I love you Jesus Christ? [Archive]

pgrube

10-01-2006, 10:25 AM

Well while I'm in an argumentative mood I want put something else out there.

I know that there had been a post about this a while back but it was before I discovered e6townhall so I was too late to comment.

Here it goes. I think that when Mangum says "I love you Jesus Christ" he is NOT saying that he loves Jesus. I don't take Mangum as a religious man. I think he is using the term "Jesus Christ" as an expletive. (For example 'Jesus Christ did you see the size of that!?' )

Let the angry uproar commence.

tomatoesandradiowires

10-01-2006, 10:35 AM

I'd say jittery joes negates your argument.

"so, do you really want to hear the song ABOUT jesus?, ok..song ABOUT jesus..although i don't want to..i mean I'm just as confused as everybody. but yea, it's nice to sing a song ABOUT jesus."

But you're right, He's not particularly religious or so the above quote would also suggest. I hope this thread doesn't really take off though, this isn't that interesting. In other words, i don't expect any uproar.

tackledspoon

10-01-2006, 11:18 AM

Yeah... it's definitely not an expletive in that case. Read the liner notes for Aeroplane and then draw your own conclusions.

pgrube

10-01-2006, 11:36 AM

Well on the Sweetest Sings compilation Mangum explains says, "Because one time, you know, when I was like twelve years old, I was at this pot-smoking church cabin, and uh they'd give you this bag of sh*t [I can't really underwstand this part] And Robert sent me this picture, he drew this picture of me walking around naked with a bucket on my head, and told me that he loved me. And this song sort of takes place there anyways."

To me this suggests that the song is about Robert rather than Jesus.

tomatoesandradiowires

10-01-2006, 11:43 AM

"... a song for a old friend and a song for a new friend and now a song for Jesus Christ and since this seems to confuse people I'd like to simply say that I mean what I sing although the theme of endless endless on this album is not based on any religion but more in the belief that all things seem to contain a white light within them ..."

I don't think you're far off with your thoughts on robert. No one ever said it couldn't be for both. I still maintain it's about jesus, but perhaps not exclusively.

auxiliaryoctopus

10-01-2006, 12:02 PM

Does it bother you that he's singing about Jesus, pgrube?

pgrube

10-01-2006, 12:18 PM

To be honest, yes. At least it would if I believed he was actually singing about Jesus. When I first got ITAOTS from my freind, that was the only part of the CD that bothered me.

Jon

10-01-2006, 12:24 PM

this is no mystery
he is a spiritual man, and jesus does not represent something as simple and conveluded as religion.(despite what our culture has made it)

here is the interview from puncture. read the rest here
http://www.elephant6.com/press/NMHpuncture4.html
dont be so ansty when someone mentions jesus, he was a glorious person.

When you sing "I love you Jesus Christ" rather than "I love you Peggy Sue," people might think of you completely differently, because of that line..."
For a lot of these songs I was able to lock myself in a room and allow my mind to let out what it wanted without worrying too much about what others would think. A song about God was inevitable, because of my upbringing and the intense experiences I had, growing up, going to these crazy church camps where everything was very open. We talked about sexuality freely, we talked about...
How old were you?
From eleven to seventeen.
Where were the camps?
In central Louisiana, out in the boonies.
Was it a hippie kind of Christianity?
It wasn't really hippie. it was just weird. You could spill your guts all over the place. People were leaping and freaking out. It wasn't so much a God trip as an emotional trip. Even if you were an atheist, if your parents shipped you down there, you could talk about it. You could talk openly about your atheist beliefs and there would be debates; and being atheist was as beautiful as anything else.
A few weeks ago in Athens, we played a show with Vic Chesnutt. He sat on the stage and played for 30 minutes, singing songs about how action and reaction are the closest things to truth in the universe, how he's had out-of-body experiences but they weren't supernatural. I thought it was the most beautiful thing I'd ever heard. My love for Christ has more to do with what Christ said and believed in. Then the Church put this fucked-up bullshit around it and made it this at-times really evil thing. If you attach man to anything, he's gonna fuck it up somehow. You think that's too cynical?
No, we all fuck up. My church is my records.
Right. With Aeroplane, I feel it's spiritual—but not religious.

