Jason Isbell — Children Of Children
Album: Something More Than FreeAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 2734
Length: 5:42
Plays (last 30 days): 0
share
tweet
Pictures of the farm before us
Old men in a gospel Sephia
and saddle horses easy on the reins
'81 a motor in your mama's 17 again
She's squinting at the dusty wind
The anger of the plains
You and I were almost nothing
Pray to God that God was bluffing
17 ain't old enough to reason with the pain
How could we expect to stay in love
When neither knew the meaning
of the difference of sacred and profane
I was riding on my mother's hip,
she was shorter than the corn
All the years I took from her,
just by being born.
Didn't mean to break the cycle
At 17 I went by Michael
No one ever called by my own name anyway
Half full generations
Living all these expectations
Giving way to one, late to have a baby on the way
You were riding on your mother's hip,
she was shorter than the corn
All the years you took from her,
just by being born.
Old men in a gospel Sephia
and saddle horses easy on the reins
'81 a motor in your mama's 17 again
She's squinting at the dusty wind
The anger of the plains
You and I were almost nothing
Pray to God that God was bluffing
17 ain't old enough to reason with the pain
How could we expect to stay in love
When neither knew the meaning
of the difference of sacred and profane
I was riding on my mother's hip,
she was shorter than the corn
All the years I took from her,
just by being born.
Didn't mean to break the cycle
At 17 I went by Michael
No one ever called by my own name anyway
Half full generations
Living all these expectations
Giving way to one, late to have a baby on the way
You were riding on your mother's hip,
she was shorter than the corn
All the years you took from her,
just by being born.
Comments (210)add comment
Exemplary songwriting! So emotive and provocative, a 10 for its sheer artistry!
Jason Isbell has been growing steadily on me. all around a fantastic bady of music
FlatCat wrote:
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
Can I give this song an 11?
Such a fantastic song, such a fantastic artist!
Matt_Maurer wrote:
Crushing.
Beautiful and .,..
Crushing.
Great songwriter. Love this. The words really resonate with me.
this has an 'Edmund Fitzgerald' vibe to it
This is very good indeed. 8
Sounds like this guy has a Lightfoot album.
The real question is whether you consider a woman a "human being."
FlatCat wrote:
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
FlatCat wrote:
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
milleymeister wrote:
justin4kick wrote:
That's an insult to NY
It's an insult to Jason Isbell..
Shades of Neil Young
justin4kick wrote:
That's an insult to NY
It's an insult to Jason Isbell..
Man...I hate it when that happens.
I just broke the knob off trying to rate this an eleven.
I just broke the knob off trying to rate this an eleven.
The ending could just go on & on & on...........
Lost in all the political arguments here is that this is a song of appreciation for his mother.
Hell of a song.
Hell of a song.
milleymeister wrote:
That's an insult to NY
Shades of Neil Young
That's an insult to NY
Another very poignant song from Jason. It really hits home for those of us whose parents were very young and the grief we gave them: “All the years I took from you just by being born.” Thanks, Jason
Most of his music sound like a lot of crying in your beer to me.
Except this one...
Except this one...
This is a wonderful MUSIC station...let's try to make music comments and leave ALL the other stuff out.
FlatCat wrote:
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
And in Texas, right now, today, 11/4/21, the Texas government, and presumably a majority of Texans, think it's a valid imposition to deny a woman reproductive health -- you call it abortion, I call it the choice of the woman, the father, and perhaps her family and in reliance upon or in contravention of her faith -- in order to protect the life of the "innocent unborn".
However, I have long though it has an alternative or corollary purpose: to make sure anti-abortion becomes national policy and so continue to provide just enough low-wage or underemployed white and POC bodies for the U.S. military so that in about 18 - 20 years the elite largely white 5% or 1% will not have to reckon with a potentially reimposed military draft, and Big Money can continue with the largely painless and very profitable wars the U.S. is compelled to engage in on every 10 years. After all, if the CEO's or VP's son will not be blown up, the mother of the poor Hispanic or African-American child will be the one to suffer the grief. Pass along those costs, baby.
Anyway, the main point being: Texans want to limit or eliminate abortion to "save life" -- at the same fucking time they seem to think it's appropriate policy for the state to permit the open, unregulated carry of pistols and long guns. Aren't guns, like, TOOLS FOR THE TRIGGER OF WOUNDS AND DEATH ? How is this 2nd amendment MILITIA confusion in keeping with the so-called Biblical demand for the anti-abortion sanctity of life? Please explain, coherently, if that's even possible.
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
And in Texas, right now, today, 11/4/21, the Texas government, and presumably a majority of Texans, think it's a valid imposition to deny a woman reproductive health -- you call it abortion, I call it the choice of the woman, the father, and perhaps her family and in reliance upon or in contravention of her faith -- in order to protect the life of the "innocent unborn".
