Overstaged

I know from experience that nothing is impossible and I know people who were like you and are now walking on a sunny day with a bible on their arms making proselitism, lol.

Hardly, because most people don´t know them... Coldplay were loved and praised by the critics in the beginning, after they sold millions of albums and everyone knows who they are people start considering them "bland", what´s the definition of bland anyway? Does any of this crappy bands loved by the critics can make a musical piece like Coldplay´s Green Eyes from their 2nd album? They need to be screaming and taking drugs to be considered relevant? Just watch for the Artic Monkeys, next they´re going to flop or be considered bland and boring, even if their debut album was considered one of the ALL TIME Top 5 albums in the week it had just been released... Annoyng. Just look at Joss Stone, what happened to the teenage soul diva, suddenly became a boring and ignored act that is flopping her ass off. The same magazines who made her now as slagging her off.

Don´t worry it happens with every band that achieves sucess, people want to discover the next hyped act cause it´s more fashionable then liking a band that everybody knows.

It´s hardly the end of our species if one particular woman cannot give birth. Being a mother is not about having a baby on the womb for 9 months, it´s about raising it, so why so much effort in doing science tricks for a woman who can´t naturally give birth when she could just adopt it, but obviously that wouldn´t fullfill her childhood dreams of having a huge belly and tell everyone "I´m pregnant". She is not even married to the guy anymore, why is it so important for he to be a biological mother instead of adopting a kid when she won´t even raise a conventional family to start with. It´s stupid to men when so many woman want to abort or give away their kids that a woman will spend thousands in treatment just to have her "pleasure" of having a baby on her womb for 9 months. The children should be the center of attention, pregnancy doesn´t exist just to satisfy personal desires or dreams for women. It pisses me off to see people treating embryons and babies like products you buy in a supermarket... it´s not useful if it doesn´t have the same hair and eyes colour as its parents, like being a mother was just the biological factor. Don´t tell me it´s about nature, what´s natural on creating an embryon and freeze it for years and then just artificially install it in a woman´s body, surely that´s not why woman were "created" (or evolved) for.

Oh yeah, and Sophie Ellis Bextor sings 100% of Groovejet, yet she is not even credited as a featured artist. The producer matters more then the singer.

So what, you think a track is only the singing? She sung 50% (if not less) of Promiscuos aswell, but she must have 0% in songwriting and producing... it makes it more of a Timbaland song then her song.

That view is at least 400 years outdated... like women serve just to reproduce and have no value if they can´t. I still think it´s stupid to make embryons first, and then decide later if they want it to live or not...

Then why did he allowed them to "make" the embryons(is that how it spells in english?)? I don´t have any sympathy for this woman... So what, she can´t have a baby like millions of others in the world, there are millions of childrens needing to be adopted in the world but it´s like the b**ch can´t be a "real mother" if the baby has not grown up inside her f***ing womb. Why spend so much money, time, patience, etc on expensive treatments like this, create a human embryon, freeze it, then fight in justice to raise it when she could have just gone an easier and more human way if she wants to be a mother. She doesn´t deserve to be a mother because she only wants to get pregnant because of pride.

Exactly. All she has was a bubblegum manufactured teen album that was big in USA... Then a comeback as whore making duets with rappers which was her only proper "big album" in the Uk... And then a comeback tryng to sound jazzy but not huge at all... Her 1st and 3rd albums just stand between the 300 and 400k mark of sales in UK - not huge at all. She only has 1 big album in the UK. Plus the article was not about sucess only - if it was then it would have included Mariah Carey, Whitney, and others among the "superstars". Christina, Britney, Justin, Beyonce, etc, are not legends in this sense of the word cause they make "dull" music. The article was mentioning as legends only people who had musical credibility, like queen, beatles, bob dylan, etc, not just "dull" commercial acts.

Well, Madonna and Mariah are already remembered for more then 20 years... Britney has made an impact, she needs a sucessful comeback, tough... Justin is dispensable and $h!tty won´t stay for too much... Christina is already fading, her star power isn´t anymore 1/2 of what it was in her first album.

Why do people always have to overcredited Nelly Furtado and Shakira on topic´s title? Like it´s somebody feat. Shakira, or somebody feat. nelly furtado, the topic title will always be about Shakira or Nelly Furtado, no matter how obvious it is that they are just the guest on the main track...

Gils Aloud and Will Young are both UK-only artists. Girls Aloud never had a real huge selling album and they won´t have much longevity - can you imagine them singing when they´re 40 years old...