Stormx

10-01-2006, 12:25 PM

I think jeff mangum is a bit of a dreamer. He might have gone through a phase of loving jesus... etc.

Its important to note that Little Birds is almost certainly a orthodox christian family and corruption in the church.

tomatoesandradiowires

10-01-2006, 12:26 PM

If jesus was so glorious, could he start a jukebox just by hitting it?

Stormx

10-01-2006, 12:29 PM

What the hell are you talking about?

tomatoesandradiowires

10-01-2006, 12:29 PM

Shhhh.

pgrube

10-01-2006, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Jon

dont be so ansty when someone mentions jesus, he was a glorious person.

To you maybe. I just get a little uncomfortable. I guess being from Massachusetts, I'm just a little too politically correct.

pgrube

10-01-2006, 12:48 PM

But the interview also shows that Mangum has a rather liberal view of Christianity. I get the feeling that he believes in an abstract representation of Jesus. But I still doen't discount the possibility that the song is just as much about Robert as it was about Jesus.

PÃ¥l

10-01-2006, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by tomatoesandradiowires
"... a song for a old friend and a song for a new friend and now a song for Jesus Christ and since this seems to confuse people I'd like to simply say that I mean what I sing although the theme of endless endless on this album is not based on any religion but more in the belief that all things seem to contain a white light within them ..."

jeff's between-song banter is very funny. my favorite is "...We wanted to do this post nervous breakdown gig in tribute to that company, that was thousands of years ahead of its time. And one day we will all look like fools for not having beard walls to walk around with. Because in the future it's going to be really hip."

Mutineer

10-01-2006, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Half-Handed
Why does it matter in the slightest?

Seriously.

auxiliaryoctopus

10-01-2006, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by pgrube
To be honest, yes. At least it would if I believed he was actually singing about Jesus. When I first got ITAOTS from my freind, that was the only part of the CD that bothered me.

Isn't that kind of close-minded? What if he were talking about Buddah or Timothy Leary?

Code_J

10-01-2006, 01:45 PM

I saw someone on SongMeanings talking about this, and I liked their way of looking at it. I mean, I'm an atheist, and I still think it's possible to love Jesus Christ, even if you didn't believe he was the son of a god. He wasn't only a religious figure, he was also a big historical figure, and you don't have to love him as the son of god, you can love what he taught and what he did for the people of the time.

milkandholywater

10-01-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by tomatoesandradiowires
If jesus was so glorious, could he start a jukebox just by hitting it?

let us AAAYYYY!

pgrube

10-01-2006, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus

Isn't that kind of close-minded? What if he were talking about Buddah or Timothy Leary?

How is it close-minded? . . . Well actually it might be a little. I don't know. People should be able to sing about whatever the hell they want to and I am by no means saying that Mangum's lyrics are wrong. They're just . . . expressive. I guess. It's hard to articulate my uneasiness. It's not because I don't believe in the Christian savior, it's more because there are things that I just prefer not to talk about. People get really uppity when they start talking about religion. It's not what people are saying that bothers me; it's more that they say it with such conviction. And all I can reply is "Hmm. Interesting thought." I guess there's just a part of me that doesn't want to offend people.

But then there's another part of me who wants to argue with people.

Originally posted by Code_J
He wasn't only a religious figure, he was also a big historical figure, and you don't have to love him as the son of god, you can love what he taught and what he did for the people of the time.

I don't want to get into a big religion battle, but on the other hand, I sort of do. I agree that the idea of Jesus is great. And 'his' teachings are wonderful to base ones morals but Jesus was in no way a historical figure. The only stuff we know about him was written by people who worshiped him. Do you think that that might distort some of the facts? Jesus' ideas should be respected but the Bible should not be taken as a historical account.

tomatoesandradiowires

10-01-2006, 04:10 PM

You guys would love my comics of Muhammed.

