church sound system design

[TimR]

I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
was VERY instructive.

I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
for.

My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
that if it weren't.

Unfortunately there is no sound system design beyond "include a sound
system." Why that was missed I don't know, when every detail of
foundation, plumbing, electrical, etc., was included, but it was, and
I have to deal with it.

And while I'm a musician I'm not knowledgable about sound systems.
I'm sure you can't make me an expert, any more than I could teach HVAC
design in one post, but ....... are there any suggestions?

I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are even layout
drawings available online, though I'm kind of going to give up
plausible deniability once I post that link.

[David Gravereaux]

What is most important in church reinforcement systems is speech
intelligibility (STI) and even coverage. Full-range frequency response
is NOT important.

Hang four of these from the ceiling on cables:
http://www.soundsphere.com/speakers/110B.htm

--



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqWBzEACgkQlZadkQh/RmGF/wCdH7m4MfaosWEschfLpsvFtylj
FjQAoOTxuJKHhTxKCIfyTjGLoN5gV0FE
=cEKo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Joe Kotroczo]

On 27/08/09 3:56, in article
, "TimR"
> wrote:

> I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
> point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
> was VERY instructive.
>
> I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
> for.
>
> My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
> wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
> HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
> that if it weren't.
>
> Unfortunately there is no sound system design beyond "include a sound
> system." Why that was missed I don't know, when every detail of
> foundation, plumbing, electrical, etc., was included, but it was, and
> I have to deal with it.
>
> And while I'm a musician I'm not knowledgable about sound systems.
> I'm sure you can't make me an expert, any more than I could teach HVAC
> design in one post, but ....... are there any suggestions?
>
> I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are even layout
> drawings available online, though I'm kind of going to give up
> plausible deniability once I post that link.


I'm sorry, but the term "church" does not give us any useful information.

"Churches" can range from medieval vaulted piles of stone with RT60 of
lets-go-and-have-a-cup-of-tea to somebody's living room. Capacity can range
from several thousand to just a handful. And the performance in a "church"
can range from spoken word only to full symphonic orchestra. With a
heavy-metal band thrown in for good measure.

WTF do you want "plausible deniability" for, BTW?

--
Joe Kotroczo

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message
...
> On 27/08/09 3:56, in article
> , "TimR"
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
>> point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
>> was VERY instructive.
>>
>> I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
>> for.
>>
>> My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
>> wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
>> HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
>> that if it weren't.
>>
>> Unfortunately there is no sound system design beyond "include a sound
>> system."

Look up "sound systems in the yellow pages, some ads will be for music store
but I am sure one or two will stand out as pro design /instal firms
call them
get recommendations from other somewhat elaborate churches
many small churches depend on voulenteers from the congragation who often
have not fully formed the dicipline needed to buy the right equipment and
instal i9t properly
they also have no accountability twards warrenttee and maintence
and they will not carry the proper insurances nor even know the NEC and
related codes involved
put your trust in someone whos livlyhood depends on your satifaction, who
can prove system performace before you need to sign the check
George

[Arny Krueger]

"TimR" > wrote in message


> I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are
> even layout drawings available online, though I'm kind of
> going to give up plausible deniability once I post that
> link.

Please try this out on the PSW Church sound forum.

[Arny Krueger]

"David Gravereaux" > wrote in message


> What is most important in church reinforcement systems is speech
> intelligibility (STI) and even coverage. Full-range frequency response
> is NOT important.

Depends on the style of worship.

At my church we do lecture, drama, video, and live music with a mixture of
live voices, acoustic instruments from a violin to a pipe organ, and
electronic instruments.

"The Word" has top priority, but the rest has to work.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

> "TimR" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe
>> somebody can point me in the right direction. The
>> recent thread on lecture halls was VERY instructive.
>>
> Check out alt.audio.pro.live-sound. It's more on topic
> there.

alt.audio.pro.live-sound. is full of characters who are anti-God,
anti-Christianity, anti-church.

Sending someone there for advice about a church is a set up for disaster.
Bar bands and DJ sound is more their speed.

Better choice - the PSW live sound web site, church sound forum.

[TimR]

On Aug 27, 6:12*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "TimR" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are
> > even layout drawings available online, though I'm kind of
> > going to give up plausible deniability once I post that
> > link.
>
> Please try this out on the PSW Church sound forum.

Thanks all.

I had not been thinking about the distinction between sound
reinforcement and recording. But I've lurked here for long enough to
be impressed with the level of expertise.

I'll try the other fora suggested.

