Expecting Rain

Shot of Love is not a very good follow up to Saved. From an evangelical perspective, Saved was an acceptable follow up to Slow Train Coming but the only Shot of Love songs on the evangelical radar were Every Grain of Sand, Property of Jesus, and Shot of Love (okay, maybe Watered Down Love, too). And frankly, as great a song as Every Grain of Sand is, there are moments when it appears almost to liberal for an acceptably evangelical song.

I don't quite understand what the implied criteria is for one to have been a worthy follow-up to the previous record in that chain. More of the same? More fervent? More Christ-focused?
To my mind, the trilogy makes sense as-is, even if 'Shot of Love' seemingly strays into other territories.

Why do people need Dylan to 100% agree with their own religious or lack of religious perspective? And don't tell me some of you don't feel that need. It simply oozes from some of these posts. And that kind of desire for Bob's validation strikes me as pretty lame. I mean, how strong can your faith in Christianity, Judiasm, or even athiesm really be if deep down you feel such an anxiety over whether Dylan is or isn't? Not very strong, I suspect.

Or are some of you just worried Bob's going to burn in hell? Well, if that is your concern, then I'd start concentrating more on yourself.


Cuz u gotz prublimz.

that's kind of a vague general statement addressing a lot of posts expressing various points of view and observations there.

i don't see how you came to that conclusion unless it's just projection.

Say what what now? Which ways are these, exactly?

Fair enough. I can't argue with that observation.

And though I didn't name names, this is something that I've observed or 'projected' (ha ha) in a lot of posts that arent' in this particular thread. Look at the 'outrage' of people who object to Dylan recording a Christmas record! Oh my, that's scandalous! Why they'd never do that! So how could Dylan

But this is all just water under the bridge on a subject that's been beat to death in other threads. Besides, unless someone is offended by my original post (guess why), they're probably in agreement with it. Or they're and simply dull. No offence, btw. I love all you glorious dullards out there!

oh, i thought you had some interesting points to make there. i totally gave you my take on the gabriel thing too.

Well, its primarily geographic. Look at the former Roman Empire before it divided into East and West. Now look at the EU. Its roughly the same. To restore the Roman Empire in this way has been the dream of many kings and dictators throughout Europe's long and bloody history. Ever hear of the Holy Roman Empire? Ever hear of Hitler? Napolean? The current need to unite for mutual protection and financial strength has glued the whole thing together again like none of these little tin horned elitists ever could. The EU is one super state with one currency and ratifies treaties for all its members= a reconstituted Roman Empire.

History class is out. I have to go to work now.

I'm still having a hard time understanding this...There are people out there that actually enjoy his gospel period? And even people that have long been awaiting a new gospel album?

I don't get it.

Yes. I don't see what there is to "get".

"You mean, there are people out there that actually enjoy looking up at the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel? I just don't get it."

Each of the members of the EU retains its own government (most if not all are democracies) and sovereignty; joining is entirely voluntary with provisions in place for withdrawal. This is hardly an empire, which consists of territories annexed and occupied by the forces of a central ruling authority. It's not even as tight a coalition as The United States of America are. Saying it's the same thing as the Roman Empire simply because it's similarly situated in geographic terms is a very misguided comparison.

Did you just compare Michelangelo's iconic paintings to Bob Dylan's gospel period?

I got the album today. There is sincerity, a lot of sincerity on every song, and the last song ends with amen.
If he did not like a song at his age, I do not think he would listen to it, much less record it.

"Larry, you splashed on Jesus!"

To follow up with what Mighty Monkey said (I teach ancient history, and the EU is NOTHING like the ancient roman empire) even a cursory look at a historical atlas will show that the current EU:



is very far from synonymous with the ancient Roman Empire:


Just one of the very questionable interpretations of the Book of Revelations by modern day American millennialists.
If anyone is interested in the conclusions of someone who bases their interpretation of the bible on actual historical and archaeological knowledge, and can actually the read the languages in which the ancient texts are written, you might want to check out the work of Dr. James Tabor of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte:
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/indexb.html

No.
But I did draw comparisons between appreciating sincere expressions of faith.

I can appreciate good art, no matter what inspired it.

Bob's gospel period wasn't art, it was over-zealous religious fundamentalism, which is bad in any form. He doesn't even sound joyful, like on the Christmas record, he sounds bitter and judgmental.

Fair enough. We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on some points here.
Yes, I concede that there is some over-the-top fire & brimstone stuff that shouldn't be there and defeats the message.
That said, I think the good outweighs the bad considerably, to my ears. It's still art, nonetheless, imho.

