Underoath - 03.21.07

[Louise Heng]

I very recently had the opportunity to interview Chris Dudley (Keyboards) & Tim McTague (Guitar) of the band Underoath (http://absolutepunk.net/underoath) on their current Canadian tour. Big thanks go to Anthony Farrauto over at EMI Canada for getting this set up for me as well as to all of the users who submitted questions that were used.

So how was your downtime at home after getting off of the international Taste of Chaos?
Chris: It was the best thing ever. It was really weird because it was the longest time that we have had off off where we’re actually living at home, not just off tour, that we can remember. I was actually hanging out with friends at home and not thinking about going on tour, spending time with my wife and playing with my dogs and stuff. It was really weird for the first month and a half or so but then after that I just got used to being at home and sleeping in my bed every night. When thinking about going back on tour again it was just this weird thing.
Tim: I just hung out really… ate a lot of BBQ, got a little bit fatter than usual. I also spent some legitimate time with my girlfriend which was probably the main reason why I was really excited about going home. It was a good time for sure!
Chris: And he rode his motorcycle.
Tim: Rode my hog.

You haven’t really done a proper national headlining tour for Define the Great Line yet, any plans for that?
Chris: September…
Tim: 25th. We think. Maybe.
Chris: We just got done talking about that about 10 minutes ago.
Tim: Definitely sometime in the fall.

Define the Great Line came out about 8 months ago and did really well. What’s your reaction to its success now that you’ve had some time to ponder it?
Tim: For me, it’s just cool to see that it did as well as it has with the kind of record that it is. I can see the marketability of the last record (They’re Only Chasing Safety) and I can see why lots of people could like that but with this record we knew that it was going to be more of a challenge for people to get it and think about it and really grasp it as a record. It’s not as easy and fun to listen to; it’s more of a thinking album. Just the fact that this many people have actually taken the time and given it a chance and have responded to it is cool for me.
Chris: I just think it’s weird. It’s just odd to know that there’s that many people that care about what we do. I was talking to some kids last night and they were telling their stories about what it took for them to get to the show. Tim and I were talking about it a couple nights ago about how these kids have their own story about what this song means to them or what that show meant to them. It’s really, really cool and awesome to see God working in that way and using what we love to do to affect people.

Did you have any goals in mind when releasing the album?
Chris: I think just as a whole we wanted to come out of the studio and just know that there just wasn’t anything better that we could have done. I know that, for me anyway, this record is the first time that I’ve actually felt like that. Every record that we’ve done before we’ve come out of the studio and a week later I’m just “Aww man we could have done this better and done that better…” Even now I listen to the record and I’m still really happy about it.

So really, you accomplished everything you wanted?
Chris: I never dreamed we would do anything even close to what we’re doing now. So in that aspect we accomplished everything that I wanted to do physically, business-wise, fan-wise…
Tim: Three years ago!
Chris: A loooong time ago. So all of this [gestures to everything]… I’m just along for the ride.

The album did leak really early; did any of you see that as having a positive effect at all?
Tim: I do. Honestly, it’s all opinion and no one will ever know if it would have done any better than it did… I can’t imagine that it would have.

A lot of people were saying the leak got them even more excited about the actual release.
Chris: Yeah, a lot of kids we saw at shows were like “Dude I got the new record but I’m definitely getting it the day it comes out because I like this song.”
Tim: So we’re going to leak ALL of our records now, crappy versions of all of our songs.
Chris: That’s what Nine Inch Nails is doing! They’re leaving random USB drives around at every so many shows in Europe and people are finding them with this huge surprise.

Can you tell me anything at all about the videos you just shot over in Sweden?
Tim: Yeah! We just shot two videos over in Sweden in this town called Skelleftea with our friends in Popcore (http://www.popcorefilm.com). They did our last two videos as well. They’re two videos for "You’re Ever So Inviting" and… [turns around to ask Spencer] and "A Moment Suspended in Time". One involves a lot of ropes and a monster and it’s just pretty random and the other one we haven’t actually seen the final cut for yet. We just went over there and spent four days shooting and freezing. We all worked hard and the first one turned out good so we’re excited for the second.

When will they be released?
Chris: The one we have done now for "You’re Ever So Inviting" should be out within the next few weeks.

You guys said that the reason you stayed on Tooth and Nail/Solid State was because of the whole “family aspect.” Is there ever a chance that Underoath would move onto a major?
Both: [laughter]
Chris: Unless something crazy drastic changes over the next couple of years with the way major labels run things it’s not going to happen. The way that major labels work, in general, is pretty much the opposite of the way that we think things should be done. If a major label wants a thing done this way then we usually think that it doesn’t make any sense. We’re just so happy with Tooth and Nail right now that there’s really no reason for us to.

How is balancing Aaron and The Almost (http://absolutepunk.net/thealmost) with Underoath at the moment?
Tim: Well we take off some time and then he [Aaron] goes off on tour and vice versa. And so far nothing has come up so, it’s been good!

Do you think it will affect anything in the future?
Chris: Hopefully it won’t!

Do you have any plans for recording any new stuff in the near future?
Tim: We are planning on recording something new at some point in the future! [laughter]
Chris: We’re really just in the baby stages of doing that right now. Nothing is to a point where we are even close to recording. We’re going to try and have a new record out sometime in ’08 so we will see how that works out.

I guess since it’s so early you guys might not know yet, but do you have any ideas about how it’s going to be leaning towards?
Tim: Well we’ve only got like, two songs written. The two songs that we do have are more on the heavier side but we’re not really out to write one type of song. There’ll probably be a lot of electronic stuff, some softer stuff, some really heavy stuff… whatever comes! We’ve always been that band that every record we can’t do anything and we’re so over what we did on the last record that we don’t even want to go near the idea of the last one but, like Chris said, this is the first record where we’ve all said “This sounds like Underoath. This is what we’ve wanted to sound like forever and this is the first time we’ve actually gotten there.” So I think that this next record is going to be more of an expansion off the foundation we set with Define the Great Line. Our last records have always just been trying to get away from the previous so we definitely know where we want to go and we nailed a lot of things in our heads that we wanted to do so we’ll probably just take those ideas and expand on them.

Is there anybody that you would like to work with on the next album?
Tim: Adam [Dutkiewicz].
Chris: Yeah, Adam! I’d like to go back and work with him because it was just so laid back and he’s such a rad dude. I was actually thinking about that for awhile the other night and trying to think about who I’d like to work with instead of him but no dice. As of right now he is who I’d want to work with.

What is the current status with the other side projects going on? Chris with The Roman…
Chris: It’s called The Roman Carnival of 1510 and it’s pretty much at a standpoint right now.

[Note: The following is all a paraphrase of what was said as none of us realised the recorder had actually stopped recording. I’ve tried to make this as accurate as it can be, I apologise and this won’t happen again!]

Chris: Nothing is happening with it, there’s just so much going on with us right now and Keith from Every Time I Die that we really haven’t gone anywhere with it.

And Tim, you have one with Nate from Anberlin? Is there any name for it yet?
Tim: Yeah, it’s untitled still. We’ve got about 7 or 8 songs written right now and we hope to go and record them really soon. We’re hoping to release it later on this year.
Chris: I had no idea that was still going on! Who is putting it out?
Tim: Yeah man! We’re going to be doing it ourselves, no ones going to want to buy it! [laughter]

How do you respond to the “scene elitists” that refuse to listen to your music because of your popularity?
Chris: It’s just whatever.
Tim: Well I respect their opinions because I know that I do the same thing too, discrediting a band because they’re really popular. Everything that a band in that position does gets harder to justify according to those people. It’s hard to think of that though, because I don’t really see us in that light. But really it’s going to happen and there’s nothing that I can do to stop it at all.

[/end paraphrasing]

I was talking to some people and they mentioned that they were going to your show because they really loved the song Reinventing Your Exit. Do you believe in the power of “The Single”?
Chris: As in releasing a single?

