I have noticed a trend. If a rapper is muslim, and speaks on islamic values in his songs... He is conscious. If a rapper is buddist, and speaks on buddist values in his music, he is conscious. If an ATHIEST speaks about life from a MORAL (moral atheis=oxymoron) standpoint in his music, he is conscious. If a CHRISTIAN speaks on christian topics/values/TRUTH,... he is... unintellegent?!
Why?
This problem is not limited to hip hop... I have observed that most of the world holds the same stance...
Why?

But if you're talking about the personal beliefs of given artist I don't think there is a preference to a muslim rapper v. a christian rapper. Scarface was my favorite rapper for a long time and he is obviously Christian.

Outside of the shine the NGE got at one point I don't see your point. Christianity has been fused into hip hop for as long as I can remember.


*****
Gina is out of control
I'm out of control
the whole--damn--party
--is--out--of control!
(c) White Bob
*****

there are decent, talented Christian hip hop artists

it's criminal how Kanye West just can't get his message out.

>I have noticed a trend. If a rapper is muslim, and speaks on
>islamic values in his songs... He is conscious. If a rapper
>is buddist, and speaks on buddist values in his music, he is
>conscious. If an ATHIEST speaks about life from a MORAL
>(moral atheis=oxymoron) standpoint in his music, he is
>conscious. If a CHRISTIAN speaks on christian
>topics/values/TRUTH,... he is... unintellegent?!
>Why?
>This problem is not limited to hip hop... I have observed that
>most of the world holds the same stance...
>Why?

*I must say, this is the longest-lived trend in history, ya know*

I believe it subconsciously rest on one statment from the bible:

John 14:6 - Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

When people hear/read this, they immediately feel disdain... saved or unsaved. I say saved AS WELL because if you have received the Spirit of God then it will perpetually be in conflict with your flesh...

Galatians 5:17 - For the desires of the flesh are opposed to the Spirit, and the Spirit are opposed to the flesh (godless human nature); for these are antagonistic to each other , so that you are not free but are prevented from doing what you desire to do

The disdain or doubt must be starved to death by your faith.

But that's the context and basis of why people view Christian hip-hop as eccentric apart from other faith-based hip-hop... because in actuality, Jesus Christ was the only person of the major faiths who claimed to be God so He will stand out and be ridiculed for His claim, thus His followers (i.e. gospel MC's) will be titled as unintelligent/bigots/biased/supremist.

You either know Him as a liar, a lunatic or Lord... nothing more, nothing less. I know Him as Lord.

Pray tell.

>Pray tell.

It makes more sense to not have a moral standard if you're an atheist, in light of a supposed Intelligent Designer.

Why not kill, why not steal, why not be unfaithful to our spouses?

Either we learned the feelings of rage, hurt, resentment, betrayal etc. or they were innately put in us by Something greater than ourselves.

>Why not kill,

If caught will serve a life sentence


>why not steal,

If caught, will be fined or even sentenced to prison


why not be unfaithful to our
>spouses?

If caught, he/she might leave you and take the kids.



These are perfectly legitimate reasons to be moral. Why do we need God for that?

because these reasons are not moral imperitives. These are the rule of fear.i.e. you kill you go to prison, so you dont commit murder because you are fearful of prison not because you don't wish to commit an act of murder because it is morally wrong.

?

thing is the mass of people dont believe in heaven and hell. Why do you think Bush has initiated mass Christian indoctrination in prisons? ANd anyway, some preacher preaching eternal damnation is much the same thing...

>>Why not kill,
>
>If caught will serve a life sentence

How did this life sentencing, retribution thing get started? What punny human started this nonsense? Why can't I kill some dude on the street in broad daylight and everyone go about their business? That's how it used to be right?

>>why not steal,
>
>If caught, will be fined or even sentenced to prison

Ditto. Why? Who made up these stupid retribution laws? I want what I want NOW and stealing is the best way, wouldn't you say?

>why not be unfaithful to our
>>spouses?
>
>If caught, he/she might leave you and take the kids.

But why would she get mad about that? I mean, human beings are the closest thing to a so-called god so we make up our own moral standards. I don't see why people have to fabricate this self-existent being to compensate for their lack of the unknown. Nutty believers...

I wonder who made up this stupid standard... fidelity. Well since I have the power to make my own laws, I'm making up my own moral standard now... infidelity is kosher. I betcha it'll catch on like wild fire.

>These are perfectly legitimate reasons to be moral. Why do we
>need God for that?