However, I have long though it has an alternative or corollary purpose: to make sure anti-abortion becomes national policy and so continue to provide just enough low-wage or underemployed white and POC bodies for the U.S. military so that in about 18 - 20 years the elite largely white 5% or 1% will not have to reckon with a potentially reimposed military draft, and Big Money can continue with the largely painless and very profitable wars the U.S. is compelled to engage in on every 10 years. After all, if the CEO's or VP's son will not be blown up, the mother of the poor Hispanic or African-American child will be the one to suffer the grief. Pass along those costs, baby.
Anyway, the main point being: Texans want to limit or eliminate abortion to "save life" -- at the same fucking time they seem to think it's appropriate policy for the state to permit the open, unregulated carry of pistols and long guns. Aren't guns, like, TOOLS FOR THE TRIGGER OF WOUNDS AND DEATH ? How is this 2nd amendment MILITIA confusion in keeping with the so-called Biblical demand for the anti-abortion sanctity of life? Please explain, coherently, if that's even possible.
Get along and see Jason & The 400 unit live, saw them in Sydney, great gig...Decoration day went off...an old truckers hit.
This is a beautifully crafted but heartbreaking story which is played out all over the world: The cycle of teenagers bearing children who in turn bear children while in their teens.
It's natural to discuss potential solutions, however, I feel that many viable options have been left out of the primary discussion that's expressed here.
To Jason's credit, he paints a vivid provocative picture with this song but does not suggest where the discussion should go.
It's natural to discuss potential solutions, however, I feel that many viable options have been left out of the primary discussion that's expressed here.
To Jason's credit, he paints a vivid provocative picture with this song but does not suggest where the discussion should go.
xcranky_yankee wrote:
after reading a lot of the lengthy comments I still think this is a simply beautiful song about the challenges and sadness of children having children
FlatCat wrote:
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
Bravo.
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
Bravo.
Radio Paradise is hardly a forum for an abortion debate. It is about music, not politics. If you don't believe in abortion rights, don't get one. Unless you are a man, then you should just shut up.
after reading a lot of the lengthy comments I still think this is a simply beautiful song about the challenges and sadness of children having children
Shades of Neil Young
cc_rider wrote:
Little (zero actually) chance of that. There is a yawning chasm of difference between him and what passes for country music these days.
'Country' and 'Western' were actually two distinctly different genres. 'Country' was Appalachian hill country music, 'Western' was western swing (ala Bob Wills). Obviously it's much more complicated than that - Ken Burns' documentary is outstanding - and it continues to morph to this day.
c.
yawning chasm!
Love it!
Little (zero actually) chance of that. There is a yawning chasm of difference between him and what passes for country music these days.
'Country' and 'Western' were actually two distinctly different genres. 'Country' was Appalachian hill country music, 'Western' was western swing (ala Bob Wills). Obviously it's much more complicated than that - Ken Burns' documentary is outstanding - and it continues to morph to this day.
c.
yawning chasm!
Love it!
Amen
Certainly very entertaining and lively comment thread here...
FWIW, I think Jason has an amazing talent for threading his lyrics through complex themes, evoking strong emotions that so many people can relate to. Seems pretty genuine to me. And the music, although sometimes a bit "anthemic/poppy" for my tastes, can push it even further. I like it.
FWIW, I think Jason has an amazing talent for threading his lyrics through complex themes, evoking strong emotions that so many people can relate to. Seems pretty genuine to me. And the music, although sometimes a bit "anthemic/poppy" for my tastes, can push it even further. I like it.
I can’t connect to most of Jason Isbell’s work. But this song, and the song Elephant, brings the tears, every damn time.
Stupendous songwriting. My favorite song of the past few years.
I saw Jason Isbell live a few months before world stopped for COVID. All acoustic; really heartfelt songs.
I saw Jason Isbell live a few months before world stopped for COVID. All acoustic; really heartfelt songs.
On the sacred and profane... link.
"The sacred–profane dichotomy is a concept posited by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who considered it to be the central characteristic of religion: "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden." In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represents the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, or totems. The profane, however, involves mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the sacred–profane dichotomy is not equivalent to good-evil, as the sacred could be either good or evil, and the profane could be either as well.
Durkheim's claim of the universality of this dichotomy for all religions and cults has been criticized by scholars such as the British anthropologist Jack Goody. Goody also noted that "many societies have no words that translate as sacred or profane and that ultimately, just like the distinction between natural and supernatural, it was very much a product of European religious thought rather than a universally applicable criterion." As Tomoko Masuzawa explains in The Invention of World Religions (2005), this system of comparative religion privileged Christianity at the expense of non-Christian systems. Any cosmology without a sacred–profane binary was rendered invisible by the field of religious studies, because the binary was supposed to be "universal".
"The sacred–profane dichotomy is a concept posited by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who considered it to be the central characteristic of religion: "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden." In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represents the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, or totems. The profane, however, involves mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the sacred–profane dichotomy is not equivalent to good-evil, as the sacred could be either good or evil, and the profane could be either as well.