Yes.
Chris: I believe that it works. Every band that I have ever known, when they play the song that is on the radio, everyone goes crazy but then doesn’t do anything else. But we don’t believe that that is the way we should be perceived.
Tim: Actually our “biggest single” you could say of our last album we won’t even play because we don’t really like it very much anymore. It’s just not fun to play.
Chris: The way that we see it is we would rather play songs that we have fun playing because we think that in turn people that are watching the show will be able to tell we are having fun instead of us going through the motions and not really being into it. We’re going to play what makes us happy to play and hopefully the crowd is up for that.

You recently announced a tour with Maylene and the Sons of Disaster (http://www.absolutepunk.net/mayleneandthesonsofdisaster), the Dirty South tour. How do you feel about touring with your old vocalist, Dallas?
Chris: I’m stoked! I hang out with him as much as possible when we’re home because I live about an hour from him, I’m in Alabama and he’s in Georgia. We hang out as much as we possibly can and we’ve been throwing around the idea of playing [together] for awhile. But we’ll either be supporting or they’ll be busy and it finally just worked out to where we’re going to be able to go on tour together. It’s going to be fun because we haven’t been hanging out on tour since he was in the band, obviously, so it will be fun.

Will there be any special appearances from him in your set at all?
Chris: No, no…

What is your favourite or most memorable thing you have ever read or seen about yourselves whether on the internet or in magazines or whatever?
Chris: I read that our old singer left the band me and him got in a fist fight over a twinkie!
Tim: That was pretty good… oh, and that Chris was in a band called Roman Candle 17.

What was it like having one of your videos nominated for a Grammy?
Tim: We weren’t really, our friends were, but it was cool. We get to say that we are so that’s fun. A couple of our guys went and Popcore came out, it was a really big deal for them and for me I was happier about it seeing them so stoked then “Ohh, my band’s nominated for a Grammy.” They’ve been working really hard and they come from this small town and they just never thought that they would get to where they are let alone nominated for the biggest award in that kind of thing.
Chris: They’re the ones that did all the work. They came up with everything and pretty much all we did was stand in a fake basement and play a fake show and then we went home.

How did you get hooked up with them in the first place?
Tim: Our friends in Norma Jean (http://absolutepunk.net/normajean) actually shot a video with them and they’ve done a video for a band called Cult of Luna (http://www.cultofluna.com/) that was really good. After seeing those two videos we decided to try it out and it’s been the best thing ever since!

I read that you have an Underoath string tribute group?
Chris: Everyone does!
Tim: More ammo for the elitists. Us and Yellowcard (http://absolutepunk.net/yellowcard) and everyone and their mother does.
[laughter]

Who would you most like to see cover one of your songs?
Chris: I think that the groups that I say I want to hear cover us I would feel bad if they actually did, having to play our music instead of theirs so I honestly couldn’t say.
Tim: I think that to even deem yourself coverable is a little bit of a stretch for us because we listen to bands that write music and we’re just amazed. Sometimes I listen to music and I just wish I could write a riff like that, wish that we could write a song that makes someone feel like I feel. Sometimes certain people say that to us but I don’t really think of ourselves as a band like that.
Chris: There are a lot of bands on Youtube that cover our stuff.

Do you do that a lot? Go onto websites and check out videos and what not?
Chris: I go on from time to time to check it out. It’s just really fun to see because you’ll see people in their bedrooms playing their songs.

I like the kids that make their own bands and play air guitar and lip sync to songs.
Chris: I get embarrassed! I can’t watch those videos and I’ll just turn it off.

What are your future plans for the next year or so?
Chris: We’re doing part of Warped Tour and we’re doing the US headlining tour we talked about, we’re doing some stuff in Australia and probably some stuff in Europe.
Tim: We’re doing a tour called "Come and Live" which is good. It’s a benefit tour that we did two years ago with our label and some friends and we’ll be doing it again this year.

Any plans for a live album or DVD at all?
Chris: Probably never.
Tim: Have you heard us live?
Chris: Yeah, if you just heard us live we’re not one of those “live bands” or live DVD kind of thing. Radiohead could make a live DVD, Foo Fighters could do a live DVD but we can’t do that.
Tim: When you can make a live DVD you can have someone cover your songs! Those are the rules.

Well I’ve run out of time so I guess that’s the last questions. Any last words at all?
Tim: I know Ryan Rado.
Chris: Cool!

[Nowisnotthetime]

No tough questions about their Christianity, their feeling that a homosexual act is a sin, and their blantant Botch ripoffs on the new album. Weak interview.

[Jason Tate]

No tough questions about their Christianity, their feeling that a homosexual act is a sin, and their blantant Botch ripoffs on the new album. Weak interview.
Well, what do you need to know about their "Christianity" - they're Christian, question answered.

Their feelings on homosexuals is really not something that's needed to be discussed -- for one, because if that's something they hold as a belief, I don't see it being broadcast in an interview. Nor do I think (or expect) any of my interviewers to have the balls to ask them those kinds of questions. If you'd like me to get a response on this issue -- I'll email their manager and see what he says about it ... but beyond that, it's not the time or place to ask that kind of question.

And the last "question" - isn't even a question.

[Jason Tate]

Great interview - very nice addition to staff - -I can't wait to see what else will be done in the future.

[holdontightly]

good interview..the questions asked were good and got good answers.

[Julia Conny]

Killer job, Louise. :-)

[Louise Heng]

No tough questions about their Christianity, their feeling that a homosexual act is a sin, and their blantant Botch ripoffs on the new album. Weak interview.
Reiterating what Jason has said, I felt like questions like those were inappropriate for the interview I was doing. I'm not there to Barbra Walters them!

There were many questions that people suggested that I didn't use/didn't touch on as MANY have already been answered in past interviews that both we and others have done before.

[thatwasamoment]

That was definitely a good interview. A lot of good questions asked, and a lot of good answers.

[CrenshawPunch]

No tough questions about their Christianity, their feeling that a homosexual act is a sin, and their blantant Botch ripoffs on the new album. Weak interview.


The fuck you mean blatant Botch Rip-offs? I posted about this in another thread. You are the 10 millionth person to say that underoath/norma jean/the chariot/insertbandhere rips off botch. Its called musical influences and there is nothing wrong with showing your influences through your music. Or are you now going to rag on every band that sounds like or rips-off the beatles? Cause thats a lot of fucking bands.

Great interview btw.

[hendyds88]

awesome!

[themostdeplete]

The fuck you mean blatant Botch Rip-offs? I posted about this in another thread. You are the 10 millionth person to say that underoath/norma jean/the chariot/insertbandhere rips off botch. Its called musical influences and there is nothing wrong with showing your influences through your music. Or are you now going to rag on every band that sounds like or rips-off the beatles? Cause thats a lot of fucking bands.

Great interview btw.

got em. hahaha.

dope interview. are you new staff? :wave:

[Burning Star IV]

Great stuff!

[Nowisnotthetime]

Well, what do you need to know about their "Christianity" - they're Christian, question answered.

Their feelings on homosexuals is really not something that's needed to be discussed -- for one, because if that's something they hold as a belief, I don't see it being broadcast in an interview. Nor do I think (or expect) any of my interviewers to have the balls to ask them those kinds of questions. If you'd like me to get a response on this issue -- I'll email their manager and see what he says about it ... but beyond that, it's not the time or place to ask that kind of question.

And the last "question" - isn't even a question.

Their manager has already spoken out about it and just said they're nice guys, leave them alone, but I don't think that excuses it. By the way, THEY themselves brought it up in a magazine when I believe Tim stated that the act of homosexuality is wrong. They put it in the public forum for discussion so they should be called to answer for it and defend their bigotry. Their manager seems like a really good dude and his beliefs don't seem to reflect theirs (at least Tim's) so I'd rather hear Underoath themselves respond to the issue.

[Nowisnotthetime]

The fuck you mean blatant Botch Rip-offs? I posted about this in another thread. You are the 10 millionth person to say that underoath/norma jean/the chariot/insertbandhere rips off botch. Its called musical influences and there is nothing wrong with showing your influences through your music. Or are you now going to rag on every band that sounds like or rips-off the beatles? Cause thats a lot of fucking bands.

