, Trouble and many more predominantly Christian bands...Absolutely adore Chamber Music in church halls, Cathedrals to photograph, Greek Mythology, Native American beliefs, and find the lore of the Bible fascinating. So disagreeing with primitive theology doesnt affect or assault my current beliefs.