Durkheim's claim of the universality of this dichotomy for all religions and cults has been criticized by scholars such as the British anthropologist Jack Goody. Goody also noted that "many societies have no words that translate as sacred or profane and that ultimately, just like the distinction between natural and supernatural, it was very much a product of European religious thought rather than a universally applicable criterion." As Tomoko Masuzawa explains in The Invention of World Religions (2005), this system of comparative religion privileged Christianity at the expense of non-Christian systems. Any cosmology without a sacred–profane binary was rendered invisible by the field of religious studies, because the binary was supposed to be "universal".
Jelani wrote:
At least he's kind enough to share his issues with us.
Was that a typo or a nod to King George?
c.
This guy's got some issues, and I don't think he's feeling strait about them.
Was that a typo or a nod to King George?
c.
This guy's got some issues, and I don't think he's feeling strait about them.
FlatCat wrote:
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
eliminating poverty is another sure way to reduce abortions
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
eliminating poverty is another sure way to reduce abortions
cc_rider wrote:
Little (zero actually) chance of that. There is a yawning chasm of difference between him and what passes for country music these days.
'Country' and 'Western' were actually two distinctly different genres. 'Country' was Appalachian hill country music, 'Western' was western swing (ala Bob Wills). Obviously it's much more complicated than that - Ken Burns' documentary is outstanding - and it continues to morph to this day.
c.
Agree. I doubt there are many country music fans that have ever heard of Jason Isbell. Am hoping Jason will someday get his "Brandi Carlile Joker at the Grammys" moment and receive the universal acclaim he richly deserves.
Little (zero actually) chance of that. There is a yawning chasm of difference between him and what passes for country music these days.
'Country' and 'Western' were actually two distinctly different genres. 'Country' was Appalachian hill country music, 'Western' was western swing (ala Bob Wills). Obviously it's much more complicated than that - Ken Burns' documentary is outstanding - and it continues to morph to this day.
c.
Agree. I doubt there are many country music fans that have ever heard of Jason Isbell. Am hoping Jason will someday get his "Brandi Carlile Joker at the Grammys" moment and receive the universal acclaim he richly deserves.
Dazzerb wrote:
Not really. This guy CAN sing his way out of a wet paper bag.
so much Neil Young in this which I do no mind at all.
Not really. This guy CAN sing his way out of a wet paper bag.
Saw Jason perform this live at the Concert on the Mall Fighting Addiction. Superb artist. Beautiful solos from this guitarist on his Goldtop Les Paul, like Duane's in Dreams.
SuperWeh wrote:
Not necessarily against abortion, but the distinction between fetus and child is problematic since a.) it is subject to the present state of medicine, b.) why should we assess the value of human life by degree of sophistication? It opens up the door to a lot of moral problems.
Why then assess the value of *any* life differently than human life?
Not necessarily against abortion, but the distinction between fetus and child is problematic since a.) it is subject to the present state of medicine, b.) why should we assess the value of human life by degree of sophistication? It opens up the door to a lot of moral problems.
Why then assess the value of *any* life differently than human life?
The guitar outro in the last 1:30 is just beautiful, very Gilmour-like.
cc_rider wrote:
Little (zero actually) chance of that. There is a yawning chasm of difference between him and what passes for country music these days.
'Country' and 'Western' were actually two distinctly different genres. 'Country' was Appalachian hill country music, 'Western' was western swing (ala Bob Wills). Obviously it's much more complicated than that - Ken Burns' documentary is outstanding - and it continues to morph to this day.
c.
Agree 1000%! The documentary was great, I wish it went into the next couple of decades and showed how country music diverged into pop crap vs real roots/Americana music.
And Isbell live is awesome! Go see him if you get a chance.
Little (zero actually) chance of that. There is a yawning chasm of difference between him and what passes for country music these days.
'Country' and 'Western' were actually two distinctly different genres. 'Country' was Appalachian hill country music, 'Western' was western swing (ala Bob Wills). Obviously it's much more complicated than that - Ken Burns' documentary is outstanding - and it continues to morph to this day.
c.
Agree 1000%! The documentary was great, I wish it went into the next couple of decades and showed how country music diverged into pop crap vs real roots/Americana music.
And Isbell live is awesome! Go see him if you get a chance.
drwhy wrote:
Little (zero actually) chance of that. There is a yawning chasm of difference between him and what passes for country music these days.
'Country' and 'Western' were actually two distinctly different genres. 'Country' was Appalachian hill country music, 'Western' was western swing (ala Bob Wills). Obviously it's much more complicated than that - Ken Burns' documentary is outstanding - and it continues to morph to this day.
c.
I find Jason Isbell to be one of the best new songwriters around. I hope he does not get pigeonholed into country western. He has so much depth and honesty in his music. Give his song Elephant and listen and you will see. Phew, intense stuff.