The church will be used by a variety of services, mostly contemporary
but occasionally traditional liturgical. An electronic organ is
planned, if I had to guess it will be an Allen somewhere around the
ADC-100 style. Connecting the organ to the sound system was my first
question but that had not been considered at that point. Jacks for
guitars was on the list.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>
>> "TimR" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe
>>> somebody can point me in the right direction. The
>>> recent thread on lecture halls was VERY instructive.
>>>
>> Check out alt.audio.pro.live-sound. It's more on topic
>> there.
>
> alt.audio.pro.live-sound. is full of characters who are anti-God,
> anti-Christianity, anti-church.

one does not need to believe in fairy tales in order to build a childrens
library
audio design is niot a matter of faith
in fact if you stick to the people who sell themselves as "doing gods work"
you are mpore likely to get taken to the cleaners
George

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"TimR" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 27, 6:12 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "TimR" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are
> > even layout drawings available online, though I'm kind of
> > going to give up plausible deniability once I post that
> > link.
>
> Please try this out on the PSW Church sound forum.

Thanks all.

I had not been thinking about the distinction between sound
reinforcement and recording. But I've lurked here for long enough to
be impressed with the level of expertise.

I'll try the other fora suggested.

remeber you will get exactly what you have paid for
If I was in your shoes I would skip the free advice and hire a local
reputable firm to design and install then verify and document your system
you will also have a go to guy when you need service or modifications

You need a LOCAL contact, on who you can meet face to face with your prints,
one who can absorb your needs, goals, desires and dreams
then forge the pathway to achieve those
free on line advice is not the way to go when the leather hits the road

george

[sTeeVee]

On Aug 27, 7:04*am, "George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote:
> "TimR" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 27, 6:12 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "TimR" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > > I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are
> > > even layout drawings available online, though I'm kind of
> > > going to give up plausible deniability once I post that
> > > link.
>
> > Please try this out on the PSW Church sound forum.
>
> Thanks all.
>
> I had not been thinking about the distinction between sound
> reinforcement and recording. *But I've lurked here for long enough to
> be impressed with the level of expertise.
>
> I'll try the other fora suggested.
>
> remeber you will get exactly what you have paid for
> If I was in your shoes I would skip the free advice and hire a local
> reputable firm to design and install then verify and document your system
> you will also have a go to guy when you need service or modifications
>
> You need a LOCAL contact, on who you can meet face to face with your prints,
> one who can absorb your needs, goals, desires and dreams
> then forge the pathway to achieve those
> free on line advice is not the way to go when the leather hits the road
>
> george

I will second George's ideas. I worked for Bolt Beranek and Newman for
a while (now Acentech) as well as currently keeping my hands quite
"dirty" in the local HOW market. There are a myriad of decisions that
must be made that are affected by size, usage, program, and, not the
least, M O N E Y. I've remediated my share of systems and rooms that
were poorly executed where an awful lot of money was misspent.

By hiring a local consultant in acoustics, House of Worship sound
system expert, or commercial installation company with a LOT of HOW
experience, you are buying an insurance policy against spending money
and NOT winding up with what you need.

This way you can avoid the pitfalls of "luck" and get exactly what you
need.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:18:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>alt.audio.pro.live-sound. is full of characters who are anti-God,
>anti-Christianity, anti-church.
>
>Sending someone there for advice about a church is a set up for disaster.
>Bar bands and DJ sound is more their speed.
>
>Better choice - the PSW live sound web site, church sound forum.

Dominated, unfortunately, by one company which disguises its touting
for work under the "ministry" excuse.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:56:09 -0700 (PDT), TimR >
wrote:

>I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
>point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
>was VERY instructive.
>
>I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
>for.
>
>My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
>wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
>HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
>that if it weren't.


Has this design been already built? Visit them. Presumably they
indulge in the same style of worship as your lot will? Are any of
them getting the sound right? Some of it is about equipment, some
about the way it's used. So if you find a good one, talk to the guy.

Also visit similar buildings in which similar things happen. Talk to
the guys.

Do you just need SR for speech? Or does "worship" include amateur
rock bands?

[Scott Dorsey]

TimR > wrote:
>
>And while I'm a musician I'm not knowledgable about sound systems.
>I'm sure you can't make me an expert, any more than I could teach HVAC
>design in one post, but ....... are there any suggestions?
>
>I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are even layout
>drawings available online, though I'm kind of going to give up
>plausible deniability once I post that link.

Well, the first question... what kind of church is it? Is it going to have
a pipe organ or a heavy metal group or both? The kind of hall you want for
unamplified acoustic music is very different than what you want for a rock
band. What you want for an unaccompanied choir is a third different thing.

You need to talk with an acoustician as well as your architect and make
sure the room sounds appropriate for the music you're dealing with. That
means more than just estimating the RT60.

Once you know what the service is like and what the room parameters are,
THEN you can start thinking about what kind of sound system is needed.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

David Gravereaux > wrote:
>
>What is most important in church reinforcement systems is speech
>intelligibility (STI) and even coverage. Full-range frequency response
>is NOT important.

That depends. That's certainly the case for a traditional C of E church,
but there are some kinds of church services where intelligbility isn't
required at all because the congregation already knows the words. And
there are also churches where the service is based around a progression
of rock songs.

