langebleu said:

I totally respect all of your views on this subject, however, in my life Prince has brought spirituality not religion whether christianity to some is considered a religion not a state of being. Great views though, I've enjoyed reading them all.

fluid said:

Well "He's your Messiah" sound much more religious. It puts emphasis on Jesus, more so than the original which to some was unclear. Plain and simple Christian = follower of Christ.

Soulchild82 said:

Alright since you want to get into Little Red Corvette. Did you know ehen he says She had a pocket full of horses, trojan and some of them used. He's reffereing to Trojan Condoms.

Christianity is a pretty broad description

OK, of course you (the listener) can take from (or read into) any meaning you
like, but the truth of the matter is that 'I Would Die 4 U' was written as a
very spiritual religious song. It's merely it's use in the context of Purple
Rain that might make you believe that it's just a love song.

In fact, to be more specific about the song, it's actually about God's love
for mankind; sung from the perspective of the Trinity (this was before Prince
became JW, as he no longer believes in the trinity. Luckily the lyrics were
not explicit enough in this respect, and he didn't need to change them like
he had to with 'The Cross'). There are 3 verses, sung from the perspective
of each member of the trinity in the accepted order: Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

So, if you weren't sure before, just listen to the song again with what I've
said above in mind, and I think you'll find it's quite clear.

BorisFishpaw said:

Thank u all 4 these most interesting views on the IWD4U. I really hope the org will analyse more songs in the future. My question 4 mister Fishpaw is where he got this kwowledge.

U might be right mister Fishpaw. I asked for u'r source because u were so convinced.

One but:

Only Jesus can die for us, not God and/or the Holy Spririt. Right?

In that same Chris Rock interview ,Prince also mentions that "Lets Go Crazy" is about God and Satan ,but he said that at the time(1984) you could not say God and Satan on the radio. So to say the religion aspect did'nt appear until the late 90's is crazy.

So a song about God the father, the Son and Holy Spirit, and Jesus' sacrifice on
the cross to save mankind from sin is not 'Religious' but merely 'Spiritual'?

I think we need some definitions here on what constitutes 'Religious' and
what constitutes 'Spirituality'.

BorisFishpaw said:

You can't expand your mind enough to try to understand it without having to have black and white definitions?? You say "merely Spiritual" like it's a step down or some kind of watered down version of religion, a person's spirituality is the very core of that person, not what was taught to them by someone else's definition of anything.

WonderU said:

My mind is quite expanded already thank you very much. But it's obvious from
your reply that definitions are needed. How can you argue about the difference
between Spirituality and Religion if you cannot define it yourself? I am quite
clear about how I define it, and earlier in this thread someone else put
forward their definition also (which incidentally also showed that IWD4U is
a religious song, even though they believed it was spiritual). It's quite clear
reading the various posts on this thread that a lot of people either don't
understand the difference, or have different personal definitions of what they
mean.

BorisFishpaw said:

You say "merely Spiritual" like it's a step down or some kind of watered down version of religion, a person's spirituality is the very core of that person, not what was taught to them by someone else's definition of anything.

WonderU said:

U nferred what is bolded but that is not what Boris suggested.

The idea of God the father, the Son and Holy Spirit, is not ntrinsically nnate, or natural, 2 1's knowledge. It has 2 b TAUGHT. By ur own admission, it is religious n nature.

What 1 feels from I Would Die 4 U need not b religious but this does not change the fact that the song is based on religious scripture.

Prince didn't ntend 2 scare u...

love

BorisFishpaw said:

Then if you're so expanded how is it that you can't seem to grasp anything besides what the Webster definition tells you? I can argue it because I'm very clear that religion is different than spirituality. I know a lot of people that totally shun religion but say that they are very spiritual in their beliefs. They don't have to have their beliefs justified by other's who feel the same that they do about God. Regardless, whether you ever understand the difference or not, Prince's music is spiritual in it's nature but at times has been religion based in the last few years. It's also a seed for you to plant in your soul and nurture the way you would anything else in your life. So a song like Anna Stesia is going to mean exactly to me what it means to you?? If it was religious in nature it would be just that, it would define itself as one thing. But it's not, it's spiritual nature let's the listener embrace the song spiritually and it means something different to each person. Unlike a song like 1+1+1=3 which is very direct in it's meaning "ain't no room for disagree if you want to be with me". We can argue this point forever and one of us would have to change how they feel about something very personal to them, and I'll you right now, it's not going to be me and I wouldn't expect you to either.
[Edited 1/9/05 14:17pm]

WonderU said:

I think that proves my point.
If you think the dictionary definitions are incorrect, then that shows that
this argument is merely about language rather than content. It's all just a
question of semantics, and when it comes to the actual subject matter I think
we actually agree. It's just that the word 'Religion' has a certain baggage
that people associate with it, but isn't actually what the word means. I've
only been pushing my point because I was trying to get people to actually
listen and understand what I'm saying, rather than only hearing what they
think I said due to their own personal definitions of words that don't
quite mean what they think they do. But hey, I'm not here to try and
teach English Langauge so I'll leave it there.

I think that proves my point.

If you think the dictionary definitions are incorrect, then that shows that
this argument is merely about language rather than content. It's all just a
question of semantics, and when it comes to the actual subject matter I think
we actually agree. It's just that the word 'Religion' has a certain baggage
that people associate with it, but isn't actually what the word means. I've
only been pushing my point because I was trying to get people to actually
listen and understand what I'm saying, rather than only hearing what they
think I said due to their own personal definitions of words that don't
quite mean what they think they do. But hey, I'm not here to try and
teach English Langauge so I'll leave it there.

It's not about "me being right" it's about openmindeness and the correct use of
the english langauge. If you can't see the point that I, NouveauDance, Dewrede,
Langebleu, Skywalker, DorothyParkerWasCool, Anji & sosgemini were making then
I give up.

BorisFishpaw said:

Then if you're so expanded how is it that you can't seem to grasp anything besides what the Webster definition tells you? I can argue it because I'm very clear that religion is different than spirituality. I know a lot of people that totally shun religion but say that they are very spiritual in their beliefs. They don't have to have their beliefs justified by other's who feel the same that they do about God. Regardless, whether you ever understand the difference or not, Prince's music is spiritual in it's nature but at times has been religion based in the last few years. It's also a seed for you to plant in your soul and nurture the way you would anything else in your life. So a song like Anna Stesia is going to mean exactly to me what it means to you?? If it was religious in nature it would be just that, it would define itself as one thing. But it's not, it's spiritual nature let's the listener embrace the song spiritually and it means something different to each person. Unlike a song like 1+1+1=3 which is very direct in it's meaning "ain't no room for disagree if you want to be with me". We can argue this point forever and one of us would have to change how they feel about something very personal to them, and I'll you right now, it's not going to be me and I wouldn't expect you to either.
[Edited 1/9/05 14:17pm]

Religion is taught, your spirit is what it is from day one. You can twist my words however but it doesn't change that I believe that spirituality and religion are two different things.

The only time Prince has ever scared me is by trying to rap, other than that, I stand on very firm ground, it would take more than that thanks

However, it's still the case that regardless of how 1 feels about I Would Die 4 U, this does not change the fact that the song is based on religious scripture. A song which is religious n nature does not preclude it from being nterpreted n whichever way the listener wishes, b it spirituality or love or whatever. Isn't that the beauty of it all?