Little (zero actually) chance of that. There is a yawning chasm of difference between him and what passes for country music these days.
'Country' and 'Western' were actually two distinctly different genres. 'Country' was Appalachian hill country music, 'Western' was western swing (ala Bob Wills). Obviously it's much more complicated than that - Ken Burns' documentary is outstanding - and it continues to morph to this day.
c.
Beautiful and .,..
mrtuba9 wrote:
For me a 10
8 
9 after following the lyrics...
9 after following the lyrics...For me a 10
Tim_Coletti wrote:
Are you kidding? The guitar, the voice? All I'm hearing is Neil Young!
Wow, anyone else hear Paul Rogers here?
Are you kidding? The guitar, the voice? All I'm hearing is Neil Young!
8 9 after following the lyrics...
9 after following the lyrics...The E Minor key gives this song such an uneasy feel. Brilliant, perfect 10.
FlatCat wrote:
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
Not necessarily against abortion, but the distinction between fetus and child is problematic since a.) it is subject to the present state of medicine, b.) why should we assess the value of human life by degree of sophistication? It opens up the door to a lot of moral problems.
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
Not necessarily against abortion, but the distinction between fetus and child is problematic since a.) it is subject to the present state of medicine, b.) why should we assess the value of human life by degree of sophistication? It opens up the door to a lot of moral problems.
One of those rare songs that manages to be terribly sad and wonderfully uplifting in equal measure at the same time, and not one bit pretentious. Quite the feat.
It's just a great song
The lyrics are devastating, but the guitar solo is completely gut-wrenching.
aristoteles wrote:
The guitar is Jason also.
That solo guitar at the end and ...7——->8. Great song!
The guitar is Jason also.
I agree, this is one of those gems of a song that keep me consistently coming back to RP for extraordinary musical discoveries.
Thank you Bill and Becca.
Thank you Bill and Becca.
Jason Isbell.... one of the great songs we get to know and love on Radio Paradise! this is so amazing this song. I love also that you have have the lyrics to your treasures.. heya, you need to do a festival, let's talk about it... i can put it on in Lake Elsinore! there is a great stadium here for ball games, big enough to have a good event with some of your acts on your station!.. hit me up, claudiaduenas3@gmail.
flyboy wrote:
A person's opinion on what is evil and what is not has no bearing on what the truth of the matter is. God's opinion is the only one that does matter and he says not to murder. Furthermore, a person's desire for forgiveness is irrelevant to their need for forgiveness.
Judging from your post, how are you any different from an Islamist fundamentalist? Or any fundamentalist for that matter? Should YOU have to abstain form pork (Judaism) or beef (Hinduism) just because some religion (aka God's opinion) or other says so? No? Alrighty then!
So, why not keep YOUR religious beliefs to yourself and accept that different people have different opinions and perspectives. Couldn't help but re-post below comment on the matter... think about it.
"Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down anyone's throat."
A person's opinion on what is evil and what is not has no bearing on what the truth of the matter is. God's opinion is the only one that does matter and he says not to murder. Furthermore, a person's desire for forgiveness is irrelevant to their need for forgiveness.
Judging from your post, how are you any different from an Islamist fundamentalist? Or any fundamentalist for that matter? Should YOU have to abstain form pork (Judaism) or beef (Hinduism) just because some religion (aka God's opinion) or other says so? No? Alrighty then!
So, why not keep YOUR religious beliefs to yourself and accept that different people have different opinions and perspectives. Couldn't help but re-post below comment on the matter... think about it.
"Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down anyone's throat."
Great song.
Note to you xtians...every time Donald Trump lies, an angel has an abortion
Note to you xtians...every time Donald Trump lies, an angel has an abortion
Very nice!
It's been a lovely day but nothing lifted it above the ground until I heard this -- now I get to feel some magic before I count Jan 23rd gone. Thanks, RP. A little transcendent beauty before bedtime is a glorious thing.
his music is so real, so anti-show biz
I find Jason Isbell to be one of the best new songwriters around. I hope he does not get pigeonholed into country western. He has so much depth and honesty in his music. Give his song Elephant and listen and you will see. Phew, intense stuff.
Very nice!
thank the devil he wasn't aborted...
Wow. Just. Wow. This song is just...so...heart-wrenchingly beautiful. Close to, if not a straight-up, masterpiece in my book.
Love this one, especially the guitarwork. Reminds me of Dreams by The Allmans
Wow, anyone else hear Paul Rogers here?
I always said I was not a country music lover, but his guy's got me. I know Bill commented that he's the artist for people who don't like country music. Good stuff.
flyboy wrote:
Thanks, Pinto, for responding to FlatCat. I had started formulating a response before, but got bogged done. You pretty much took the words out of my mouth, though. I agree with 99% of what you said.