Stormx

10-01-2006, 05:14 PM

I wanna see ^__^

And I'm totally with you pgrube on that one. My current view is that organised religion just gets corrupt and screws more things up than it helps.

e.g. the christians in the US of A sending out arms to Israel AND hesbola because they thought it was the rapture.

the hurdy gurdy man

10-01-2006, 06:17 PM

*edit: I need to do more research before I say anything concerning non-Christian records of Jesus. (Not that I've found any reason to doubt that there was a historical Jesus)See you later.

[Edited on 10-2-0606 by the hurdy gurdy man]

shelly

10-01-2006, 07:55 PM

Personally, I don't think it matters all that much. He's not the first person to reference God, or Jesus Christ, in songs that aren't necessarily Christian or Deist/theist in general; and he won't believe the last.

That said, I totally get what Mangum said in that interview. This part resonated the most with me:

My love for Christ has more to do with what Christ said and believed in. Then the Church put this f*cked-up bullshit around it and made it this at-times really evil thing. If you attach man to anything, he's gonna f*ck it up somehow.

Matt

10-01-2006, 09:26 PM

Why not just listen to the record, smile, and appreciate how Jeff can throw all his insecurities on a record?

Also, the Google ads in this thread are funny.

eggcup

10-01-2006, 10:23 PM

Whether any one likes it or not, Jeff attended church in S.F. while on tour, and spent time in a monastery. He doesn’t seem “insecure” about his faith at all. Maybe he really does love Jesus. Cool.

Wasserman

10-02-2006, 12:46 AM

Pgrub I think you have to understand that Jeff is probably the exact opposite of you when it comes to religious thought. Instead of getting uneasy about it, he embraced it and sang a song that can literally be taken as Jeff loving Jesus and not caring who hears it.

Does this make him some lame christian-rock artist on WGOD 107.6? No, you can be spiritual without being religious. And raising these ideas about jesus in music is not exactly praise/worship...but probably more or a thought-provoking statement.

And I'm from MASS too and although I am kind of anti-religion myself I still love the song and was blown away by how brave it comes off as.

tito00

10-02-2006, 02:24 AM

Message original : pgrube
Well while I'm in an argumentative mood I want put something else out there.

I know that there had been a post about this a while back but it was before I discovered e6townhall so I was too late to comment.

Here it goes. I think that when Mangum says "I love you Jesus Christ" he is NOT saying that he loves Jesus. I don't take Mangum as a religious man. I think he is using the term "Jesus Christ" as an expletive. (For example 'Jesus Christ did you see the size of that!?' )

Let the angry uproar commence.
"God is a place where some holy spectacle lies...
God is a place you will wait for the rest of your life..."

atrocities

10-02-2006, 03:53 AM

The underpinning religious sentiment for me is that I think 'religious belief' is what really distorts and makes things dangerous, whereas 'faith' is a really good thing for people to have, no matter what they have 'faith' in.

tito00

10-02-2006, 07:00 AM

Religion is an important part of the scenes in which the songs evolve, I think that "God" is used as an image to speak of the beauty transcending the horror, something like that, or maybe the good memories we keep of someone that has left (a place where some holy spectacle lies...).

powerlinehorizon

10-02-2006, 08:12 AM

who wouldn't spend time at the Church of St. John Coltrane?????

http://www.jindustry.com/xtra/coltrane/assets/images/homepage.JPEG">

[Edited on 10-2-0606 by powerlinehorizon]

eggcup

10-02-2006, 02:11 PM

if you read the new testament it seems that christ is trying to say that god can exists separate from religion and culture - which is why jesus is so cool. I love the whole co creation thing that the coltrane chruch is about. Now THAT would be the only church i would want to attend these days....

[Edited on 10-2-0606 by eggcup]

pgrube

10-02-2006, 03:05 PM

Alright I think I figured it out. I was thinking today about the song and I think that it's not that the lyrics bother me, it's that I don't connect with the lyrics. Personally, I can't comprehend feeling that much love (for lack of a better word) for one person (to simplify Jesus' identity.)

Originally posted by Wasserman
And raising these ideas about jesus in music is not exactly praise/worship...but probably more or a thought-provoking statement.

I like that idea. And it would seem that it has worked. Also what part of Mass are you from? (If you don't mind me asking)

Originally posted by atrocities
The underpinning religious sentiment for me is that I think 'religious belief' is what really distorts and makes things dangerous, whereas 'faith' is a really good thing for people to have, no matter what they have 'faith' in.