I know right. But for some reason I can't seem to get rid of these feelings of shame, guilt, hurt, betrayal and rejection when these things happen or when they happen to me. I wonder who started feeling like this first and why did it catch on like wild fire cause this doesn't feel good. To tell you the truth, I'm starting to believe that none of us(humans) started these feelings. We couldn't have, who would want to feel like this just because we killed, stole or were unfaithful to our significant other?

..its basical survival. Built in. Imagine you didnt have any of those feelings? Mankind wouldnt have got past cave men...

>
>I know right. But for some reason I can't seem to get rid of
>these feelings of shame, guilt, hurt, betrayal and rejection
>when these things happen or when they happen to me. I wonder
>who started feeling like this first and why did it catch on
>like wild fire cause this doesn't feel good. To tell you the
>truth, I'm starting to believe that none of us(humans) started
>these feelings. We couldn't have, who would want to feel like
>this just because we killed, stole or were unfaithful to our
>significant other?


we internalise this code, and all of this emotions are internal responses to it. That's why people are incapable of fabricating their own moral standard from scratch - unless they are sociopaths. I still don't see how God fits into the equation.

. I still don't see how God fits into the
>equation.

Good. lets keep it that way.

...that one doesn't believe in a Supreme Being.

Such a person can understand and determine for his or herself what is right and what is wrong, and that everyone has the right to life. That's called having a social structure that one abides by. Morals don't necessarily have a religious base.

I think the reason they been label "uninintelligent" is because christians in general are too preachy and refuse to listen to anyone (including other christians). It's one thing to state your stance, it's another to speak without thought or consideration. Christians have a long believe to stand their grounds and some will even go as far as not listening to another person. While this is true for religion heads, Christians are proberly the loudest of all and most common.

Should they shut up? I'm not saying that. I'm just saying a person who comes off as Christian should do it in a matter that is respectful of all people. If you think you have the "ultimate truth", but can't do it in a loving matter, then it's always going to be that way.

some Christians like to quote Luke 6:31, but don't follow it... and that's kinda sad.

>I think the reason they been label "uninintelligent" is
>because christians in general are too preachy and refuse to
>listen to anyone (including other christians).

I have to disagree with you on that. If you said "In general SOME Christians" that would be true. Usually the so-called Christians that are too preachy and refuse to listen are the ones that are questioning their own selves or are insecure about their own faith. That's a general trait with any person who is insecure or unsure... always on the defense because "I can't let you know that I really don't know". Show me a Christian who is willing to listen, emphathize and have compassion on a person and I'll show you a Christian who has been changed by the grace of God, has learned from his/her mistakes and who always puts himself in others shoes. That's using the intelligence given by the Intelligent Designer.


It's one thing
>to state your stance, it's another to speak without thought or
>consideration. Christians have a long believe to stand their
>grounds and some will even go as far as not listening to
>another person.

Another generalized/biased statement. To be honest with you, what you just said is "without consideration" for Christians like me; not boasting of myself but I really desire to live like Christ lived therefore I am conscious of what I believe, or I am always studying it, so I can better myself for Christ's sake, not my own. I'm sorry the type of Christian that you have been exposed to have all been loud, belligerent and insecure but I can assure you that there are great examples of Christ out there in the world.

While this is true for religion heads,
>Christians are proberly the loudest of all and most common.

Disagree again. I believe the propaganda and all different forms of media perpetuate this image of the so-called Christian. If you do a bit of research, not only in the bible but history books, you would find that the true Christians of the past hid/worshipped in catacombs or held "church" in their homes not in a mega-church (like SOME) that can seat tens of thousands of people who just want to hide and be a number instead of being accountable because of the habbitual dirt the still do in their lives.

>Should they shut up? I'm not saying that. I'm just saying a
>person who comes off as Christian should do it in a matter
>that is respectful of all people. If you think you have the
>"ultimate truth", but can't do it in a loving matter, then
>it's always going to be that way.

I believe that too; yes respectful, lovingly but not tolerable. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. And in the words of Dr. MLK "A person who doesn't have something to die for isn't fit to live". In other words, I will speak/protest when I don't agree. I can live next to a homosexual, I can work with one, I can minister to one(which I've done) and have compassion for them, pray for them... but that does not mean that I agree with their lifestyle and they'll know because I'll tell them if they ask.

>some Christians like to quote Luke 6:31, but don't follow
>it... and that's kinda sad.

I agree. Unfortunately the majority of the representatives in the spotlight exude this pristine exterior but off camera they're anything but. As Jesus said, they're a bunch of "brood of vipers!", "white washed tombs!" - clean on the outside but dead-mens bones on the inside. Unfortunately the virtue of integrity is far removed from many so-called Christians. Once in a blue moon God will raise up a leader like MLK, Harry T. Moore, Harriet Tubman, etc.