The only thing I would add would be a response to FlatCat's conclusion that God feels fetal life is cheap since He "aborts" fetuses all the time. I would respond that God has the authority to take life any time he wishes. He is God. He's taken the lives of everyone who has died in history, and eventually he'll take our lives as well. He is the giver and taker of life. We, on the other hand, are not. We do not have the right to kill innocent and defenseless human beings in their mother's womb. I would say that we also don't have the right to create life either, outside of God's plan for marriage.
God = your imaginary friend
Grow up, face reality.
Life is not a rehearsal - this is it!
Your "god" doesn't even have email let alone a website
I never met a "god" that didn't need money
A test: if your temple has a lightning conductor, it means that your "god" doesn't have any power
Over
Thanks, Pinto, for responding to FlatCat. I had started formulating a response before, but got bogged done. You pretty much took the words out of my mouth, though. I agree with 99% of what you said.
The only thing I would add would be a response to FlatCat's conclusion that God feels fetal life is cheap since He "aborts" fetuses all the time. I would respond that God has the authority to take life any time he wishes. He is God. He's taken the lives of everyone who has died in history, and eventually he'll take our lives as well. He is the giver and taker of life. We, on the other hand, are not. We do not have the right to kill innocent and defenseless human beings in their mother's womb. I would say that we also don't have the right to create life either, outside of God's plan for marriage.
God = your imaginary friend
Grow up, face reality.
Life is not a rehearsal - this is it!
Your "god" doesn't even have email let alone a website
I never met a "god" that didn't need money
A test: if your temple has a lightning conductor, it means that your "god" doesn't have any power
Over
Jason Isbell's music seems to incite extreme emotions. I'm glad it does.
c.
c.
This song is a pure trance. Can't speak for others of course, but certainly for a Southerner.
I am one lucky gal to have heard it live, well kinda, blasted out through a Lowcountry night sky at a mighty river's edge once. However, there was also that near super-max cargo ship coming up alongside what was just about the front row of the Jason Isbell stage, merrily chiming in for about the length of a Blue Oyster Cult song even, foghorns a'blasting.
I think Isbell made some quip like "Ain't your captain, dude." But don't quote me on that.
I am one lucky gal to have heard it live, well kinda, blasted out through a Lowcountry night sky at a mighty river's edge once. However, there was also that near super-max cargo ship coming up alongside what was just about the front row of the Jason Isbell stage, merrily chiming in for about the length of a Blue Oyster Cult song even, foghorns a'blasting.
I think Isbell made some quip like "Ain't your captain, dude." But don't quote me on that.
Powerful stuff that Jason Isbell creates! This was the first RP song of his that got my attention.
It happens to be my birthday today. This is the first music of the day that I'm hearing. I'm overjoyed because I love this song. Now I'm tearing up thinking about my mother (who is struggling with alzheimer's). First time after many many listens that I found this song to be so personally relevant to me.
It happens to be my birthday today. This is the first music of the day that I'm hearing. I'm overjoyed because I love this song. Now I'm tearing up thinking about my mother (who is struggling with alzheimer's). First time after many many listens that I found this song to be so personally relevant to me.
The heading for this section is "Comments for this song" Regardless of your religious, social or political beliefs, the comments should be about the song. Jason Isbell is a great song writer/lyricist who obviously elicits strong emotions/response. Let's keep it at that. About the song and artist.
Sweet tune. Lyrical,haunting and rich
flyboy wrote:
Thanks, Pinto, for responding to FlatCat. I had started formulating a response before, but got bogged done. You pretty much took the words out of my mouth, though. I agree with 99% of what you said.
The only thing I would add would be a response to FlatCat's conclusion that God feels fetal life is cheap since He "aborts" fetuses all the time. I would respond that God has the authority to take life any time he wishes. He is God. He's taken the lives of everyone who has died in history, and eventually he'll take our lives as well. He is the giver and taker of life. We, on the other hand, are not. We do not have the right to kill innocent and defenseless human beings in their mother's womb. I would say that we also don't have the right to create life either, outside of God's plan for marriage.
. . . absolutely nuts.
Thanks, Pinto, for responding to FlatCat. I had started formulating a response before, but got bogged done. You pretty much took the words out of my mouth, though. I agree with 99% of what you said.
The only thing I would add would be a response to FlatCat's conclusion that God feels fetal life is cheap since He "aborts" fetuses all the time. I would respond that God has the authority to take life any time he wishes. He is God. He's taken the lives of everyone who has died in history, and eventually he'll take our lives as well. He is the giver and taker of life. We, on the other hand, are not. We do not have the right to kill innocent and defenseless human beings in their mother's womb. I would say that we also don't have the right to create life either, outside of God's plan for marriage.
. . . absolutely nuts.
pinto wrote:
Thanks, Pinto, for responding to FlatCat. I had started formulating a response before, but got bogged done. You pretty much took the words out of my mouth, though. I agree with 99% of what you said.