Great interview btw.

There's a difference between being influenced by and straight up stealing riffs. Even the Botch guys know it (See the commentary of their newest DVD). Riff for riff, these dudes are stealing things from Botch.

[CrenshawPunch]

Their manager has already spoken out about it and just said they're nice guys, leave them alone, but I don't think that excuses it. By the way, THEY themselves brought it up in a magazine when I believe Tim stated that the act of homosexuality is wrong. They put it in the public forum for discussion so they should be called to answer for it and defend their bigotry. Their manager seems like a really good dude and his beliefs don't seem to reflect theirs (at least Tim's) so I'd rather hear Underoath themselves respond to the issue.


How the hell is that bigotry? It's a religious belief.

[madstix5]

awesome interview...i just keep loving these guys more and more

[CrenshawPunch]

There's a difference between being influenced by and straight up stealing riffs. Even the Botch guys know it (See the commentary of their newest DVD). Riff for riff, these dudes are stealing things from Botch.

Name a song and a riff. See my fucking avatar? I think i'd know if it was a direct copy. Norma jean....maybe. But underoath, no.

[CrenshawPunch]

And by the way, early on Botch ripped off tons of bands.

[Nowisnotthetime]

Name a song and a riff. See my fucking avatar? I think i'd know if it was a direct copy. Norma jean....maybe. But underoath, no.

Haha your argument seems to be changing

[Nowisnotthetime]

How the hell is that bigotry? It's a religious belief.

If someone believes, as a result of their religion, that blacks are inferior, is that not bigotry because it's a religious belief?

[CrenshawPunch]

Haha your argument seems to be changing


The argument was over underoath riffs. I made a general statement about how people like you come up with the same tired bullshit. I have the Botch dvd, I know what they said, and I still stand by what I said. Now, quit avoiding the argument and name a riff or shut up.

[CrenshawPunch]

If someone believes, as a result of their religion, that blacks are inferior, is that not bigotry because it's a religious belief?


No, because inferiority and sin are two completely different things.

[Nowisnotthetime]

No, because inferiority and sin are two completely different things.

OK, so calling someone's life choice when it comes to sexuality that hurts no one else, especially in a monogamous relationship, is a sin, but you're not saying they're inferior. If that's how you sleep at night, your argument is pretty thin. You're changing the word so you feel better about it. Saying it is a sin is saying it is wrong. You are saying the way a homosexual chooses to live their life is wrong. If that's not inferiority and bigotry I don't know what is.

[CrenshawPunch]

OK, so calling someone's life choice when it comes to sexuality that hurts no one else, especially in a monogamous relationship, is a sin, but you're not saying they're inferior. If that's how you sleep at night, you're argument is pretty thin. Your changing the word so you feel better about. Saying it is a sin is saying it is wrong. You are saying the way a homosexual chooses to live their life is wrong. If that's not inferiority and bigotry I don't know what is.


So then am I bigot if I say a meth addict is commiting a sin? What about a smoker? or a serial rapist? Those are all lifestyle choices. Something you obviously don't understand is the concept of the sin being wrong. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

[CrenshawPunch]

And whats the feel better about. I sleep fine knowing I have my own OPINIONS. I never force them on anyone, and neither has Tim.

[Poor Excuse]

great interview. underoath are freakin sick.

crenshaw punch, way to hold it down man. nowisnotthetime is a fool who cant back up anything he says.

[CrenshawPunch]

speaking of bigotry......

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=5614986#post561498 6

[rockaholic]

good interview!

although i wish Who would you like most see cover one of your songs? was answered with like a name of one band in particular haha.

[CrenshawPunch]

great interview. underoath are freakin sick.

crenshaw punch, way to hold it down man. nowisnotthetime is a fool who cant back up anything he says.


Thanks man

[Speyside]

I <3 Louise so much. Congratulations on joining staff, you're a fantastic addition.

[forgetevth]

i have to chime in quickly. it is in fact not bigotry. i know some people who personally do believe homosexual acts are sins yet they are some of the most loving people i know. oh and their gay friends, though obviously in disagreement, dont think they are bigots. it is not bigotry to not agree with certain personal choices or agree on all beliefs. if that was the case we would all be bigots.

and the interview was amazing. i was hoping they woulda said yes to dallas making an appearance!

[genericmadness]

really good interview. glad to hear they'll be out my way

[forgetevth]

and also dont call nowisnotthetime a fool. he has or has friends who have most likely been hurt by christians who did not differentiate between a sexual orientation and practice, and to me (being a christian and extensively studying this issue) his response was expected and understandable.

or im just all off and has a beef with underoath..

[ImAsian5]

the bible says that homosexuality is an abomination, let me see, millions, upon millions of humans have trusted the bible as truth,,,, now im just saying that is what the bible says, i believe the bible, so does more than half of this country, who claim to be christians, we however do not kill homosexuals, like other countries, people dont seem to realize this.

[btbam > you]

good job louise

[mht]

hah you used my Maylene/Dallas question!!! I love Louise! <3

[ben weapon]

No tough questions about their Christianity, their feeling that a homosexual act is a sin, and their blantant Botch ripoffs on the new album. Weak interview.


The interviewer actually asked questions relevant to the music that this band plays yeah? That's what a band does, makes music so the questions should really be about just that. Why should they be subjected to "tough" questions about Christianity? Isn't that really old news? Come on man, get in the now. Im also sick of every band touching on that kind of sound being accused of ripping off Botch. Does that mean that every metal band that uses guitar harmonies rips of Maiden? You're rubbish, as we say here in the UK.

[BobDylanismyman]

the bible says that homosexuality is an abomination, let me see, millions, upon millions of humans have trusted the bible as truth,,,, now im just saying that is what the bible says, i believe the bible, so does more than half of this country, who claim to be christians, we however do not kill homosexuals, like other countries, people dont seem to realize this.


K. first off, good interview.

Second I don't get this point at all...

3rd...None of you are going to enlighten each other, everyone thinks they're right. In this case, there is no truth, there is only you and what you make the truth. The whole religion convo is a waste of time kids.

Altough I am not christian, i am also not anti-christian, when it is used in it's purest form. That is, before rediculous conservatives and wackos interpret it to be negative. It all comes down to love thy neighbor and love thy self or some shit like that right? And if their is a god he's probably a chill cat that respects you for being a good person. He probably respects love between all of his creatures whether they're gay or not. Smoke a fucking bowl. Put your feet up. Relax. Worry about important shit. Let them be happy man. Let Underoath disagree with whatever they want. You can disagree with me. Thats fine. I'm ok with it. You were raised differently. Porbably in a different part of the world. You were brainwashed by different shit than I was. We are all going to be different. Let's all hangout man. Let's have fun. Fuck this shit.

[Jacktheskipper]

So then am I bigot if I say a meth addict is commiting a sin? What about a smoker? or a serial rapist? Those are all lifestyle choices. Something you obviously don't understand is the concept of the sin being wrong. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Are you comparing homosexuality, smoking, meth addiction adn rape :jawdrop:

i have to chime in quickly. it is in fact not bigotry. i know some people who personally do believe homosexual acts are sins yet they are some of the most loving people i know. oh and their gay friends, though obviously in disagreement, dont think they are bigots. it is not bigotry to not agree with certain personal choices or agree on all beliefs. if that was the case we would all be bigots.

and the interview was amazing. i was hoping they woulda said yes to dallas making an appearance!

I personally don`t believe in god, but hope there is something liek that and if there is something liek a god I guess he`d be understanding about love between all creatures as long as both parties involved agree on the relationship ;) ...

[BobDylanismyman]

Are you comparing homosexuality, smoking, meth addiction adn rape :jawdrop:



I personally don`t believe in god, but hope there is something liek that and if there is something liek a god I guess he`d be understanding about love between all creatures as long as both parties involved agree on the relationship ;) ...



I'm with you maaaaaaaaaaaaan!

[Cottage Cheese]

He should have asked why they doubt that dinosaurs ever existed.