So Michael Jackson is not a superstar because he doesn´t have a "hit album" (last studio album 7 million worldwide) and the Spice Girls are, even if they don´t have an album since their floppy "Forever" and all the solo fiascos??? I don´t think the author of this article is concerned in sales, otherwise he would not have mentioned Morrisey. Anyway, Robbie is big in all the criterias: record sales, massive concerts, sells magazines and stuff... The author is just a bit dull...

But well, Mariah, Celine, Whitney all had "the voice" and were worlwide sucessful, yet none of them had been considered "legends" by the criteria of this article´s author, so Anastacia won´t. And also, diseases don´t make anyone more legendary. I don´t understand the criteria this author has used. Like Kurt Cobain and Axl Roses were not legends, but Morrisey is????

I think your knowledge about history of christianity are rather weak... How can the gospels be created by an established church, since they´re available since thousands of years before the church has established itself as the official roman religion? It´s more like the established church took advantage of something that was previously existent. The first christians and the authors of biblical texts didn´t take much advantage of it, I suppose, they were not reach and were heavily persecuted, only centuries after, when the religion had become popular among the masses, that secular power noticed they could have taken advantage of it instead of tryng (and failing) to destroy it - that´s when the roman church was born, after the secular power noticed they couldn´t destroy christianity and it was easier to take control of it by travesting their secular government as "church".

You wanted to find the body of Jesus, in that case if would be a proof of his non-ressurection, in any case it´s not technically possible the facts claimed by religion can be proven.

I don´t care. Whatever they find scientific proof or not, what he said was strong and that´s why it got so big. It is a very strong message.

Open to change??? How can an ideology that completely discards the existence of God be considered open to change? Every ideology must have its dogmas. Imagine if the Bible said "in the begining God MUST have created the world...", it would be destined to fail. Papal infallibility is not a christian dogma, it´s something for catholics only, and then again it´s open to loads of different interpretation. If there wasn´t any flexibility on christianity then there wouldn´t be so many opposed ways of thinking in christianity history. Even today there are christians who will say that an homossexual is destined to hell, while there are churches who acept gays married as ministers... There are churches who don´t acept woman to talk, and there are others where they can be ministers or bishops... In finland there is a lutheran bishop that is a lesbian. So what? I´d say it´s much more flexible then other doctrines.

I know it´s scientifically absurd for someone to be born of a virgin, to multiply fish and bread, walk on water, etc. But then again it sounds absurd that we are in an universe with matter, time, energy, coming from nowhere. The world is made of absurds, Jesus could not have scientifically materialized fishes, as nobody we know could scientifically make matter and energy out of nothing, yet matter is here to testify its existence. The universe is a big absurd, and the only proof of its existence is its existence itself. But then, this was not supposed to be believed by everyone. If the Bible says people who saw these miracles and lived among his disciples have doubted, then why should people who live 2 thousand years latter and just heard the story believe it? It´s absurd. If 90% of the people who were eye witness doubted, then why should 100% of the people who just heard the story be actual believers...

Not acording to calvinism, which was one of the bases of the way of thinking of modern ocident. It´s impossible not to subscribe to any doctrine, religious, political, ideologies, etc... christianity, marxism, evolutionism, leftism, etc etc. Just because someone choses to embrace christianity doesn´t mean this person is not having its own ideas, they made up their own mind also.

For album tracks, my favourite is take my hand by Dido. Talking about chart hits I´m not sure, there are so many... I can only remember now Gwen´s What You Waiting For...

LMAO

That is true only if you consider religion as sit down in a church chair every sunday, listen to what they preach and obey. The biggest opposer of religion in this sense of the word was Jesus himself... I´m not following blindly what a preacher or a book tells me to do. Intelligent people can believe too. I don´t give a damn what churches and preachers consider wrong or right. The biggest mistake of organized churches is the fact they wanted for years to impose their doctrine as an universal religion. Christianity was never meant to be something universal. It all became a disaster when it was decreted official state religion in the roman empire, then trough the whole medieval ages, and then the lutheran kingdomns, and the royal family church in Britain. How come if you read the gospels the followers of Christ were supposed to be a few chosen, and then someone makes it a state religion and submit 100% of the population as "christian". Christianity was always supposed to be a small sect of people who voluntarily join, not an imperial religion for the masses.

LMAO. You come with a speech of freethinking and all of that and come telling me what I should and what I should not believe. A bit contraditorty, isn´t it? I am free to think the way I want as long as it´s in agreement with you. If I voluntarily chose to have a religion then it´s not real freethinking because religion is one of the things that freethinkers are not free to follow... Maybe you´ll come up with a list of things that are acceptable for freethinkers, an index???

Yeah, wouldn´t it be so much nicer if they just told us what we want to hear...