Sometimes, I should take heed of my own thoughts. Thanks for bringing up some valid points. I agree with all of them. I should have said "some" not all.

Take that back... haha

It's all about being able to tolerate, not hate. If they are living "in the wrong light", that's them. God holds everyone accountable for themselves. So, if this it true, you should be at peace to know that. I know a certain... er, "domination"... that isn't.

>Sometimes, I should take heed of my own thoughts. Thanks for
>bringing up some valid points. I agree with all of them. I
>should have said "some" not all.

Hey no prob, this is what civilized dialogue is all about. I wish more people could communicate like this instead of arguing.

>It's all about being able to tolerate, not hate.

Tolerating is allowing something to happen that you know shouldn't be happening; being passive. I'm not passive when it comes to the word of God and it's stance on untolerable lifestyles and/or circumstances.

Say for instance you have a life raft and your on the boat and you see a person who's fallen overboard, drowning in a fierce storm in the ocean, and you just say "well I can see that he/she needs this life raft but I don't wanna throw it to them because I might throw it wrong and hit 'em in the head and they might get mad at me" ??!!!...you've just tolerated their death when you had a means to save them because of caution and you didn't want to offend them. Now I'm accountable for their death(in light of God because He sees all) because I had the means but didn't utilize it.

You're right, I don't hate at all, I love; and try to love unconditionally. In actuality, if I hated a person I WOULD TOLERATE THEM UNTIL THEY FINALLY CROAKED! But if you love a person, you will not tolerate what they're doing and rebuke them... like a mother/father gets on her/his kids:

Heb. 12:5-11 "My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; 6For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives.

7If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it."


If they are
>living "in the wrong light", that's them. God holds everyone
>accountable for themselves. So, if this it true, you should be
>at peace to know that.

I have to disagree. What kind of world would this be if everyone had this "well thank God it's not me... God be with 'em... now on with my life" mentality?

God holds me accountable for knowing something's wrong and not speaking what is right. It's sorta like the old saying, "by not saying somethin'... you're saying somethin'". I have a responsibility to speak God's truth and I'm accountable for everyone that I don't speak it to when I know I should've. It's impossible for me to be at peace when I know someone's drowning in sin.

I know a certain... er, "domination"...
>that isn't.

Which one is that? I'm non-denom. I just love the bible and Jesus... no traditions.

I did it once again, generalizing. Lemme clear some stuff up.

When I said "being about to tolerate" and "they are hold accountable", I really mean "after the fact". You say what you believe in, and what your stance on the issue is, which is God's stance. After they hear it, they either do one of three things:

1) Accept it and change
2) Accept it and don't change
3) Seek out more information to make up their own mind.

Of course, this is if you are dealing with a co-worker, stranger, someone that you see on a daily basis and have to basically talk with them to get through the day.

Now, some people use these options:

4) Despise you for thinking that way.

or the double-whammy:

5) despise you and defends themself.

When I say that, they are defending their views, almost to the point where it seems "unintelligent".

Some will even go as far as giving you material on a daily basis, nagging you, even long after the fact that they told you. There is a difference between talking about this subject "once a week" and "once a day" or even "once an hour". Subminial hints when talking, stressing certain things, body lanuage. It can get pretty annoying.

Some quit their jobs because of a co-worker's non-belief (some even sue their company). I know of one case where this "Chrisitan" refused to put up Christmas decorations, quit the job the same day he explained why, then sue the company for making him do something against his will... and won! And guess what? Then the boss got fired... and ironically, the boss is Christian!

Some even go as far as shunning others, including their own family members. I know families who don't even care what happens to their daughters and sons, not even if they are successful in doing service for God.

Some people think Christians do option 4 and 5 and for that, Christians get stereotype. We are either "too preachy" and our heads are "in the clouds", when in reality, not all of us think that way.

>I know a certain... er, "domination"...
>>that isn't.
>
>Which one is that? I'm non-denom. I just love the bible and
>Jesus... no traditions.

If everyone can understand that church is when two or mare gather in his name, then you have fellowship, the dominations will not even exisit. The one I'm talking about that seems to be a problem with most people are... Jehovah's Witnesses.

I hope I am not getting too off topic here.