[kevinrocks409]

You recently announced a tour with Maylene and the Sons of Disaster (http://www.absolutepunk.net/mayleneandthesonsofdisaster), the Dirty South tour. How do you feel about touring with your old vocalist, Dallas?
Chris: I’m stoked! I hang out with him as much as possible when we’re home because I live about an hour from him, I’m in Alabama and he’s in Georgia. We hang out as much as we possibly can and we’ve been throwing around the idea of playing [together] for awhile. But we’ll either be supporting or they’ll be busy and it finally just worked out to where we’re going to be able to go on tour together. It’s going to be fun because we haven’t been hanging out on tour since he was in the band, obviously, so it will be fun.

Will there be any special appearances from him in your set at all?
Chris: No, no…



NO! That sucks.

[bankrom]

i know ryan rado, too!

[Louise Heng]

Thanks for all the good words people! Yes, I'm new staff. I'll be the head interviewer for the website from now on.

I should have realised that a band like Underoath would cause so much drama among AP kids :p

[snakeinmyboots]

yeah i liked that interview a lot
and as for that one kid about the homosexual comment, what does that have to do with this interview or this band in general?

[Silver Bullets]

NO! That sucks.

yeaht, that would've been cool

[mikearduini9]

Hahaha I'm pretty sure the person who called Chris & Keith's side project "Roman Candle 17" was in these forums.

[Azrael]

Smoke a fucking bowl. Put your feet up. Relax. Worry about important shit. Let them be happy man. Let Underoath disagree with whatever they want. You can disagree with me. Thats fine. I'm ok with it. You were raised differently. Porbably in a different part of the world. You were brainwashed by different shit than I was. We are all going to be different. Let's all hangout man. Let's have fun. Fuck this shit.
Bwahahaha. You're my hero.

In all honestly, I don't see how questions of that really matter at all. In an interview about a band, I think the interview should be about the band, and about their music. Not their political/religious beliefs, whether they prefer boxers, briefs, or going commando, what their fuckin' favorite color is. Who gives a crap about that shit. It's about the music. Anything else is just extraneous.

EDIT: Sorry, almost forgot to say that this was an excellent interview. I don't like this band much, honestly, but this was an enjoyable and informative read. Thanks, Louise!

[animmortalsoul]

Thanks for all the good words people! Yes, I'm new staff. I'll be the head interviewer for the website from now on.

I should have realised that a band like Underoath would cause so much drama among AP kids :p

Congratulations! Great interview.

I'm going to lay in on the issue of bigotry for a moment. I'm not going to talk about whether or not homosexuality is wrong. God knows we had enough of that with "Donnie Davies." But if you believe that because Christianity is not pluralistic, it is by necessity bigoted, you are wrong. Christianity is the foothold of the screw-up. It's major tenet toward sin is not just that sin is wrong but that "There but for the grace of God go I." Anyone who really walks in a relationship with Jesus Christ and isn't just out to impose morals on people who don't want them will tell you that sin easily entangles them too, and that their strongest feeling toward those who sin apart from God is not superiority, but pity, and a hope that they too can be saved.

(Incidentally, there seems to be a pervasive notion that just because a choice you make concerns your sexuality, that your choice is above any reproach from a moral law. Which is illogical. While I believe "two consenting adults" is enough for the law of the state, the issue with any action, sexual or non-sexual, morally is not "consenting adults" but a consenting God.)

[sidekicksuicide]

No tough questions about their Christianity, their feeling that a homosexual act is a sin, and their blantant Botch ripoffs on the new album. Weak interview.


I don't seem to recall most of the other interviewees being asked about their stance on homosexuality. This whole website is full of weak interviews.

[AEast317]

great interview.

[nerdvglc]

that was a good interview...it delved a little deeper than the surface, you didn't piss them off by asking stupid questions, i liked it.

[stevecrumb]

Are you comparing homosexuality, smoking, meth addiction adn rape :jawdrop:

Did God command that all of those are wrong (in one way or another)?

I think it's funny that people will call out Christians when they are not living through the laws of the Bible. But then the same people will call out Christians who do observe the commands.

We get in trouble for being hypocrites then we get in trouble for doing and saying what's right. How does that work? This leads me to believe that most people in the world who aren't Christians don't really care about the lives that Christians are living. What they really care about is waiting and watching til they can find something to complain about. Thank God that He's gracious rather than condemning of every action we take like the rest of the world.

[Jacktheskipper]

Did God command that all of those are wrong (in one way or another)?

I think it's funny that people will call out Christians when they are not living through the laws of the Bible. But then the same people will call out Christians who do observe the commands.

We get in trouble for being hypocrites then we get in trouble for doing and saying what's right. How does that work? This leads me to believe that most people in the world who aren't Christians don't really care about the lives that Christians are living. What they really care about is waiting and watching til they can find something to complain about. Thank God that He's gracious rather than condemning of every action we take like the rest of the world.

First thing: have you read the rest of my comment??! And what makes you so sure that the bible is the only thing that`s right?!? I really appreciate most of what the bible says, because it has a lot of good to offer when it comes to being nice and treating people the way you wanna be treated yourself, but when it comes to discrimination and intolerance, I guess it should be alright for me to call it out ... and I think in these days people really shouldnt have a problem with other people being gay ... they won`t go any other place then hetero people when they´re dead I guess ... and I said I guess, cause noone here knows, noone has been dead already and came back to tell otherwise and for that reason alone we all should treat each other nicely, listen to what other people have to say and make up our own minds ... that`s what I try, and I said try, I dont wann say I always suceed ... I respect christianity and your beliefs, but I feel it´s not right to say its a sin to be gay ... thats all I wanted to get across ...

[stevecrumb]

First thing: have you read the rest of my comment??! And what makes you so sure that the bible is the only thing that`s right?!? I really appreciate most of what the bible says, because it has a lot of good to offer when it comes to being nice and treating people the way you wanna be treated yourself, but when it comes to discrimination and intolerance, I guess it should be alright for me to call it out ... and I think in these days people really shouldnt have a problem with other people being gay ... they won`t go any other place then hetero people when they´re dead I guess ... and I said I guess, cause noone here knows, noone has been dead already and came back to tell otherwise and for that reason alone we all should treat each other nicely, listen to what other people have to say and make up our own minds ... that`s what I try, and I said try, I dont wann say I always suceed ... I respect christianity and your beliefs, but I feel it´s not right to say its a sin to be gay ... thats all I wanted to get across ...

1) Personal experience. I know that there's a God because I've felt him in my life. If you believe the Bible is right, then other sources can't be right. It can't be both. If you don't believe in the Bible, that's fine. But if you do, you can't believe that and the other religions and holy books.

2) Sin isn't something that changes with time. If being gay was a sin a hundred years ago it's still a sin. Sin doesn't change with culture.

3) One person has been dead and came back. That's the foundation of the Bible and the Christian religion.

[Jacktheskipper]

1) Personal experience. I know that there's a God because I've felt him in my life. If you believe the Bible is right, then other sources can't be right. It can't be both. If you don't believe in the Bible, that's fine. But if you do, you can't believe that and the other religions and holy books.

2) Sin isn't something that changes with time. If being gay was a sin a hundred years ago it's still a sin. Sin doesn't change with culture.

3) One person has been dead and came back. That's the foundation of the Bible and the Christian religion.

Alright, I can see where your point comes from and why you believe all of this, but there are no hard facts so you could prove any of this and as long as you don`t have any facts, please take into consideration that you could be wrong and I`m not saying you are! This is all about tolerance, I tolerate your opinion and I won´t try any further to discuss cause there`s no base for it ... I`d just be curious why you personally think being homosexuell is a sin ... you don`t have to answer this, I`d just be curious!

[werealldudes19]

good interview... It bums me out a bit they won't be doing any songs with dallas
so they say...