Another very interesting point. Faith conotes trust while belief implies blindly following.

Lastly, I just want to say that I'm not saying that one has to be religious to be spiritual. Religion is a creation of man while spititualism is more transcendental. I believe in god but not religion.

Oh and "God is a place where some holy spectacle lies." That is my favorite NMH line.

powerlinehorizon

10-02-2006, 03:16 PM

im assuming that's why Jeff went there, because he feels that way as well eggcup, has anyone else been there? Sounds amazing.

tomatoesandradiowires

10-02-2006, 03:36 PM

This whole thread makes me think of that speach by Chris rock in 'Dogma' where he explains how spirtuality works best as an idea, as a belief. as soon as it's turned into religion, people will carry out wars over it, sharp distinctions arise, Suddenly someone can be "wrong" about their higher power.

Any other kevin smith fans in the audience? you people couldn't have disliked clerks..

auxiliaryoctopus

10-02-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by pgrube
Alright I think I figured it out. I was thinking today about the song and I think that it's not that the lyrics bother me, it's that I don't connect with the lyrics. Personally, I can't comprehend feeling that much love (for lack of a better word) for one person (to simplify Jesus' identity.)

If you can't comprehend feeling love for a person, I imagine there are a lot of song lyrics you can't relate to...

pgrube

10-02-2006, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
Originally posted by pgrube
Alright I think I figured it out. I was thinking today about the song and I think that it's not that the lyrics bother me, it's that I don't connect with the lyrics. Personally, I can't comprehend feeling that much love (for lack of a better word) for one person (to simplify Jesus' identity.)

If you can't comprehend feeling love for a person, I imagine there are a lot of song lyrics you can't relate to...

I soppose. But my taste in music is so obscure that it rarely comes up, at least in the esoteric religious sense.

tomatoesandradiowires

10-02-2006, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
If you can't comprehend feeling love for a person, I imagine there are a lot of song lyrics you can't relate to...

'I love how you love me' would certainly be baffeling.

[Edited on 10-2-0606 by tomatoesandradiowires]

pgrube

10-02-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by tomatoesandradiowires

'I love how you love me' would certainly be baffeling.

No. You were right before your edit, that's not what I meant. I can relate to an earthly love such as the one sang about in 'I love how you love me.' When one gets into the realm of love in a religious context, that's when I start to distance myself. Love for an intimate idea. Love of love. I just haven't gotten to the stage of my life yet that can except this.

tomatoesandradiowires

10-02-2006, 04:35 PM

I edited it because I thought that clarification was allready made, but it's reassuring to know i can accurately interpret intent.

Aqualad

10-03-2006, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by pgrube

Originally posted by atrocities
The underpinning religious sentiment for me is that I think 'religious belief' is what really distorts and makes things dangerous, whereas 'faith' is a really good thing for people to have, no matter what they have 'faith' in.

Another very interesting point. Faith conotes trust while belief implies blindly following.

Lastly, I just want to say that I'm not saying that one has to be religious to be spiritual. Religion is a creation of man while spititualism is more transcendental. I believe in god but not religion.

You guys seem to not know what the real definition of religion is. All it is is God existing and saying "this is how I made you to behave." If you believe in a God you have to wonder if he has any claim on your life in how you should act, right? That's what religion is for.

Of course, most of us know how we're supposed to act in the moral sense(none of us do it well). And belief is not blind following. I believe in God based on what I've felt(personal experience), what I've read on the subject, what other people have felt, and how it lines up with nature.

pgrube

10-03-2006, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Aqualad

You guys seem to not know what the real definition of religion is. All it is is God existing and saying "this is how I made you to behave." If you believe in a God you have to wonder if he has any claim on your life in how you should act, right? That's what religion is for.

Religion, as I see it, is man's representation of one's beliefs among a community. Religion is an establishment. And since an establishment must be run by a person or group of people, there is the possibility of corruption. In religion, it is one man telling another how to think. There in lies the fundamental problem: Man is flawed, and being such cannot and should not preach his beliefs. Universal truths should be decided on an individual level.

tomatoesandradiowires

10-03-2006, 05:33 PM

Whatever happened to the society of friends?