The only thing I would add would be a response to FlatCat's conclusion that God feels fetal life is cheap since He "aborts" fetuses all the time. I would respond that God has the authority to take life any time he wishes. He is God. He's taken the lives of everyone who has died in history, and eventually he'll take our lives as well. He is the giver and taker of life. We, on the other hand, are not. We do not have the right to kill innocent and defenseless human beings in their mother's womb. I would say that we also don't have the right to create life either, outside of God's plan for marriage.
Thanks, Pinto, for responding to FlatCat. I had started formulating a response before, but got bogged done. You pretty much took the words out of my mouth, though. I agree with 99% of what you said.
The only thing I would add would be a response to FlatCat's conclusion that God feels fetal life is cheap since He "aborts" fetuses all the time. I would respond that God has the authority to take life any time he wishes. He is God. He's taken the lives of everyone who has died in history, and eventually he'll take our lives as well. He is the giver and taker of life. We, on the other hand, are not. We do not have the right to kill innocent and defenseless human beings in their mother's womb. I would say that we also don't have the right to create life either, outside of God's plan for marriage.
This reminds me of Deep Thoughts with Jack Handy on SNL. "I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex."
That solo guitar at the end and ...7——->8. Great song!
Interesting influences here, Neil and The Allman Bros, to name a couple. Jason soars on this.
Renews my faith in fresh talent with depth... and well produced...
This album is now on frequent rotation in my car and I must say it is quite superb. This guy is some serious talent.
To my ears, this harkens back to David Crosby's "Laughing." I dig the sinuous repetitions, the sweep of gentle, undulating harmonics...
My favourite song of the last two years... something about the raw emotion.
His mother says you have to watch out for what you say around Jason. Otherwise he'll write a song about it.
Great new artist I am just learning....
pinto wrote:
Now we can all go back to agreeing to disagree. Whew.
Sex drugs and rock 'n roll!
Now we can all go back to agreeing to disagree. Whew.
Sex drugs and rock 'n roll!
FlatCat wrote:
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
Response:The actual act of abortion is the acknowledgement that it is human and it is alive. Otherwise there would be no need to snuff it. Also I would dare say that human life should not even be in the conversation with the life of a mouse, much less equated to such.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
Response: OK we're treading in dangerous water here. We're now advocating that it's acceptable for you or someone of your choosing to decide who should be living at any given moment, based on personal standards of what "marginal circumstances" are. My guess is that you could ask, oh, how many - one? Ten? One hundred thousand? You could ask any number of these children currently living in what you refer to as marginal circumstances if they would like to be removed from this world because of their deplorable living conditions and you would probably not find a single taker. I doubt these people consider their lives as worthless and cheap as you do.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
Response: All righty, then! There is value in human life after all! Yes, I do agree - children are most dear and precious, and they (as we all do) deserve quality education, healthcare and safety. However simply advocating paying far higher taxes is not the answer. Politicians have raised taxes for years with very little to show for it. Let's actually put the tax money that we have to good use for once and not simply raise taxes higher.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
Response: I do hope that you will one day consider human life in all its forms to be human and precious. I also know that the Pro-Life movement (and I consider myself to be Pro-Life) has become criticized for being Pro-Birth instead of Pro-Life, and unfortunately I believe there is a fair amount of validity to that point. We should all be proactive in helping all humans to have a dignified life. I know I can give a better effort.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
Response: Back to disagreeing. Contraceptives are not "the most" effective way to reduce abortions. Abstinence is. Peace to all!
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
Response:The actual act of abortion is the acknowledgement that it is human and it is alive. Otherwise there would be no need to snuff it. Also I would dare say that human life should not even be in the conversation with the life of a mouse, much less equated to such.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
Response: OK we're treading in dangerous water here. We're now advocating that it's acceptable for you or someone of your choosing to decide who should be living at any given moment, based on personal standards of what "marginal circumstances" are. My guess is that you could ask, oh, how many - one? Ten? One hundred thousand? You could ask any number of these children currently living in what you refer to as marginal circumstances if they would like to be removed from this world because of their deplorable living conditions and you would probably not find a single taker. I doubt these people consider their lives as worthless and cheap as you do.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
Response: All righty, then! There is value in human life after all! Yes, I do agree - children are most dear and precious, and they (as we all do) deserve quality education, healthcare and safety. However simply advocating paying far higher taxes is not the answer. Politicians have raised taxes for years with very little to show for it. Let's actually put the tax money that we have to good use for once and not simply raise taxes higher.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
Response: I do hope that you will one day consider human life in all its forms to be human and precious. I also know that the Pro-Life movement (and I consider myself to be Pro-Life) has become criticized for being Pro-Birth instead of Pro-Life, and unfortunately I believe there is a fair amount of validity to that point. We should all be proactive in helping all humans to have a dignified life. I know I can give a better effort.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
Response: Back to disagreeing. Contraceptives are not "the most" effective way to reduce abortions. Abstinence is. Peace to all!