[Azrael]

1) Personal experience. I know that there's a God because I've felt him in my life. If you believe the Bible is right, then other sources can't be right. It can't be both. If you don't believe in the Bible, that's fine. But if you do, you can't believe that and the other religions and holy books.
Sorry, but no, you have FAITH in your beliefs. You don't know. That's the basis of religion: faith.
When confronted with the issue of differing religions, and which is right, or which is the truth, and "I know this religion is right, and such and such..", I always think of somethin' Gandhi said:
"I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian."

2) Sin isn't something that changes with time. If being gay was a sin a hundred years ago it's still a sin. Sin doesn't change with culture.
Actually, it kinda does. For example, the Book of Deuteronomy does condemn a lot of things. A LOT of things. But all in context. It was written by a certain people in response to the actions of a certain people, at that particular time. The same goes for the messages in a lot of the books in the bible. In context, it's all fine - but that doesn't mean the condemnations of yesteryear necessarily apply today.

3) One person has been dead and came back. That's the foundation of the Bible and the Christian religion.I don't really think that was his intended point, to contest whether or not Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead...


Sorry to Louise, that this whole topic has turned into a sort of debate. I'm not helping, I know, but...Sometimes, some things just need to be said.

[dan.is.empire]

Their manager has already spoken out about it and just said they're nice guys, leave them alone, but I don't think that excuses it. By the way, THEY themselves brought it up in a magazine when I believe Tim stated that the act of homosexuality is wrong. They put it in the public forum for discussion so they should be called to answer for it and defend their bigotry. Their manager seems like a really good dude and his beliefs don't seem to reflect theirs (at least Tim's) so I'd rather hear Underoath themselves respond to the issue.

if you had actually read the interview with tim and his discussion of homosexuality you'd understand that he doesn't have a problem with gay people. he is totally fine with them. he is a christian (as about 63 people have told you already) and as a christian he sees the act of homosexuality as a sin, just like swearing, getting drunk, having premarital sex, etc. does this mean that he's a terrible person because he thinks all those other things are sins? no.

you want to get pissed about bigotry against homosexuality check out donnie davies and THEN come back and say that tim is intolerant.

if there was ANYTHING in this interview that you should be offended by it's the "scene elitist" comments.

[12:46AM]

No tough questions about their Christianity, their feeling that a homosexual act is a sin, and their blantant Botch ripoffs on the new album. Weak interview.hey buddy, everyone "rips off" botch. get over it.

i can't believe how many gay comments (pun intended) are in this thread when there's no gay questions in the interview.

good interview, louise.

[falloutboy.]

i like the sound of tim and nate from anberlin in a band!

[altemose09]

good interveiw

[animmortalsoul]

First thing: have you read the rest of my comment??! And what makes you so sure that the bible is the only thing that`s right?!? I really appreciate most of what the bible says, because it has a lot of good to offer when it comes to being nice and treating people the way you wanna be treated yourself, but when it comes to discrimination and intolerance, I guess it should be alright for me to call it out ... and I think in these days people really shouldnt have a problem with other people being gay ... they won`t go any other place then hetero people when they´re dead I guess ... and I said I guess, cause noone here knows, noone has been dead already and came back to tell otherwise and for that reason alone we all should treat each other nicely, listen to what other people have to say and make up our own minds ... that`s what I try, and I said try, I dont wann say I always suceed ... I respect christianity and your beliefs, but I feel it´s not right to say its a sin to be gay ... thats all I wanted to get across ...

The Bible claims to be the definitive word of God, and it proclaims Jesus as the only way to heaven. If the Bible is right at all, then it should be the only thing that's right based on everything it says. Not that other cultures/belief systems are completely wrong, but none will be inspired by God and none will provide the true way to salvation.

The problem with your calling out the Bible on intolerance is that without the Bible or some other religion, you have no validation to say intolerance is wrong. You objected to the guy's (inadvertent) comparison between rapists and homosexuals, and yet without the Bible, why is it any better not to be a serial rapist than to be one? Why are we better people than Hitler or Stalin? Why is murder wrong? Because the law commands it? If there is no objective moral standard, why should I care about the law? Or whether it benefits society? From an atheistic world view, I should be able to do whatever I want.

You seem to believe in pluralism in factual purposes. Now it's true that pluralism is great in society for freedom of religion. I believe everyone should be free to believe what they want. But they can't all be right. Right and wrong can't just be subjective preference; the above paragraph shows that. Also, it is rather contradictory that you are telling people they aren't allowed to proclaim religious beliefs (part of their lifestyle) about other people's lifestyles in the name of "people being allowed to live how they like."

Note: Nothing in here is supposed to be a personal attack on you. You seem like a nice and intelligent guy. I'm not saying you aren't a good person. I'm just saying that apart from religion, there is no reason to be good as opposed to bad.

Sorry, but no, you have FAITH in your beliefs. You don't know. That's the basis of religion: faith.
When confronted with the issue of differing religions, and which is right, or which is the truth, and "I know this religion is right, and such and such..", I always think of somethin' Gandhi said:
"I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian."


Actually, it kinda does. For example, the Book of Deuteronomy does condemn a lot of things. A LOT of things. But all in context. It was written by a certain people in response to the actions of a certain people, at that particular time. The same goes for the messages in a lot of the books in the bible. In context, it's all fine - but that doesn't mean the condemnations of yesteryear necessarily apply today.

That is a very noble quote. Unfortunately, it is practically useless. You might as well have said, "We should pray that people be nicer and have no grip on reality." These religions make different claims on facts -- Christianity claims that Jesus is the Son of God and that God sent him to save the world from sin. The others deny this. One is right; the other is wrong. Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Muslims and Christians deny this. One group is right, the other is wrong. Your quote implies that all that matters is that we be good, and reality will adjust accordingly. But I believe -- as others than Christianity do -- that people are inherently flawed. Why else would we need to be reincarnated till we're good enough? Because we're not good enough now. I believe therefore that being good depends upon being saved from our badness, which is part of the reason I am a Christian. It may be only my own faith. But it takes more faith to say that facts don't matter; only trying in vain to "be good."

I agree with you and not with the other guy -- If you don't believe that sometimes commands, even in the Bible, are set aside, check out Godhatesshrimp.com. (I don't obviously agree with everything that site says, but it will serve for this purpose.) But when the context of Romans 1:21-32 (note 27) clearly states that homosexuality comes as a result of a fallen world, and when you consider in Genesis that the purpose of marriage is stated as a man being united to his wife, I consider this particular command to transcend salvation-historical borders.

[ImAsian5]

The Bible claims to be the definitive word of God, and it proclaims Jesus as the only way to heaven. If the Bible is right at all, then it should be the only thing that's right based on everything it says. Not that other cultures/belief systems are completely wrong, but none will be inspired by God and none will provide the true way to salvation.

The problem with your calling out the Bible on intolerance is that without the Bible or some other religion, you have no validation to say intolerance is wrong. You objected to the guy's (inadvertent) comparison between rapists and homosexuals, and yet without the Bible, why is it any better not to be a serial rapist than to be one? Why are we better people than Hitler or Stalin? Why is murder wrong? Because the law commands it? If there is no objective moral standard, why should I care about the law? Or whether it benefits society? From an atheistic world view, I should be able to do whatever I want.

You seem to believe in pluralism in factual purposes. Now it's true that pluralism is great in society for freedom of religion. I believe everyone should be free to believe what they want. But they can't all be right. Right and wrong can't just be subjective preference; the above paragraph shows that. Also, it is rather contradictory that you are telling people they aren't allowed to proclaim religious beliefs (part of their lifestyle) about other people's lifestyles in the name of "people being allowed to live how they like."

Note: Nothing in here is supposed to be a personal attack on you. You seem like a nice and intelligent guy. I'm not saying you aren't a good person. I'm just saying that apart from religion, there is no reason to be good as opposed to bad.