WilliamTaft

10-03-2006, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by pgrube
Originally posted by Aqualad

You guys seem to not know what the real definition of religion is. All it is is God existing and saying "this is how I made you to behave." If you believe in a God you have to wonder if he has any claim on your life in how you should act, right? That's what religion is for.

Religion, as I see it, is man's representation of one's beliefs among a community. Religion is an establishment. And since an establishment must be run by a person or group of people, there is the possibility of corruption. In religion, it is one man telling another how to think. There in lies the fundamental problem: Man is flawed, and being such cannot and should not preach his beliefs. Universal truths should be decided on an individual level.

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/fashion/hippie-tie-dye.gif

auxiliaryoctopus

10-03-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by pgrube
Man is flawed, and being such cannot and should not preach his beliefs. Universal truths should be decided on an individual level.

Who will be the first to spot the contradiction?

David_R._Gross

10-03-2006, 07:20 PM

eggcup

10-03-2006, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by auxiliaryoctopus
Originally posted by pgrube
Man is flawed, and being such cannot and should not preach his beliefs. Universal truths should be decided on an individual level.

Who will be the first to spot the contradiction?

beliefs are temporary ideas of god. our relationship with god is always growing and can only be personal/individual.
that's what christ was all about (as far as i can tell). original sin created the awareness of god, who defined sin for our self awareness, then christ moved us beyond our own understanding to worshipping god in the spirit (book of John) with the idea that love is greater then the law (thus, no religion necessary). there now.

auxiliaryoctopus

10-03-2006, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by pgrube
Man is flawed, and being such cannot and should not preach his beliefs. Universal truths should be decided on an individual level.

I was thinking more along the lines of:

1.) If "man is flawed" and "should not preach his beliefs," doesn't that include you too, pgrube? Wouldn't your belief that man is flawed, and therefore cannot arrive at absolute certainty apply to your postition as well? If so, why are you "preaching" it?

2.) If "universal truths can only be decided on an individual level," why do you insist on trying to make them for everyone else? Wouldn't deciding individual truths on an individual level include the decision to accept an organized religion? Or does "accepting truths on an individual level" only apply to the individual level which you want everyone to accept?

eggcup

10-03-2006, 08:12 PM

love over law takes all the fun out of dogma. I want to go to coltrane's church!!!!! Easter 07 pilgrimage!!

milkandholywater

10-04-2006, 09:07 AM

stare intently at the four dots in the center of this picture. focus only on the dots, not on the blobs and abstract shapes around them. after 30 slow seconds of staring, close your eyes and wait. a circle of light will appear, and then something else inside the cirlce. what is it?

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i20/cjunq/Misc/illusion.jpg

Aqualad

10-04-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by eggcup
beliefs are temporary ideas of god. our relationship with god is always growing and can only be personal/individual.
that's what christ was all about (as far as i can tell). original sin created the awareness of god, who defined sin for our self awareness, then christ moved us beyond our own understanding to worshipping god in the spirit (book of John) with the idea that love is greater then the law (thus, no religion necessary). there now.

We are each supposed to be mirrors that reflect a certain apsect of God, yes? Each person is to share what he alone gets from God. In this way it is not only individual but also an organized thing. It doesn't make religion unnecessary, insofar as we are referring to a group of people getting together and celebrating who God is to them and that aspect they reflect, and what he wants us to do, and how we wants us to act. If you are referring to the law, yes, it does make it obsolete, but not because the law was wrong. Jesus himself said he didn't come to remove the law. "The law says that if you sleep with another mans wife it is adultery, but i say if you think of her wrong you are guilty of adultery," etc.
As for the separation from culture, I don't think that makes much sense. "do what you would have others do to you" is not something i would remove from society/culture. But actually yes, you can separate God from culture. If that wasn't the case people would have left Him by the wayside long ago in some change of fashion or way of thinking. Speaking only of what I know(Christianity), it is offered not as a ten step plan, but as the standard on which you act. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbour as yourself" don't tell you how to do either. That's for you to decide.
Anyway, thanks for getting me ging about something that I really enjoy enjoy talking about. Law is not religion. Love didn't supplant Law. It couldn't. It oculd only make the obedience to the law a willing thing, something done with joy and trembling for a God who each knew individually.