I so hoped he would sing this at Merriweather Post recently, but no... He seemed focused on keeping most of the set upbeat, and if that's true this would not fit that bill!
Dazzerb wrote:
Exactly what I thought too.
so much Neil Young in this which I do no mind at all.
Exactly what I thought too.
This guy is ok until he starts singing about his white guilt...
tanyhon wrote:
Ditto- wish I could write a tune like this. Even just as a 'one Hit Wonder'
I was just blown away...
Ditto- wish I could write a tune like this. Even just as a 'one Hit Wonder'
jim1964 wrote:
Just did the same.
bumping from a 7 to a strong 8
Just did the same.
bumping from a 7 to a strong 8
I was just blown away...
Happy to be one of 56 to give this a 10.
flyboy wrote:
How is the killing of an innocent human being not evil? Your attitude is leading to the death of millions of people. That doesn't seem to be much of a solution.
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
How is the killing of an innocent human being not evil? Your attitude is leading to the death of millions of people. That doesn't seem to be much of a solution.
These arguments have been played out endlessly across the country, but the root of the question lies in what you consider a "human being". You clearly consider a fetus a human being. I do not. Neither, it seems to me, does your god, given that he aborts millions of fetuses himself. Millions of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, usually because of a defect in either the fetus itself or the mother's ability to support it. A 1st trimester fetus is barely more sophisticated than a mouse, which we kill with impunity.
So I think nature — or god — holds fetal life very cheaply, which seems appropriate because creating a fetus is dead easy. For that reason, I just can't see the point of forcing a woman to have a child she is either not willing or not able to care for. Especially when we already have far too many people on the planet and far too many children living in marginal circumstances.
A child, on the other hand, I hold very dear. And I would be willing to pay far higher taxes in support of every child's education, healthcare and safety.
So please understand the viewpoint of at least one person you are condemning as a murderer. I do not see fetuses as fully human or especially precious. At the same time, I consider myself very humane in my care for every child, once born.
If you want to prevent abortion, support making contraceptives available freely to all. It has been shown over and over again that this is the most effective way to reduce abortions.
One of those songs I stop and listen to, and like, in spite of myself.
That slide sure doesn't hurt.
That slide sure doesn't hurt.
flyboy wrote:
A person's opinion on what is evil and what is not has no bearing on what the truth of the matter is. God's opinion is the only one that does matter and he says not to murder. Furthermore, a person's desire for forgiveness is irrelevant to their need for forgiveness.
Let's be clear here. Your God's opinion is the only one that matters to you.
Also, your God is actually not as unequivocal as you seem to think on the matter of murder. Read the book.
Now back to why we're really here: This is an amazing song from an amazing artist. One of the best singer-songwriters out there these days. I especially love the "early 70's Elton John" feel to this track.
A person's opinion on what is evil and what is not has no bearing on what the truth of the matter is. God's opinion is the only one that does matter and he says not to murder. Furthermore, a person's desire for forgiveness is irrelevant to their need for forgiveness.
Let's be clear here. Your God's opinion is the only one that matters to you.
Also, your God is actually not as unequivocal as you seem to think on the matter of murder. Read the book.
Now back to why we're really here: This is an amazing song from an amazing artist. One of the best singer-songwriters out there these days. I especially love the "early 70's Elton John" feel to this track.
pvg44 wrote:
That solo gets me every time
Jason is a master of the slide!
Next time you're buying records, pick up some Drive-By Truckers. Decoration Day and The Dirty South both feature wonderful Jason Isbell contributions.
This guy is really quite a songwriter. I'm not inclined to listen to today's "country" genre (if he would be categorized there), but every song I've heard from him makes me stop and take note. Thanks, Bill. Album purchase on the way.
That solo gets me every time
Jason is a master of the slide!Next time you're buying records, pick up some Drive-By Truckers. Decoration Day and The Dirty South both feature wonderful Jason Isbell contributions.
flyboy wrote:
A person's opinion on what is evil and what is not has no bearing on what the truth of the matter is. God's opinion is the only one that does matter and he says not to murder. Furthermore, a person's desire for forgiveness is irrelevant to their need for forgiveness.
I respect your opinion, but disagree.
A person's opinion on what is evil and what is not has no bearing on what the truth of the matter is. God's opinion is the only one that does matter and he says not to murder. Furthermore, a person's desire for forgiveness is irrelevant to their need for forgiveness.
Jason Is, best of The New Breed
feel that!
I like this song. It makes me feel things.
twoplain2sea wrote:
Forgive me, but could you translate this?
Some people come 'n' see there a portion the will, we lie ohh!
dears do and these eyes are for for give highness.
dears do and these eyes are for for give highness.