That is a very noble quote. Unfortunately, it is practically useless. You might as well have said, "We should pray that people be nicer and have no grip on reality." These religions make different claims on facts -- Christianity claims that Jesus is the Son of God and that God sent him to save the world from sin. The others deny this. One is right; the other is wrong. Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Muslims and Christians deny this. One group is right, the other is wrong. Your quote implies that all that matters is that we be good, and reality will adjust accordingly. But I believe -- as others than Christianity do -- that people are inherently flawed. Why else would we need to be reincarnated till we're good enough? Because we're not good enough now. I believe therefore that being good depends upon being saved from our badness, which is part of the reason I am a Christian. It may be only my own faith. But it takes more faith to say that facts don't matter; only trying in vain to "be good."

I agree with you and not with the other guy -- If you don't believe that sometimes commands, even in the Bible, are set aside, check out Godhatesshrimp.com. (I don't obviously agree with everything that site says, but it will serve for this purpose.) But when the context of Romans 1:21-32 (note 27) clearly states that homosexuality comes as a result of a fallen world, and when you consider in Genesis that the purpose of marriage is stated as a man being united to his wife, I consider this particular command to transcend salvation-historical borders.


GOOD STUFF!

[stevecrumb]

Sorry, but no, you have FAITH in your beliefs. You don't know. That's the basis of religion: faith.
When confronted with the issue of differing religions, and which is right, or which is the truth, and "I know this religion is right, and such and such..", I always think of somethin' Gandhi said:
"I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian."

How are you about to tell me that I have never experienced God in my life? Thank you for the lesson over faith, but I'm already aware of it. That's a bold statement for you to make to tell me that I have never experienced God on this Earth. It's quite arrogant of you to make such a statement.

Actually, it kinda does. For example, the Book of Deuteronomy does condemn a lot of things. A LOT of things. But all in context. It was written by a certain people in response to the actions of a certain people, at that particular time. The same goes for the messages in a lot of the books in the bible. In context, it's all fine - but that doesn't mean the condemnations of yesteryear necessarily apply today.

You're right. The book of Deuteronomy does condemn a lot of things. People back then believed that you should be punished (even to death) for minimal things.

There are two reasons that what you're saying doesn't change the fact that sin doesn't change.

First of all, you're trying to contrast todays society the Old Testament. The problem with that is that once the New Testament came around, there was also a new law set by God. With this new law, people were no longer condemned to a worldy death, but they were judged at the end of their life instead.

Second, after the new law was put into place, there was never a time when people were told that those things were wrong anymore. For instance, just because people weren't put to death for disobeying their parents doesn't mean it wasn't a sin. Same thing for sexual morality and homosexuality.

Nobody is condemning them to hell or to death. Nobody is saying that they are inferior people or that they don't deserve any right that the rest of us have. The only thing that is being said is that a sin is still a sin. If we were using society's rules as the moral authority, then where is God's authority?

I don't really think that was his intended point, to contest whether or not Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead...

I didn't say that was his intended point. But the one person who has died and come back from death (according to the Christian faith, which is where this discussion started) has said that homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality are a sin. So there IS relevance in my statement.

That's fine if you don't agree with Christianity. You have your own beliefs and nobody is trying to change them for you. But everyone in here wanted to know why they think homosexuality is a sin. As a fellow Christian I believe I can give a legitimate answer on their behalf seeing as how they're not going to respond to you.

[Azrael]

That is a very noble quote. Unfortunately, it is practically useless. You might as well have said, "We should pray that people be nicer and have no grip on reality." These religions make different claims on facts -- Christianity claims that Jesus is the Son of God and that God sent him to save the world from sin. The others deny this. One is right; the other is wrong. Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Muslims and Christians deny this. One group is right, the other is wrong. Your quote implies that all that matters is that we be good, and reality will adjust accordingly. But I believe -- as others than Christianity do -- that people are inherently flawed. Why else would we need to be reincarnated till we're good enough? Because we're not good enough now. I believe therefore that being good depends upon being saved from our badness, which is part of the reason I am a Christian. It may be only my own faith. But it takes more faith to say that facts don't matter; only trying in vain to "be good."
And why doesn't that idea work? That if we are essentially good people, then we are not saved? "No grip on reality"? I don't even know where that came from. It's a completely practical thought; if we all aim to be a better person, would that not make the world work better? We should aim to be the change we want to see in the world. And please, an omnipotent being would not be so petty as to condemn good people just because they've never heard of him - nor would he be so preoccupied with our small section of the universe, as people would make it seem. That's just human hubris, due to our little understanding of the universe around us in ancient days.
And I think you're taking the quote wrong. It doesn't matter if the person next to you if of a different religion, or believes in a different kind of afterlife, or if they believe in one at all. Just hope that they be a good person as well. And that's all we can hope for. You're looking too hard at the details, as many people do, instead of the lessons each religion can teach you. Because, in the end, it's not about being right or wrong, or people being inherently flawed, it's about getting by in this world, making life easier for the person next to you, or for your family, and trying to do what's right. And that is all that matters, when it comes down to it. God or no god, afterlife or not, we're here RIGHT now. Let's focus on that.

How are you about to tell me that I have never experienced God in my life? Thank you for the lesson over faith, but I'm already aware of it. That's a bold statement for you to make to tell me that I have never experienced God on this Earth. It's quite arrogant of you to make such a statement.I actually never said you had never experienced God in your life. I said you BELIEVE in God, and you believe in your experiences with him. But can you prove it empirically? No, and that is why there is a distinction between 'know' and 'believe'. This has nothing to do with your beliefs, or my beliefs. You're taking it too personally.

First of all, you're trying to contrast todays society the Old Testament. The problem with that is that once the New Testament came around, there was also a new law set by God. With this new law, people were no longer condemned to a worldy death, but they were judged at the end of their life instead.

Second, after the new law was put into place, there was never a time when people were told that those things were wrong anymore. For instance, just because people weren't put to death for disobeying their parents doesn't mean it wasn't a sin. Same thing for sexual morality and homosexuality.

Nobody is condemning them to hell or to death. Nobody is saying that they are inferior people or that they don't deserve any right that the rest of us have. The only thing that is being said is that a sin is still a sin. If we were using society's rules as the moral authority, then where is God's authority?Nothing to do with the New Testament, or the Old Testament. Certain books were written for SPECIFIC audiences for that time. Even in the New Testament, it's like this. A never even said anything about condemnation, so I don't know where you got that. All I did was use Deutoronomy as an example, because it's a commonly known book. And concerning that example, our understanding of sins condemned in that book changed, for the same reasons our understanding as to why Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed, because as theologians and historians looked more into the origins of the Bible, they saw the reasons and times that certain parts were written for, and for whom they were written.

[stevecrumb]

And why doesn't that idea work? That if we are essentially good people, then we are not saved? "No grip on reality"? I don't even know where that came from. It's a completely practical thought; if we all aim to be a better person, would that not make the world work better? We should aim to be the change we want to see in the world. And please, an omnipotent being would not be so petty as to condemn good people just because they've never heard of him - nor would he be so preoccupied with our small section of the universe, as people would make it seem. That's just human hubris, due to our little understanding of the universe around us in ancient days.
And I think you're taking the quote wrong. It doesn't matter if the person next to you if of a different religion, or believes in a different kind of afterlife, or if they believe in one at all. Just hope that they be a good person as well. And that's all we can hope for. You're looking too hard at the details, as many people do, instead of the lessons each religion can teach you. Because, in the end, it's not about being right or wrong, or people being inherently flawed, it's about getting by in this world, making life easier for the person next to you, or for your family, and trying to do what's right. And that is all that matters, when it comes down to it. God or no god, afterlife or not, we're here RIGHT now. Let's focus on that.

I'm sorry to say but your argument that God would condemn good people is flawed. Reason being, what is the definition of a good person? Where is the line between being good and bad? There's not one. If we were to believe that being a good person would get us a ticket to heaven, we're then faced with the question, what happens to a good person who does something bad right before he dies? What if someone good does something bad like committing suicide? Committing suicide seems like a pretty bad thing right? I would hate if our afterlife depended on us being good or not because I know I would be sent straight to hell. We're all born bad people. We all die bad people.

I actually never said you had never experienced God in your life. I said you BELIEVE in God, and you believe in your experiences with him. But can you prove it empirically? No, and that is why there is a distinction between 'know' and 'believe'. This has nothing to do with your beliefs, or my beliefs. You're taking it too personally.