rarrrrr

3.14159265358979323846264

10-04-2006, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Aqualad
rarrrrr

eggcup

10-04-2006, 06:32 PM

good point. I'm not knocking the body of christ, just saying god is bigger then the american traditional churches. breaking gods law to enforce gods word has historically been a bad idea. I was only defining culture as tradition and religion as politics. but the literal interpretation of the bible leads to love or in christian terms, trusting gods will and acting on gods will (love god, love others). Christ opened a new era when he introduced the holy spirit, that is what made it possible for john to say, god is spirit and those who worship god must worship in spirit and truth. chruch doctirne has sadly only divided the body by legalistic and political interpretations of the bible, something paul warned us about.

Aqualad

10-05-2006, 09:15 AM

that's true, my friend and I were talking about one articular verse, i think it was in one of the corinthian books, where paul slams the people for saying "I follow Paul's teachings" or "I follows Apollos," when they should really be saying I follow Christ. He was basically saying there are no sects in Christianity. And now look at what we have. baptists, methodists, catholics, pentecostals, etc. And you can break them down much further then this. It's pretty sad that even nondenominational has become a denomination.

eggcup

10-05-2006, 12:08 PM

1 corinthians 3:4 - yeah, ...it happens...the shoe or the gourd!:P

birdman

10-06-2006, 11:30 AM

the argument is along the lines of humes skepticism: that our beliefs about cause and effect depend on sentiment, custom and habit, and not upon reason or abstract, timeless, general Laws of Nature. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume)

So

yes, the argument is flawed when mixed with action, but, remains true. due to individual belief i believe that universal truths should be decided on an individual level.

personally,

I see religion as any form of thought that we use to get throughout the day. This is the conjoined area of all thought that we see as unquestionable, not just christianity or another "religion". Going with my example of hume, sentiment, custom and habit which causes us to believe the world is as such.

In other news...

http://www.philipkdickfans.com/weirdo/weirdo1.htm

eggcup

10-06-2006, 12:44 PM

maybe universal truths are not decided on an individual basis, but that universal truth is understood on an individual basis - on the level the individual is able or willing to understand according to custom and religion. Truth does not change (can it and still be considered truth?) We tend to grow in understanding, rather then just change the definition of truth in order to fit our current belief system, which is why I was saying that beliefs are temporary - not wrong, just never really right.

alfred_hybrid

10-06-2006, 10:07 PM

When I first heard this song it made me remember my late high school years. I was at that church camp with Jeff every summer since 7th grade. BTW, it was less about church for the kids than it was for the adults. Jeff was right on in the aforementioned interview. Although religion and faith were the theme, for a week every summer, we were able to openly discuss and question our beliefs. More than that though, it was an opportunity to make great friends with kids from all over the state.

In about our junior years, Jeff and I were tasked (during a winter weekend camp) to be the music guys. We were in front of the camp playing guitar and leading songs. "I Love You Jesus Christ" was not on the set list back then, but hearing it back in the 90's and still when I hear it today makes me wonder what we all would have done had Jeff broken into a song like this back at camp.

M

flockey86

10-08-2006, 12:55 PM

it doesn't matter what jeff mangum meant. it matters what you think it means, and it means whatever you want it to mean.

a lot of you are saying things like jeff said in that interview about jesus christ being separate from christianity and church, this is exactly the same. this music, and all music, is an entity in its own, separate from its creator. it's yours, enjoy it.

Aqualad

10-08-2006, 02:39 PM

err... i'm pretty sure he wouldn't want you twisting his words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

WilliamTaft

10-08-2006, 02:56 PM

http://www.casadellibro.com/img/autores/jacques_derrida.jpg

birdman

10-08-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Aqualad
err... i'm pretty sure he wouldn't want you twisting his words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

oh my GOD, are you twisting his words. Am i twisting your words. Do i twist my own words when i reread them?

words&tricks

10-09-2006, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Code_J
I saw someone on SongMeanings talking about this, and I liked their way of looking at it. I mean, I'm an atheist, and I still think it's possible to love Jesus Christ, even if you didn't believe he was the son of a god. He wasn't only a religious figure, he was also a big historical figure, and you don't have to love him as the son of god, you can love what he taught and what he did for the people of the time.

