Bcoz I hope he's effing done with that ish that's why!

undertheesea said:

1725topp said:

*

Again, not sure if you are responding to me, but since you are paraphrasing my statement I’ll respond to you. I never said that my statement makes me more divine than anyone else. My point is that if we both have issues then we both would be better worrying about our own issues than me worrying about your issues and you worrying about my issues. You are right; we are all human. And if the OP would realize that Prince is just a "human," then the OP would spend more time worrying about his issues than worrying about Prince's hypocrisy because Prince is just "human."

*

But you do understand that words are vocal and printed signs/symbols for ideas, and ideas do have power because ideas articulate and inform how each of us engage life? Accordingly, words do have meaning but only in context. So, the context of a word determines its meaning, or, simply put, context gives words meaning. So, the word “fuck” is an expression of a profane idea, and the profanity or profane idea can be anything from simply being irreverent, or rude, or mocking, or sexually explicit, or blasphemous. Whatever the case, when one uses “fuck,” one means to be profane. So, in choosing not to use the term, one is choosing not to be profane. The problem for Prince, in the case of changing his lyrics, is that the meaning of profanity has been prescribed or encoded into the context of lyric. So, changing “fuck” to “duck” may not for others (his listeners) change the meaning because the entire phrasing/meaning has been prescribed to be “profane,” regardless of the change of a certain word or a few words. Even when Prince is singing the new lyrics, one can clearly hear many in the audience singing the old lyrics because they want the “profane” meaning of the original lyric. It was something about the profane meaning of the original lyric that initially attracted them to the song. So, when someone says, "I don't give a fuck," that person means more than just they don't care about what others think. That person is, by using "fuck," also meaning to be profane by being rude or mocking or disrespectful. The problem with replacing "fuck" with "duck" in this sentence is that it makes the sentence nonsensical. Yes, "duck" rhymes with "fuck," but "duck" does not have the same meaning as "fuck." I can say that "I wanna duck you" or "Duck off" or "Go duck yourself," but it's all nonsensical except if the listener knows that I'm being sarcastic or facetious. Essentially, Prince, late in his career, learned a lesson about language and creativity the difficult way, which is while the use of profanity may be expedient in its shock value to allow one to appear to be irreverent, eventually quality writing/creative writing shows that for all of its intensity/power profanity really is an example of an ignorant mind trying to express itself. So whether it is for religious reasons or because he just wants to be more adult/mature/responsible with his language, Prince is realizing that it is difficult to “undo” the past, especially a past from which he has profited both artistically and economically. And, as a poet and fiction writer, I have had to learn this lesson myself, regarding language I though was cool in my twenties that I now see as limiting and just plain ignorant in my forties.

*

Of course, this returns us to the original discussion as to whether or not Prince is being hypocritical by changing certain words. And while I can vaguely see how someone might want to call Prince a “hypocrite” for changing certain words so as not to be or appear to be “profane,” I agree with the notion that rather than being hypocritical Prince is simply trying to find a way to reconcile his new desire not to be profane with some of his old life/art. That is—how can one keep something of one’s past life when one has a new perception of how life should be lived. If that is being hypocritical, then every person that attempts to grow/mature and be less profane and more virtuous or responsible would be considered a hypocrite. I’m just glad that at age forty-three I don’t think or behave as I did at age twenty-three. If that makes me a hypocrite, then I gladly accept that title.

nope.... wasnt responding to you. just my thoughts and feelings toward a word that may or may not of slipped from P's mouth. I dont think Prince is a hyporite to the jw faith because he might of slipped the F bomb.

I do feel that words can bring life and death and we always should be wise in what we say, to who we say it, and why. Do i use profanity in my daily language? no! Im a grown woman and my words reflect on myself But if i occasionaly let the F bomb slip from my mouth there is no condemnation for me...thats all. And again....these are my thoughts and feelings and no disrespect to yours.

*

I can try to take you at your word that you were not responding to me, but there are two things that indicate that you were responding to me. First, your reply/post (which is reply # 14) includes my quote within your reply/post. So, if you were not responding to me, why does your reply include my quote? And, your reply of “I have little tolerance for religious people whether u make ur cause of life ur religon or u subscribe to the hypocrisy” seems a direct response to my statement of “I am often amazed how one person's struggle with dichotomy is another person's hypocrisy. What's sad or funny is that so many non-religious people who claim that people, like Prince, who embrace a traditional or orthodox religion are myopic, narrow-minded, or petty, yet these same non-religious people spend most of their lives judging the "religious freaks," showing truly how myopic, narrow-minded, and petty they are,” especially since, again, my statement is quoted as a part of your reply. Second, your reply of “Lord u remove the speck out of ur eye and ill remove mine...it still doesn't make either one of us Devine,” is a direct rephrasing of and response to my statement. So, it is difficult for me to believe that you were not responding to me, but I must take your answer at “face value” since I don’t know you well enough to question your integrity.