You said, and I quote... "Sorry, but no, you have FAITH in your beliefs. You don't know." That is personal. Me stating that I know it's true through my personal experience is "proving it empirically". You should know the definitions of words your using.

Nothing to do with the New Testament, or the Old Testament. Certain books were written for SPECIFIC audiences for that time. Even in the New Testament, it's like this. A never even said anything about condemnation, so I don't know where you got that. All I did was use Deutoronomy as an example, because it's a commonly known book. And concerning that example, our understanding of sins condemned in that book changed, for the same reasons our understanding as to why Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed, because as theologians and historians looked more into the origins of the Bible, they saw the reasons and times that certain parts were written for, and for whom they were written.

The argument that you're using right now is that God had specific rules for specific people. How can that be? According to this, it was a sin for the people of Sodom and Gommorah to be sexually immoral but it's not for anyone else? It was never sin that changed, it was the punishment that changed. What would be the point of Christianity if everyone believed that everything God and Jesus said was only relevant to the people with whom he was speaking? If God said that something was a sin back then, that doesn't change with time. I would like to know a few examples of what you think was a sin back then, but is not anymore.

[iheartmariokart]

I actually never said you had never experienced God in your life. I said you BELIEVE in God, and you believe in your experiences with him. But can you prove it empirically? No, and that is why there is a distinction between 'know' and 'believe'. This has nothing to do with your beliefs, or my beliefs. You're taking it too personally.

cogito ergo sum

[hailthewarrior]

Good interview. It was just, a conversation, not a questioning. I liked it alot.

[animmortalsoul]

And why doesn't that idea work? That if we are essentially good people, then we are not saved? "No grip on reality"? I don't even know where that came from. It's a completely practical thought; if we all aim to be a better person, would that not make the world work better? We should aim to be the change we want to see in the world. And please, an omnipotent being would not be so petty as to condemn good people just because they've never heard of him - nor would he be so preoccupied with our small section of the universe, as people would make it seem. That's just human hubris, due to our little understanding of the universe around us in ancient days.
And I think you're taking the quote wrong. It doesn't matter if the person next to you if of a different religion, or believes in a different kind of afterlife, or if they believe in one at all. Just hope that they be a good person as well. And that's all we can hope for. You're looking too hard at the details, as many people do, instead of the lessons each religion can teach you. Because, in the end, it's not about being right or wrong, or people being inherently flawed, it's about getting by in this world, making life easier for the person next to you, or for your family, and trying to do what's right. And that is all that matters, when it comes down to it. God or no god, afterlife or not, we're here RIGHT now. Let's focus on that.

I could respond to this in long form, but I am really tired, so I summarize: If homosexuality is a sin, then God has declared it as wrong. Your ideology seems to be that God should see that a person is otherwise good, and let them off for it. In that case, humanity is disregarding the moral law, and saying how much of it is right to obey, or necessary to obey. In that case, humanity decides its own good, and those people have lost all claim to being objectively "good people." They are not good because they fall in line with the real moral law; they are good because they say they are. They only live by the law enough to say they are good when it doesn't inconvenience them too much, which really isn't obedience at all, since they are deciding their own good.

I do not claim to be any different than this, or any better than that stereotype. But you need to know that by disregarding objective morals in the name of what is in my opinion, rather wishful thinking, your argument self-destructs. It's all about people being inherently flawed; that's why none of us are really "essentially good." Getting the facts right is essential in religion, because that is the only way to be saved. Doing good things is different than being a good person. Many have done the first. Only one has done the second, but as Romans 5 says, his acts of righteousness have overflowed to the many who have believed in him. Galatians says that the man "who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the Law" is cursed. We can't overcome that through trying to be good. We can only overcome through "Christ becoming the curse for us...'Cursed is the man who is hung on a tree.'"

[animmortalsoul]

That's fine if you don't agree with Christianity. You have your own beliefs and nobody is trying to change them for you. But everyone in here wanted to know why they think homosexuality is a sin. As a fellow Christian I believe I can give a legitimate answer on their behalf seeing as how they're not going to respond to you.

Agreed. I think the point the guy was trying to make has been disproved -- that Christians are bigoted in calling homosexuality wrong. If not, let's continue.

(Oh, and I think most of what you've said is great stuff, by the way.)

[jonny storm]

Ryan Rado is the manager of as cities burn, HMMM

[Dr. Acula]

very good interview.

[Name_Taken]

cool interview.

[Azrael]

I'm sorry to say but your argument that God would condemn good people is flawed. Reason being, what is the definition of a good person? Where is the line between being good and bad? There's not one. If we were to believe that being a good person would get us a ticket to heaven, we're then faced with the question, what happens to a good person who does something bad right before he dies? What if someone good does something bad like committing suicide? Committing suicide seems like a pretty bad thing right? I would hate if our afterlife depended on us being good or not because I know I would be sent straight to hell. We're all born bad people. We all die bad people.
Your reasoning is flawed because you assume that everyone is bad, without knowing this. How do you know this? Can you prove it?
And no, being a good person isn't defined - but I think anyone with a good moral code, and some sort of positive guidance in their lives will find out.
Sorry to hear that you think that way. Pretty depressing, if you ask me. I like to put a little hope in people.

You said, and I quote... "Sorry, but no, you have FAITH in your beliefs. You don't know." That is personal. Me stating that I know it's true through my personal experience is "proving it empirically". You should know the definitions of words your using.Sorry, your personal experience isn't empirical evidence. Reason being? Your personal experience can't be used to justify the existence of God to anyone other than yourself. Becuase you BELIEVE in it. Belief is different than knowing.
perhaps it is you, who should know the meaning of their words:
be·lieve play_w("B0170900") (bhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-lhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gifvhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves

1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust:

know play_w("K0093600") (nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gif)v. knew (nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/oomacr.gif, nyhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/oomacr.gif), known (nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gifn), know·ing, knows1. To possess knowledge, understanding, or information.



The argument that you're using right now is that God had specific rules for specific people. How can that be? According to this, it was a sin for the people of Sodom and Gommorah to be sexually immoral but it's not for anyone else? It was never sin that changed, it was the punishment that changed. What would be the point of Christianity if everyone believed that everything God and Jesus said was only relevant to the people with whom he was speaking? If God said that something was a sin back then, that doesn't change with time. I would like to know a few examples of what you think was a sin back then, but is not anymore.
No, what I'm saying is that people wrote the Bible in regards to specific audiences. Which is true. Divinely inspired ot not, the Bible was written by men, so therein, a man's influence is inevitable. And those were just examples, of books written for specific audiences...You're running a little far with them.

I could respond to this in long form, but I am really tired, so I summarize: If homosexuality is a sin, then God has declared it as wrong. Your ideology seems to be that God should see that a person is otherwise good, and let them off for it. In that case, humanity is disregarding the moral law, and saying how much of it is right to obey, or necessary to obey. In that case, humanity decides its own good, and those people have lost all claim to being objectively "good people." They are not good because they fall in line with the real moral law; they are good because they say they are. They only live by the law enough to say they are good when it doesn't inconvenience them too much, which really isn't obedience at all, since they are deciding their own good.

I do not claim to be any different than this, or any better than that stereotype. But you need to know that by disregarding objective morals in the name of what is in my opinion, rather wishful thinking, your argument self-destructs. It's all about people being inherently flawed; that's why none of us are really "essentially good." Getting the facts right is essential in religion, because that is the only way to be saved. Doing good things is different than being a good person. Many have done the first. Only one has done the second, but as Romans 5 says, his acts of righteousness have overflowed to the many who have believed in him. Galatians says that the man "who does not continue to do everything written in the book of the Law" is cursed. We can't overcome that through trying to be good. We can only overcome through "Christ becoming the curse for us...'Cursed is the man who is hung on a tree.'"
And you're assuming that I'm throwing away any other moral code. What i mean is that I believe you can reach whatever kind of afterlife is out there through other religions or beliefs. Sheesh.
As long as the backbone of what you believe is structured on a good moral code, then you're probably on the right path. You forget that much of our Catholic/Christian traditions were made by man, well after Jesus left this Earth. And we are asked to believe they are God's will...But are they? What if these "facts" are wrong?