:) That was me! At least I think it was me.
What I said on songmeanings was that I think you can not necessarily believe that Jesus was the Son of God or the Messiah or that he could walk on water or anything, but you can still appreciate what he preached and the morals he communicated. In this way, you can love Jesus and still be an atheist or agnostic or Muslim or anything at all.
I don't, however, pretend that I know or believe that this is what Mangum meant when he wrote TKOCF Pt.2. I'm just discussing the subject.

auxiliaryoctopus

10-09-2006, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by WilliamTaft
http://www.casadellibro.com/img/autores/jacques_derrida.jpg

Derrida!

DesertStarscape

10-22-2006, 05:17 PM

I agree...although it always seemed like in the context of the music, Mangum was singing through some sort of chaos. The guitar and fuzz bass burst in right there, almost as an expression of love among ruin, or even the perversion of Christ's love by men's religion (which would tie with Jeff's quote above). Any thoughts?

gymp

10-22-2006, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by milkandholywater
stare intently at the four dots in the center of this picture. focus only on the dots, not on the blobs and abstract shapes around them. after 30 slow seconds of staring, close your eyes and wait. a circle of light will appear, and then something else inside the cirlce. what is it?

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i20/cjunq/Misc/illusion.jpg

kurt cobain?

shelly

10-22-2006, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by tomatoesandradiowires
Whatever happened to the society of friends?

You mean the Quakers? They're still out there.

tomatoesandradiowires

10-22-2006, 06:42 PM

They make a damn good oatmeal.

bloodrexdale

10-22-2006, 10:35 PM

i always thought of this song as a mixture of irony and insanety.

when i first head the untitled song on areoplane, i thought of it as the perfect expression of the fact that this guy has just gone crazy, and this music is just pouring out of every ourfus in his head.

the same goes for jesus christ. i thought of it as someone who has gone insane, and then come to terms with the fact that they are about to die and is just screaming at the very top of their lungs "i love you jesus! i really fucking love you so much you stupid piece of shit asshole!!!" while everyone else around them is looking and thinking "thats terrible, this person has finaly lost it. there goes another one"

i think of jesus christ and the untitled track to be very linked together. jesus is the 2nd song, and untitled is the 2nd last (although it should have been last and jeff should have saved two headed boy pt 2 as one of his unrecorded never to be recorded songs, as this song truly does suck). something ive noticed about jeff is that he likes the end things the way he started them. look at the formula for songs like ferris wheel and song against sex. look at how he began avery island with meaningless human chatter, and ended it with meaningless electronic chatter.

i think that jeff has gone crazy all over again by the end of each album, and listening to one of the albums is listening to him go from sanety to insanety.

of course none of this matters and he probably put the song on the album because he knew it would make alot of people talk about it. sort of the way brad pitt "cheated" on jenn aniston. man if you shaved her head she wouldnt be hot at all.

Aqualad

10-23-2006, 09:25 AM

I disagree. Mostly because two-headed boy pt. 2 is such a soft song and ends on such a simple note(also it doesn't suck imo, rather it's possibly my favorite off the album). It's not really that "crazy" at all. And also untitled is obviously more connected to ghost than kocf pt. 2. You trying to connect them in a way other than that they are on the same album and all part of the same concept/story seems to be grasping at straws. And I'm pretty sure we've already shot down the idea that he was trying to be ironic at all.

Also the beginning of avery island... that's not really meaningless because the voice is actually saying something. and I think that connection with endings and beginnings is also grasping at straws. It's like saying he begins the song in the aeroplane over the sea with the G chord and then ends it with the G chord.

Also I don't think he put anything on the album just for people to talk about it... it sounds pretty shallow if you ask me. I wouldn't enjoy this album if it was like that. Anyway.