OMIGOSH...New Stryper Album Title

exo wrote:Quit nitpicking the details of how Michael Sweet operates his band, and go out there and BE the representative of Christ this world needs to see, people.  Help someone see Truth....it's SO much more important than having or creating an issue with a "Rock Star" over the way they choose to draw "mainstream" attention to the message......

I completely agree with the above statement.

Personally, I don't think Stryper should do something like this, I get the title, I think it's corny, cheesy and well, dumb. BUT, if this is what Sweet and the boys want to do, who cares!? I'll listen to it, if it's as good or better than the Fallen, I'll buy it. Doing something for shock value is kind of pointless in todays society as nothing is really shocking anymore; the world has seen it all. All this will do is give some Christians the fuel they need to continue to be against other Christians because they disagree about something. Which, in turn, will lead to Christians allowing nonsense to blind their judgement and show the world themselves instead of Christ. Christians fighting amongst themselves is what the Devil wants. I'm pretty sure Satan is already rolling around with laughter over the way people are acting already. Anyway, our focus should be on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, and what a rock band does to make money really isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

So many bogus/straw man arguments here.  Wow.  I am shocked.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

Exodus 20:4

Yeah, the title doesn't bother me but the depiction of God looking like Zeus does. Of course the western church doesn't care about depictions of God.

Temple of Blood wrote:So many bogus/straw man arguments here.  Wow.  I am shocked.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

Exodus 20:4

Serious question: If if the actual act of creating an image of any of those three categories is a sin, can you draw a painting with fish in it? Do you rip out the pictures of animals from your biology book? Can you watch a Jesus movie? Any TV? What about your avatar? I don't get where the line is drawn.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches have long had iconography, so it's no surprise that the majority of Christians for the past 2,000 years have not considered it a sin to depict God. It's not been so clear what the line for "blasphemy" has been, especially hard to know when considering words in the English language. It's clear you shouldn't use the God's proper name YHWH in an irreverant way. This may extend to any reference to God by title. 

My interpretation of iconography as a protestant is that it's best not to depict God since it can lead some people to superstition and amulet worship [the actual sin], but it's not itself a sin.

Back to Stryper, they're releasing a song on Friday. I'm hoping it's the title track, since that's all anyone will be talking about anyway.

Creating any image to worship is sin but drawing a picture of a fish not for worship is not at issue here. Any picture of God the Father is a lowering of whom he is and i'd say it's out of bounds. How many comparisons of Zeus or Poseidon is that picture going to get?

Black Rider wrote:Creating any image to worship is sin but drawing a picture of a fish not for worship is not at issue here. Any picture of God the Father is a lowering of whom he is and i'd say it's out of bounds. How many comparisons of Zeus or Poseidon is that picture going to get?

Agree 100%. 

In a broader sense about the title, why? Why do this? Is it to stick it to the Christian fans, many of whom will clearly be uncomfortable with this? Is it to attract secular listeners? What is the goal here?

If to shake up Christians, why would you do that? Why deliberately antagonize your brothers and sisters in Christ?

If it is to attract secular listeners, do you think this does that? Are there really people out there who have rejected Stryper in the past because they're Christian, but will now say, 'well, with a title like that, I'm in!'? I highly doubt it.

It just seems controversial for the sake of being controversial. And that's pride. But that's just how it seems. I'm not in their hearts or minds. They're not out there explaining it at all (yet). It may be that when Michael or Oz explain this a little bit more, I'll understand it better and see the point. I'll remain open minded about it until then.

But the image of God on their cover is wrong, no two ways about it. There's no explanation that justifies this. When we use an image to depict God in this way, we diminish His glory and that is sin.

Follower of Jesus wrote:

In a broader sense about the title, why? Why do this? Is it to stick it to the Christian fans, many of whom will clearly be uncomfortable with this? Is it to attract secular listeners? What is the goal here?

If to shake up Christians, why would you do that? Why deliberately antagonize your brothers and sisters in Christ?

If it is to attract secular listeners, do you think this does that? Are there really people out there who have rejected Stryper in the past because they're Christian, but will now say, 'well, with a title like that, I'm in!'? I highly doubt it.

It just seems controversial for the sake of being controversial. And that's pride. But that's just how it seems. I'm not in their hearts or minds. They're not out there explaining it at all (yet). It may be that when Michael or Oz explain this a little bit more, I'll understand it better and see the point. I'll remain open minded about it until then.

My thoughts too.  Shock value for the sake of shock value is antagonizing and counterproductive.  Shock value with a point (which we could use from time to time) can be good.  As long as it is healthy debate (which on Facebook it isn't necessarily), stirring up discussion is good.