*

Additionally, I don’t think that anyone, including Prince, has inferred that you or anyone else should be “condemned” if you or anyone else “occasionally lets the F bomb slip from [your] mouth”. So, while I respect that these are just your “thoughts and feelings”, your words did seem to be inferring that somehow Prince or others on this site were being hypocritical and condemning you or others for the “occasional slip” of profanity, which is not how I perceive Prince’s desire not to use profane language. I don't understand how Prince's desire to be what he perceives as a more mature or responsible person with language is condeming to anyone.

I'll see if I can locate it, but I do remember reading and interview where he connected 'curse' words with anger and it holding him in an angry place

*

Many people 'religious or not' have their own ideals of the use of swear, curse, foul words

*

My 10th grade Science teacher (not religious) told our class that people who use those words do so because they aren't knowledgable and creative with other words to fill that space...

*

... not saying it's right or wrong, but that's what he suggested.

undertheesea said:

1725topp said:

*

I agree with all that you have said but will only add that the "treaty" or "diatribe" in "One Song" is dead-on Christian ideology of the whole mankind is doomed because Adam and Eve chose the Tree of Knowledge over the Tree of Life, and man’s knowledge is too myopic and perverted to produce anything but chaos, etc. But, your point does show, again, how much most religions or religious concepts have in common even though most people fail to see that or just don't want to see that--what James Baldwin called "selective naivety."

*

And now responding to the OP, I am often amazed how one person's struggle with dichotomy is another person's hypocrisy. What's sad or funny is that so many non-religious people who claim that people, like Prince, who embrace a traditional or orthodox religion are myopic, narrow-minded, or petty, yet these same non-religious people spend most of their lives judging the "religious freaks," showing truly how myopic, narrow-minded, and petty they are. If someone says they don't want to smoke anymore or doesn’t want to have pre-marital sex but yields to temptation, is that person a hypocrite? If so, my hypocritical butt is surely going to pay for all of that fried chicken that I swore I would stop eating. Christianity, like any other ideology, is about striving for an ideal; it's not about being perfect. The lives of most secular philosophers should be proof of that. We should all be more concerned about the log in our own eyes rather than the twig in someone else’s eye.

[Edited 5/2/13 17:15pm]

Preach it!!! People come at Christians with as much hate as they accuse "Christians" of. Check ur own self b4 u spew out hate to ur brother! U accuse urself!!! Both r ignorant! I have little tolerance for religious people whether u make ur cause of life ur religon or u subscribe to the hypocrisy. Its interesting that if u just pick up the bible for urself , even if its for historical or stories alone, u will read in the new testimony ... "The gospels" how it was the religious people of the church that demanded Jesus b crucified. Yeah while Jesus was having dinner and breaking bread with the so called "sinners" pastors the church were plotting his death. He had one of the closest friendships with a woman that was a prostitute. He just went on a hill and would start talkin and whoever liked what he had to say followed him. Jesus gets such a bad wrap ... The worst r people n the church...

LOL U tell him to Preach it!! then turn around and do what he "preached" about

*

you can't judge people by a group, only by individuals. Untill you've met everyone in the 'church' you can't say that.

*

And Jesus came against the Political Leaders of Israel, not pastors of a church

OldFriends4Sale said:

undertheesea said:

1725topp said: Preach it!!! People come at Christians with as much hate as they accuse "Christians" of. Check ur own self b4 u spew out hate to ur brother! U accuse urself!!! Both r ignorant! I have little tolerance for religious people whether u make ur cause of life ur religon or u subscribe to the hypocrisy. Its interesting that if u just pick up the bible for urself , even if its for historical or stories alone, u will read in the new testimony ... "The gospels" how it was the religious people of the church that demanded Jesus b crucified. Yeah while Jesus was having dinner and breaking bread with the so called "sinners" pastors the church were plotting his death. He had one of the closest friendships with a woman that was a prostitute. He just went on a hill and would start talkin and whoever liked what he had to say followed him. Jesus gets such a bad wrap ... The worst r people n the church...

LOL U tell him to Preach it!! then turn around and do what he "preached" about

*

you can't judge people by a group, only by individuals. Untill you've met everyone in the 'church' you can't say that.

*

And Jesus came against the Political Leaders of Israel, not pastors of a church

*

Amen! :^)

Even if he is straddling the fence, it's his life. Fans buy the music, not the person who made it.