Ive wondered the same thing for quite some time now...i've noticed when christian "activists" fight for something it is a joke. even by fellow christians it is seen as a joke, let a christian organization fight against something on television, let a christian organization fight for religion to be taught back in schools or to get a nativity scene put in the middle of their town and they are seen as wackjobs...dont believe me? try not to laugh @ this site:

http://boycottford.com/

on the flip side if muslim groups protest, oh its serious business! dont clown muslims for fighting and protesting for what they believe in. same thing for jews and gays. I don't get it...why can't christian groups be taken as seriously as other groups?

yeah but what the hell is Ford doing supporting Homosexual Marriage? They trying to sell the new pink Ford Fag-Mobile?

dont even go there. the point isnt even about the site or whether they are fighting against gay marriage or if they are fighting to get jesus carved jello pudding snacks in school, my point is that no matter what they do, it is considered a joke. hell, just look @ your knee-jerk reaction to that site, your initial reaction was just to jump up and critisize like i predicted.

>why can't christian groups be taken as seriously as
>other groups?

Because of the stigma initiated upon us throughout history and presently throughout the media, essentially. But the stigma initiated from a seed(the first National Enquire) planted after Jesus Christ was resurrected. Certain pharasees culminated together and fictitiously schemed "cover it up... make 'em seem like crazy, passionate lunatics":

Matthew 28:11-15 "11As the women were on their way into the city, some of the men who had been guarding the tomb went to the leading priests and told them what had happened. 12A meeting of all the religious leaders was called, and they decided to bribe the soldiers. 13They told the soldiers, "You must say, `Jesus' disciples came during the night while we were sleeping, and they stole his body.' 14If the governor hears about it, we'll stand up for you and everything will be all right." 15So the guards accepted the bribe and said what they were told to say. Their story spread widely among the Jews, and they still tell it today."

And from this, we now have this over-abiding, Eeyore cloud of *socio-doubt, which breeds 'well are we lunatics?' i.e. self-doubt*.

We can't be taken serious because of the stigma which has caused nominal Christians to doubt their own faith in the pressence of onlookers that snicker, gibb and mock.

I know this is deep but the only way this seed, that was planted so long ago, can be aleviated is when followers of Christ start being martyred in America; the most influential nation as of right now, as far as media coverage. I know it's going on in 3rd world countries but when the church in America begans to be persecuted and begans to suffer for righteousness sake, then people will begin to take followers of Christ serious again.

I say again because large amounts of Christians were martyred, who lived in and during the Roman empire. The American empire is nothing but a modern-day Roman empire. Entertainment! Yep, it was valued #1 then in Rome and it's valued #1 now in America. Men brutally killing men unmercifully will become a national, prime time source of entertainment again with the whole fam sitting around the widescreen screaming "thumbs down!". It's a process. First, "I don't want God! i.e. autonomy, then pessimism then apathy then finally suicidal anarchy.

Pristine, family-friendly reality t.v. was the catalyst but as you can see it has regressed into a vile, whoremonger pit filled with venomous, savvy snakes (I mean businessmen) who'll sell their own prostrate to innovatively scheme the next reality show. It's become a sic and twisted avant-garde movement. But as King Solomon said "nothing's new under the sun... what's been done before will be done again".

Thru all levels of government, academia,
politics, media, economics etc etc

I think you have analyzed/surmised an answer
from a micro/isolated perspective that does
not whole true to the entire framework

that christians are not taken seriously
in their "causes."

& "christ-insanity" has plenty of blood
on its hands sir n/m...Peace

thats about as original as "ameriKKKa"....

i simply asked you if your beliefs were the solution to the problem with "ameriKKKa" a simple yes or no will suffice.

oh, and you could have said that u disagreed with me without using that term "christ insanity". and with all the bodies piling up over in iraq @ the hands of "non christian" insurgents, they are about to make the crusades look like an episode of telletubbies.

I never said anything about who had
what answers vs. those who do not.

Simply, I refuted what you said about
christians not being taken seriously
as a sweeping generalization. I mean,
its really that simple.

I mean, saying Killslamic as a rebuttle
to christ-insanity is incredibly lame & child-like
in a tit for tat manner.

These iraq references your making & your contextualizing
of islam towards me as if I am Muslim...I am not
& I do not see its relevance sir. If my saying christ-insanity
has offended you then I apologize...I don't wanna belabor
this cause it will take away from the post...Peace

>I never said anything about who had
>what answers vs. those who do not.

"Christ-Insanity" is at the core values of the american tapestry"
Thru all levels of government, academia,
politics, media, economics etc etc"

- obviously u are seeing this as a problem with america, what is the solution?


>Simply, I refuted what you said about
>christians not being taken seriously
>as a sweeping generalization. I mean,
>its really that simple.