[Jacktheskipper]

Guess there`s no point in discussing this any further ... it won`t lead to anything, cause you base all of your arguments on personal beliefs and no facts ... the bible is a good book, but it doesnt prove a thing, sorry to say that ... I don`t wanna offend you, really don`t want to, but this won´t lead anywhere so let`s just stop here ...

[stevecrumb]

Sorry, your personal experience isn't empirical evidence. Reason being? Your personal experience can't be used to justify the existence of God to anyone other than yourself. Becuase you BELIEVE in it. Belief is different than knowing.


i'm not going to debate religion or theology. i'm just going to point out that your understanding of the word "empirical" is dead wrong.

empirical |em?pirik?l|
adjective
based on, concerned with, or(notice it does not say AND) verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

[animmortalsoul]

And you're assuming that I'm throwing away any other moral code. What i mean is that I believe you can reach whatever kind of afterlife is out there through other religions or beliefs. Sheesh. As long as the backbone of what you believe is structured on a good moral code, then you're probably on the right path. You forget that much of our Catholic/Christian traditions were made by man, well after Jesus left this Earth. And we are asked to believe they are God's will...But are they? What if these "facts" are wrong?
Guess there`s no point in discussing this any further ... it won`t lead to anything, cause you base all of your arguments on personal beliefs and no facts ... the bible is a good book, but it doesnt prove a thing, sorry to say that ... I don`t wanna offend you, really don`t want to, but this won´t lead anywhere so let`s just stop here ...

Fair enough. None of us really know. We're all speaking with logic, but that logic flows from our opinions. It's my opinion that homosexuality is wrong, but I can't prove it to you. It's your opinion that McTague shouldn't say that being homosexual is wrong, but you can't prove it to me. We have different mindsets, and I am hardly arrogant enough to try to impose my beliefs on you. We can disagree on these issues, but I don't think you guys should have to have my opinion. I didn't expect to convince anyone of anything, and I doubt you guys expected to convince me or those who come somewhat closer to my ideology of anything. I think it's been a good conversation, and despite the heavy subject matter, I've enjoyed it. You haven't offended me, I hope I haven't offended you...Good stuff.

And Louise, again...Good interview.

[norarae]

yeah good interview. i just wished they discussed more about Aaron going solo. i really dunno whats
going on with him starting his own "band" and stuff. can someone fill me in?

[Azrael]

i'm not going to debate religion or theology. i'm just going to point out that your understanding of the word "empirical" is dead wrong.

empirical |em?pirik?l|
adjective
based on, concerned with, or(notice it does not say AND) verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic
Doesn't mean personal experience applies. Empirical evidence, when applied in a scientific method, means it has to be something that can be duplicated by the same methods and processes. Your personal experience can not duplicate the same results when applied to me.

Also:
em·pir·i·cal play_w("E0117100") (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifm-pîrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)adj.

1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.

[Azrael]

yeah good interview. i just wished they discussed more about Aaron going solo. i really dunno whats
going on with him starting his own "band" and stuff. can someone fill me in?
The Almost. :)

[norarae]

The Almost. :)

yeah, yeah! i knowww! thats what is bugging me. i don't know if they actually "quit" or wha...
i have have heard several sides of the story. but i don't know what is really going on.

[deadjean]

There's no reason to argue about the factuality of religion. Thats the beauty of Religion, you have to have FAITH in something. If everything was cookie cutter and matter of fact, then faith isn't needed. Some people like to put faith in the unseen, some do not. No arguement necessary. There's no reason that we can't talk about these things without getting argumentative. As a christian I understand that everyone has different beliefs, and I'm not about to argue with everyone who disagrees with me. If religion is not your thing, fine, just don't deny people the joy that religion may bring them. If Religion is your thing great, but don't push your religion on other people.

[Louise Heng]

yeah, yeah! i knowww! thats what is bugging me. i don't know if they actually "quit" or wha...
i have have heard several sides of the story. but i don't know what is really going on.
I think it's pretty obvious in the question they answered for me. Underoath takes a break and Aaron goes on tour with the Almost and vice versa, Aaron and The Almost take a break and he goes back on tour/works with Underoath. No one is quitting anything! :-D

[norarae]

I think it's pretty obvious in the question they answered for me. Underoath takes a break and Aaron goes on tour with the Almost and vice versa, Aaron and The Almost take a break and he goes back on tour/works with Underoath. No one is quitting anything! :-D


ohh okay. well i probably sound like a retard but i have heard so much crap that wasn't sure
what was going on.X-)

[drummer1400]

Their beliefs are their own. Its our personal freedom to believe what we want. That really has nothing to do with their music. Just because one person believes something you dont agree with doesnt mean you should write them off.

[AdamTheGreat]

Awesome interview.

[WCC335]

haha.

" I know Ryan Rado."

[xemocorex]

Thank you so much for the lovely interview! Underoath is my absolute favorite band, I can't even breathe their name without sounding like an obsessed fangirl.

[popmusicisdead]

why must people argue?

[woominlee2]

Underoath is only the best live show on earth right now.

[mmmazing73]

I love everything about this band.

I dont think theres any explaination for rude people. i understand that if you feel stongly about something you should stand up for it but there is a difference in standing up for what you believe and being rude.

I've met the guys and there all ginuine, down to earth, really cool, and extremly nice dudes.

People are infulence by music ALL GENRES... since before any of us were born so why is it that you however old you are and since u think u know everything((NOWISTHETIME)) think just because a riff or two may sound like a band you've listened to that means the band isnt original.
EVERY band has musical influences and if there wernt influencial bands we wouldnt have 3/4 of the bands we listen to right now. theres Most definitly NOTHING wrong with showing your influences through your music.... its who you are....and those band ultimitly inspired them to become musicians in the freakin first place.

mmm yeah the bigotry crap ? what the duece? It states in the bible that your sapposed to HATE THE SIN not THE SINNER. Not one of the guys has said they hate gay people.They however have clearly stated that they hate the sin thats being commited. Im christian myself... I have friends who just so happen to be gay, but that doesnt mean Im a bigot. I dont incourage them to date the same sex at all and I do tell them that its a sin. And God sees all sins the same... in gods eyes being gay is the same as stealing a piece of candy from the corner store.

[SlowDownSisky]

Their manager has already spoken out about it and just said they're nice guys, leave them alone, but I don't think that excuses it. By the way, THEY themselves brought it up in a magazine when I believe Tim stated that the act of homosexuality is wrong. They put it in the public forum for discussion so they should be called to answer for it and defend their bigotry. Their manager seems like a really good dude and his beliefs don't seem to reflect theirs (at least Tim's) so I'd rather hear Underoath themselves respond to the issue.


That article you're referring to is from Alternative Press #219. Fat Mike from NOFX and Tim were comparing beliefs and Tim stated that as long as people being homosexual isn't hurting anyone, he doesn't have a problem with it. He speaks about how his beliefs don't coincide with the beliefs of the church, and he's a mix of conservative and secular.
He even talks about his close friend who happens to be gay, and that he has no problem with it.

[Nowisnotthetime]

That article you're referring to is from Alternative Press #219. Fat Mike from NOFX and Tim were comparing beliefs and Tim stated that as long as people being homosexual isn't hurting anyone, he doesn't have a problem with it. He speaks about how his beliefs don't coincide with the beliefs of the church, and he's a mix of conservative and secular.
He even talks about his close friend who happens to be gay, and that he has no problem with it.

But he did officially come out against gay marriage prior to that article. That's bigotry.

[SlowDownSisky]

But he did officially come out against gay marriage prior to that article. That's bigotry.


He may not condone gay marriage, but he doesn't mind homosexuality. First you said he didn't like gays, now you're saying gay marriage. Which point are you trying to argue?