Steve Taylor used shock value well.

Black Rider wrote:Creating any image to worship is sin but drawing a picture of a fish not for worship is not at issue here. Any picture of God the Father is a lowering of whom he is and i'd say it's out of bounds. How many comparisons of Zeus or Poseidon is that picture going to get?

Okay. I agree about "creating any image to worship is a sin", but I really think that is the full extent of the commandment in Exodus 20:4.

Follower of Jesus wrote:

Black Rider wrote:Creating any image to worship is sin but drawing a picture of a fish not for worship is not at issue here. Any picture of God the Father is a lowering of whom he is and i'd say it's out of bounds. How many comparisons of Zeus or Poseidon is that picture going to get?

Agree 100%. 

In a broader sense about the title, why? Why do this? Is it to stick it to the Christian fans, many of whom will clearly be uncomfortable with this? Is it to attract secular listeners? What is the goal here?

If to shake up Christians, why would you do that? Why deliberately antagonize your brothers and sisters in Christ?

If it is to attract secular listeners, do you think this does that? Are there really people out there who have rejected Stryper in the past because they're Christian, but will now say, 'well, with a title like that, I'm in!'? I highly doubt it.

It just seems controversial for the sake of being controversial. And that's pride. But that's just how it seems. I'm not in their hearts or minds. They're not out there explaining it at all (yet). It may be that when Michael or Oz explain this a little bit more, I'll understand it better and see the point. I'll remain open minded about it until then.

But the image of God on their cover is wrong, no two ways about it. There's no explanation that justifies this. When we use an image to depict God in this way, we diminish His glory and that is sin.

I'm trying to understand where you guys are coming from. Images of God the Father are bad, but images of Jesus are good? How about the Holy Spirit? Why aren't they all the same? We don't know what any of them actually look like.

I agree it's unfortunate the "shake up" as Christians. I wouldn't have named it that just for this reason. I'm almost certain it was intended to attract non-Christians, though you are right in casting doubt on how effective that will be.

Messiah Prophet had an image of God on the Master of the Metal album cover as well.

Black Rider wrote:Steve Taylor used shock value well.

Yes, and his had purpose to it.  Although he too took satire and shock value to a place where it was too easily mistaken.

Friday13th wrote:I'm trying to understand where you guys are coming from. Images of God the Father are bad, but images of Jesus are good? How about the Holy Spirit? Why aren't they all the same? We don't know what any of them actually look like.

I'm super slammed at work right now so I can't comment, but I looked into this a fair bit around the time The Shack came out.  You should start a separate topic about the 2nd Commandment and I'll chime in as I can. 

Is Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam also a sinful painting because he draw an image of God to it?

American one dollar bills also have God drawn as "the all seeing eye", so is it better to only draw the eye of God instead of the whole deal?


I think there's a difference between making an image to worship and making an image to teach people. Obviously one can worship an image in a painting, but art is usually done to make people learn and realize important things in life. Those images are not made to be idols to worship.

The polemic was already anticipated by MIchael Sweet in interviews.

Wha I've got to say by now is that I loved the artcover. It is really awesome.
It's got some classic elements along with the last two album cover elements as well, but it is the best art in all Stryper discography.

I really like the art myself!

If a separate thread is started I will chime in there

Kerrick wrote:

Friday13th wrote:I'm trying to understand where you guys are coming from. Images of God the Father are bad, but images of Jesus are good? How about the Holy Spirit? Why aren't they all the same? We don't know what any of them actually look like.

I'm super slammed at work right now so I can't comment, but I looked into this a fair bit around the time The Shack came out.  You should start a separate topic about the 2nd Commandment and I'll chime in as I can. 

Interesting. Sure thing, I'll post it in the general discussion for y'all. 

I'm no artist by any means but was able to mess around with the title lol

^^^That's awesome!^^^   

That is so good!

Is that Scott Steiner on the album cover lol

MikeInFla wrote:

I'm no artist by any means but was able to mess around with the title lol

Holy cow, dude.....I am DYING!!!!! Someone needs to show  this to Michael....

hahaha! Yeah I wanted to make "Dad Blamed Evil" but it was easier to do the above.

MikeInFla wrote:hahaha! Yeah I wanted to make "Dad Blamed Evil" but it was easier to do the above.

Seriously, I'm about to copy/paste this picture to his FB wall.....

exo wrote:

MikeInFla wrote:hahaha! Yeah I wanted to make "Dad Blamed Evil" but it was easier to do the above.

Seriously, I'm about to copy/paste this picture to his FB wall.....

Hahaha! Do it and let me know if there is a repsonse, I am not on FB.