- I read that, but I was addressing your comment that shitted on christianity AND america in one sentence. did u learn how 2 do that in college?


>I mean, saying Killslamic as a rebuttle
>to christ-insanity is incredibly lame & child-like
>in a tit for tat manner.

- oh. so its okay for you to shit on christianity and I cant shit on your beliefs?

>These iraq references your making & your contextualizing
>of islam towards me as if I am Muslim...I am not
>& I do not see its relevance sir.

- so let me get this straight - u shit on christianity, but then later defend islam (the blood on hands remark) yet u arent a muslim? riiiiiiight.

>"Christ-Insanity" is at the core values of the american
>tapestry"
>Thru all levels of government, academia,
>politics, media, economics etc etc"
>
>- obviously u are seeing this as a problem with america, what
>is the solution?

My reason for the aforementioned statement
is because you said so many people take christians
standing for a cause or causes as a joke.

The principles of america as we know it are interwoven
w/"christian" values...look at america's position in
world politics...that's the reason for my statement, to
refute you making a genralization, but you said you
understood that. & I can understand how you took that
being that you are christian & me saying christ-insanity
and all...


>>Simply, I refuted what you said about
>>christians not being taken seriously
>>as a sweeping generalization. I mean,
>>its really that simple.
>
>- I read that, but I was addressing your comment that shitted
>on christianity AND america in one sentence. did u learn how 2
>do that in college?

No I did not learn that in college sir

>>I mean, saying Killslamic as a rebuttle
>>to christ-insanity is incredibly lame & child-like
>>in a tit for tat manner.

>- oh. so its okay for you to shit on christianity and I cant
>shit on your beliefs?

Again your point is well taken

>>These iraq references your making & your contextualizing
>>of islam towards me as if I am Muslim...I am not
>>& I do not see its relevance sir.
>
>- so let me get this straight - u shit on christianity, but
>then later defend islam (the blood on hands remark) yet u
>arent a muslim? riiiiiiight.

I didn't necessarily defend Islam sir, you made a statement
which propagated Islam as having blood on its hands, I just
pointed out that so called christianity has blood on its
hands as well sir, to show you the irrelevance of your
comment. & No sir, I am not Muslim.

...but a more simple answer is that Hiphop is and has always been considered "Rebel Music". Christian references in Hiphop reflects the larger American society to which Hiphop has traditionally stood opposed.

Not all deep questions need deep answers. But good conversation, nonetheless.

"you have always been and will always be tiresome as long as your goal is not productive thought but self-aggrandizement. I've never once read a positive or constructive comment out of your simplistic, black and white mind."
WheatToast spreading love on okayactivist

You said If a Christian speaks on christian topics/values/TRUTH as if there be no truth in any of the others. Hence, this is why you have the problem you do with this situation. You're just as biased.

>I have noticed a trend. If a rapper is muslim, and speaks on
>islamic values in his songs... He is conscious. If a rapper
>is buddist, and speaks on buddist values in his music, he is
>conscious. If an ATHIEST speaks about life from a MORAL
>(moral atheis=oxymoron) standpoint in his music, he is
>conscious. If a CHRISTIAN speaks on christian
>topics/values/TRUTH,... he is... unintellegent?!
>Why?
>This problem is not limited to hip hop... I have observed that
>most of the world holds the same stance...
>Why?
>

As for Hip Hop, it's roots are in the teachings of the Nations of the Gods and the Earths. The original conscious movement is rooted in the Supreme Mathematics and Alphabet, not Christianity or Islam. But maybe you fail to realize that in because you're overly-sensitive about your Christian faith.

The Church has ALWAYS been the bedrock of Black Culture.
Any musician with have a brain KNOWS that the musical envelope has always been PUSHED-MAJORLY in the Black Church.


Some would say that the MC format originated from the Priests pulpit.

Blues/Jazz/Soul/Funk/Reggae/Dancehall/and now Hip-Hop owe a LOT to the Black Church.

Need I meantion John Coltranes "A Love Supreme"?


This NEW Right-Wing Christian bullshit is just another reformation of some old Jimmy Swaggart garbage.

A Love Supreme. Now that's some REAL music. There's plenty of blood on Islam too. Don't get it twisted.

oh, and out of curiosity, what morals did people live by 5000 years ago?

there is no correlation between being christian and BEING conscious

think about it

*rolls eyes*

no one is persecuting christians, no one ever has...Roman Soldiers killed Christ just as today's christians would probably fit that bill if they lived at the time IMHO