Okay. Because what you seemed to be saying is that there are some artists that don't deal with the human condition, and so the conclusion Hort drew from his definition didn't follow. I don't think anyone would disagree with the main point of that line of argument - that there are some artists whose work is so vapid that it doesn't speak to the human condition at all. But now you're saying that your point is something quite different, that "but the fact is that even while many artists do talk about the human experience and a need for some absolution, that does not necessarily define their work as spiritually redeeming."
That's fine, but then you need support that argument, instead of the other one that you offered before.
Whoever before said that this conversation was stale and tired is right, though... we seem to have it every couple of months. That's one of the reasons I abandoned the PTL thread, because I realized that it was turning into that conversation again. As the man formerly known as devolition alludes to before, the division between what is Christian and non-Christian art is one that is sadly arbitrary and unimportant.[/
What I want to know is-how does an artist or band talking about the 'human condition' and/or absolution of some sort equate into being considered or labeled Christian? I can talk about that all day long, but it's not just talking about our fallen condition that is important, it's either explicitly giving or strongly implying HOW we attain that absolution. That said, every song we hear does not have to be loaded with religious jargon and scripture, however, shouldn't someone who does have faith in Christ, relfect that SOMEWHERE in his or her output? I can see your point about the line between Christians and non-Christians being arbitrary and unimportant, but I think there is one vast difference-a Christian knows about the love of God and forgiveness and lives his or her life in that light.