Forgive me, but could you translate this?
pontfarrer wrote:
+ 1
And yes, This type song is why I listen to RP :-)
+ 1
flyboy wrote:
A person's opinion on what is evil and what is not has no bearing on what the truth of the matter is. God's opinion is the only one that does matter and he says not to murder. Furthermore, a person's desire for forgiveness is irrelevant to their need for forgiveness.
Oh,so god is on your side? And mother grizzly? My opinion, and my life are irrelevant to him, and her ....and you?
A person's opinion on what is evil and what is not has no bearing on what the truth of the matter is. God's opinion is the only one that does matter and he says not to murder. Furthermore, a person's desire for forgiveness is irrelevant to their need for forgiveness.
Oh,so god is on your side? And mother grizzly? My opinion, and my life are irrelevant to him, and her ....and you?
This guy is really quite a songwriter. I'm not inclined to listen to today's "country" genre (if he would be categorized there), but every song I've heard from him makes me stop and take note. Thanks, Bill. Album purchase on the way.
And yes, This type song is why I listen to RP :-)
This is an incredible song. I love it. Thanks again RP for introducing me to Jason Isbell.
Some people come 'n' see there a portion the will, we lie ohh!
dears do and these eyes are for for give highness.
dears do and these eyes are for for give highness.
Webfoot wrote:
Some people consider abortion "evil" while others do not. The desire for forgiveness, from a God or otherwise, is also up to the person.
A person's opinion on what is evil and what is not has no bearing on what the truth of the matter is. God's opinion is the only one that does matter and he says not to murder. Furthermore, a person's desire for forgiveness is irrelevant to their need for forgiveness.
Some people consider abortion "evil" while others do not. The desire for forgiveness, from a God or otherwise, is also up to the person.
A person's opinion on what is evil and what is not has no bearing on what the truth of the matter is. God's opinion is the only one that does matter and he says not to murder. Furthermore, a person's desire for forgiveness is irrelevant to their need for forgiveness.
h8rhater wrote:
Once AGAIN we have completely gone off the rails here. Take your pious posturing elsewhere. Fly on flyboy.
Why shouldn't I respond to other people bringing this up? Why shouldn't I speak up for what I believe to be the truth? What harm is it doing you? Does something I said strike a chord on your conscience? I hope it does. If so, don't ignore it.
Why do you feel you need to tell me to "fly on"? It seems pretty intolerant of you. If you want to blame someone for going "off the rails", blame the person that brought abortion into the discussion in the first place.
Once AGAIN we have completely gone off the rails here. Take your pious posturing elsewhere. Fly on flyboy.
Why shouldn't I respond to other people bringing this up? Why shouldn't I speak up for what I believe to be the truth? What harm is it doing you? Does something I said strike a chord on your conscience? I hope it does. If so, don't ignore it.
Why do you feel you need to tell me to "fly on"? It seems pretty intolerant of you. If you want to blame someone for going "off the rails", blame the person that brought abortion into the discussion in the first place.
flyboy wrote:
How is the killing of an innocent human being not evil? Your attitude is leading to the death of millions of people. That doesn't seem to be much of a solution.
The good news for those that have committed this wrong, and any other wrong, is that God offers forgiveness through his son, Jesus. Repent and put your trust in Him.
Once AGAIN we have completely gone off the rails here. Take your pious posturing elsewhere. Fly on flyboy.
How is the killing of an innocent human being not evil? Your attitude is leading to the death of millions of people. That doesn't seem to be much of a solution.
The good news for those that have committed this wrong, and any other wrong, is that God offers forgiveness through his son, Jesus. Repent and put your trust in Him.
Once AGAIN we have completely gone off the rails here. Take your pious posturing elsewhere. Fly on flyboy.
Jason is a good man. Speaking out and offering his time to help those with addiction. First heard him do this on The Mall in DC at the addiction rally. Absolutely blazing. Love the tone of the dual Gold Tops.
Gah! I've had this playing in my head all afternoon right up to this very moment and now here it is again on RP!
Sounds like a track from a Stillwater album: Crowe would approve.
And I mean that in the best way.
And I mean that in the best way.
so much Neil Young in this which I do no mind at all.
flyboy wrote:
How is the killing of an innocent human being not evil? Your attitude is leading to the death of millions of people. That doesn't seem to be much of a solution.
The good news for those that have committed this wrong, and any other wrong, is that God offers forgiveness through his son, Jesus. Repent and put your trust in Him.
Some people consider abortion "evil" while others do not. The desire for forgiveness, from a God or otherwise, is also up to the person.
How is the killing of an innocent human being not evil? Your attitude is leading to the death of millions of people. That doesn't seem to be much of a solution.
The good news for those that have committed this wrong, and any other wrong, is that God offers forgiveness through his son, Jesus. Repent and put your trust in Him.
Some people consider abortion "evil" while others do not. The desire for forgiveness, from a God or otherwise, is also up to the person.