That's fair.
'Every Grain of Sand' is a damn good song, despite the religious undertones, and I'll concede that some of the vocals and melodies on 'Slow Train Coming' are pretty good, I just can't stand the preaching and "you're going to Hell" vibe on a lot of the lyrics.

Yes it was.

I said geographically it is roughly the same. But then, I suppose the United States of America prior to the acquisition of Hawaii, Alaska, California, etc. didn't look exactly like it does today, and yet it was still the same Republic, right?

And it is obvious to any person even remotely familiar with history that people and nations have been trying to unite Europe under one flag for 2000 years. So they call it the European Union now---what's in a name? And to unite Europe in this fashion is reminiscent of what? When attempted in the past it was called The Holy Roman Empire, the Third Reich. Ask yourself---why third? Find the answer to that and you'll see I'm right. Also, the individual states of the US have the right to form agreements with other national governments as well, but that doesn't make them any less part of this Republic, does it? Of course not! The EU is what it is, my friend. A newly mutated version of a very old idea. Disagree to your own peril!

But if you mean ancient Rome didn't have ipods, telephones, television, and automobiles, then yeah, you're right---they're not the same thing at all.

And I am not trying to give anything like a definitive interpretation of the Book of Revelations for Millenialists. I have no frigging idea what the Book of Revelations means!!! It raises more questions for me than it answers. I was just giving out some food for thought to another ER member who discussed his pastor's interpretation of the book.

But how about that Love and Theft? Killer album, huh?

And I'm definitely done with this thread, and pray to God I don't get sucked into it again.

Goodnight all!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPo1J6_pbC0

by Philip Berrigan

One of the best-kept secrets of the world has been the activism – the nonviolent resistance of Jesus. A close reading of the Gospel reveals this – his calling to accountability an unjust, corrupt system. That wasted the poor and turned society into a mad beehive. Like today!

Kindness does not adequately describe his relationship to the poor, or to those who suffer – compassion is better. “My heart is moved with compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat.” (Mk 8:2) Nor does nonviolent revolutionary sum him up – anarchist is better – one who lives self-government, i.e. re-presenting the poor, resisting a criminal State, attending to the just works of God. “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.” (Mt. 22:21) Since all belonged to God, he gave nothing to Caesar.

Most of this is suppressed from today’s Christians, simply because the established church has chosen chaplaincy to the imperial state. And so, virtually no one teaches Christians the nonviolence of Jesus, nor his calling to community, nor his voluntary poverty, no his choice of the cross. Especially his choice of the cross, that living symbol of resistance to evil, to systemic evil – to imperial governments, to predatory corporations, to nuclear weapons, to war as politic and diplomacy, to despoliation of the environment, to killing in any form. “Whoever does not take up the cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.” (Mt. 10:38)

St. Paul calls Jesus the “Yes” of God, embodying all that was truly human – goodness, truth, faith, justice. He could have mentioned also that Jesus was the “No” of God – the fierce resister of structural injustice, all of it dominative, violent, coercive, parasitical. Those are coalitions which dominate and control others, which grow fat on the misery of the poor, terrorize with nuclear weapons, declare an annual war, and loot the planet of its forests, fisheries, oil, and metals.

What are these organizations of oppression that lie to us, rob us, and sometimes kill us – empires, nation-states, globalized corporations, World Trade Organizations, tariff and trade agreements (NAFTA), war ministries (“Department of Defense”), banks, stock exchanges. Jesus would denounce and resist the scurrying, blind creatures that build and idolize them, while loving them and agonizing over their conversion.

The next imperative to clarify is “follow!” Follow him to what? To disgrace, ridicule, ostracism, imprisonment, torture, possibly death. The saints and martyrs did that. One friend has completed 18 and ½ years in prison for resistance to nuclearism. Another 13 and ½ years.

Few choose the path to life. As the poet W.H. Auden put it: “Many are called, but few choose to be chosen.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHA5Yubbqxw

Have you noticed that there are a lot of religious BD tracks still left on ytube?
Are the sheriffs just a bunch of God fearing Money counting Fundamentalists
afraid of divine Punishment?

Why does this thread refer to 'The" Christ? Either it's his surname or it isn't. If it's not his surname but some kind of title then what was his surname? Jesus Goldstein? If it's a title then how come there aren't any others around? This is a serious question. And why doesn't the bible mention dinosaurs?

Christ is indeed a title and not a name, it means "anointed one" or messiah. I'm not sure if surnames as we know them were used in Jesus' time and place. He's often referred to as Jesus of Nazareth.