OldFriends4Sale said:

undertheesea said:

1725topp said: Preach it!!! People come at Christians with as much hate as they accuse "Christians" of. Check ur own self b4 u spew out hate to ur brother! U accuse urself!!! Both r ignorant! I have little tolerance for religious people whether u make ur cause of life ur religon or u subscribe to the hypocrisy. Its interesting that if u just pick up the bible for urself , even if its for historical or stories alone, u will read in the new testimony ... "The gospels" how it was the religious people of the church that demanded Jesus b crucified. Yeah while Jesus was having dinner and breaking bread with the so called "sinners" pastors the church were plotting his death. He had one of the closest friendships with a woman that was a prostitute. He just went on a hill and would start talkin and whoever liked what he had to say followed him. Jesus gets such a bad wrap ... The worst r people n the church...

LOL U tell him to Preach it!! then turn around and do what he "preached" about

*

you can't judge people by a group, only by individuals. Untill you've met everyone in the 'church' you can't say that.

*

And Jesus came against the Political Leaders of Israel, not pastors of a church

*

Amen! :^)

undertheesea said:

1725topp said:

LOL U tell him to Preach it!! then turn around and do what he "preached" about

*

you can't judge people by a group, only by individuals. Untill you've met everyone in the 'church' you can't say that.

*

And Jesus came against the Political Leaders of Israel, not pastors of a church

*

Amen! :^)

[/quot The Pharisees were both political leaders and teachers of the word (the Holy scriptures).

*

Yes, they were, and Jesus condemned "them" for putting their lust for money and political power before teaching the word of Jehovah, but Jesus also praised "those" members of the religion or faith who rejected the Pharisees and accepted and followed the word of Jehovah. So, once again, you are telling only half of the story so that you can condemn the entire body of believers. For instance, after Peter's answer to Jesus asking who do people say that I am and who do the disciples say that I am, Jesus says in Matthew 16:18 that "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." So, clearly Jesus understood that there are goats and sheep in the congregation that must be separated so that the sheep will not be punished for the hypocrisy of the goats. (Matthew 25:31-46). Furthermore, one could argue that the Pharisees were acting moreso as a political body and that Jesus's death must be understood as much as a political assassination as much as it is seen as a fulfillment of prophecy and that those who continued to spread Jesus's message of the Good News were/are the core members of the "religion" or "faith" who remained untainted by the Pharisees, which means that they, like the sheep, should not be punished or lumped in with the Pharisees.

*

No one is arguing that there are not hypocrites professing the Christian faith. But, hypocrisy is not exclusive to Christianity or religion. Keep in mind that the word “hypocrite” literally means “actor” as “hypocrite” is the Greek word for actor so this term can be and should be applied to anyone living a false life not just religious people. Furthermore, to tell only half the story or provide only half the information when making a point shows “a lack of information” at best and “is hypocritical” at worst.

undertheesea said:

1725topp said:

LOL U tell him to Preach it!! then turn around and do what he "preached" about

*

you can't judge people by a group, only by individuals. Untill you've met everyone in the 'church' you can't say that.

*

And Jesus came against the Political Leaders of Israel, not pastors of a church

*

Amen! :^)

[/quot The Pharisees were both political leaders and teachers of the word (the Holy scriptures).

I know what they were & they were not supposed to be political leaders, that's why they went corrupt

but they were not pastors of a church as you said.

1725topp said:

undertheesea said:

1725topp said:

*

Amen! :^)

[/quot The Pharisees were both political leaders and teachers of the word (the Holy scriptures).

*

Yes, they were, and Jesus condemned "them" for putting their lust for money and political power before teaching the word of Jehovah, but Jesus also praised "those" members of the religion or faith who rejected the Pharisees and accepted and followed the word of Jehovah. So, once again, you are telling only half of the story so that you can condemn the entire body of believers. For instance, after Peter's answer to Jesus asking who do people say that I am and who do the disciples say that I am, Jesus says in Matthew 16:18 that "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." So, clearly Jesus understood that there are goats and sheep in the congregation that must be separated so that the sheep will not be punished for the hypocrisy of the goats. (Matthew 25:31-46). Furthermore, one could argue that the Pharisees were acting moreso as a political body and that Jesus's death must be understood as much as a political assassination as much as it is seen as a fulfillment of prophecy and that those who continued to spread Jesus's message of the Good News were/are the core members of the "religion" or "faith" who remained untainted by the Pharisees, which means that they, like the sheep, should not be punished or lumped in with the Pharisees.

*

No one is arguing that there are not hypocrites professing the Christian faith. But, hypocrisy is not exclusive to Christianity or religion. Keep in mind that the word “hypocrite” literally means “actor” as “hypocrite” is the Greek word for actor so this term can be and should be applied to anyone living a false life not just religious people. Furthermore, to tell only half the story or provide only half the information when making a point shows “a lack of information” at best and “is hypocritical” at worst.

^^ there it is

Pitrzel said:

How come P. on his DNA show sung "I want to come inside of u" in When We're Dancing Close And Slow, but he couldn't sing freaking "damn" in housequake sampler or "Frontin' more booty than Peru got keys" in Endorphinmachine?

what are your religious beliefs?