>Hang four of these from the ceiling on cables:
>http://www.soundsphere.com/speakers/110B.htm

I hate to say it, but the Soundspheres have given some of the worst
intelligibility of anything I have ever heard. I know that some of the
problem is that, due to their advertising, people install them in the worst
possible rooms in an attempt it will help them. But I don't see how adding
more diffuse sound and less direct sound is supposed to help anything.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

TimR > wrote:
>
>The church will be used by a variety of services, mostly contemporary
>but occasionally traditional liturgical. An electronic organ is
>planned, if I had to guess it will be an Allen somewhere around the
>ADC-100 style. Connecting the organ to the sound system was my first
>question but that had not been considered at that point. Jacks for
>guitars was on the list.

Okay, your first task here, then, is to get the room as dry as possible
and bring the RT60 down to something where a contemporary group is
manageable. This means a very different room design than a traditional
church, unfortunately. Most of the folks talking about traditional church
acoustics also don't pay much attention to the lower couple octaves any
more either, and that's going to be important in your case.

I suggest not using the main PA system for the organ, if at all possible.
Because the room will be so dry, you will probably want to get your ambient
sounds from the organ using additional organ speaker cabinets, to make the
room sound larger and more resonant when the organ is played. The Allen
folks can help you with that. It may or may not be worth adding antiphonal
speakers as well, depending on how long the sanctuary is.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> David Gravereaux > wrote:
>>
>>What is most important in church reinforcement systems is speech
>>intelligibility (STI) and even coverage. Full-range frequency response
>>is NOT important.
>
> That depends. That's certainly the case for a traditional C of E church,
> but there are some kinds of church services where intelligbility isn't
> required at all because the congregation already knows the words. And
> there are also churches where the service is based around a progression
> of rock songs.
>
>>Hang four of these from the ceiling on cables:
>>http://www.soundsphere.com/speakers/110B.htm
>
> I hate to say it, but the Soundspheres have given some of the worst
> intelligibility of anything I have ever heard. I know that some of the
> problem is that, due to their advertising, people install them in the
> worst
> possible rooms in an attempt it will help them. But I don't see how
> adding
> more diffuse sound and less direct sound is supposed to help anything.
> --scott

we just suffered one church "expert" who proposed pointing the speakers at
the ceiling and "bouncing the sound around' for better intelligibility
I recommend you contact a local acoustician
George

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 27 Aug 2009 18:42:05 GMT,
(Richard Webb) wrote:

>this guy's wanting to do cookie cutter
>designs for multiple churches, slab to finished building
....snip...
>ROom construction,
>including the choice of materials used which might vary from one installation to another are going to impact the choices
>made here.

NO!!! The design and materials MUSTN'T change!!! That would be
EVOLUTION!!! :-)

[Arkansan Raider]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2009 18:42:05 GMT,
> (Richard Webb) wrote:
>
>> this guy's wanting to do cookie cutter
>> designs for multiple churches, slab to finished building
> ...snip...
>> ROom construction,
>> including the choice of materials used which might vary from one installation to another are going to impact the choices
>> made here.
>
> NO!!! The design and materials MUSTN'T change!!! That would be
> EVOLUTION!!! :-)

LOL

You sound like a country church elder.

/only half kidding.


---Jeff

[David Gravereaux]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> David Gravereaux > wrote:
>> What is most important in church reinforcement systems is speech
>> intelligibility (STI) and even coverage. Full-range frequency response
>> is NOT important.
>
> That depends. That's certainly the case for a traditional C of E church,
> but there are some kinds of church services where intelligbility isn't
> required at all because the congregation already knows the words. And
> there are also churches where the service is based around a progression
> of rock songs.

Okay, yes, I only thought of traditional.

>> Hang four of these from the ceiling on cables:
>> http://www.soundsphere.com/speakers/110B.htm
>
> I hate to say it, but the Soundspheres have given some of the worst
> intelligibility of anything I have ever heard. I know that some of the
> problem is that, due to their advertising, people install them in the worst
> possible rooms in an attempt it will help them. But I don't see how adding
> more diffuse sound and less direct sound is supposed to help anything.

Just like anything, the tool is only as good as how it is used. Some
pics I've seen with SoundSpheres mounted on the ceiling will sound awful
as direct versus reverberant is no better, just louder all around. I
wouldn't call them diffuse speakers. They have a rough hemispherical
pattern (110B is a bit focused) and when you follow a general distance
apart equals distance above listener, the coverage is +/-1db which is
pretty excellent. Getting the same coverage with those popular stacked
array system with all their peaks and valleys is not likely. Of course,
a well pointed array of 500Hz and above horns will beat anything, except
maybe the in-pew systems but are the Cadillac of it all and have the
expense to go with it.

http://www.jdbsound.com/art/art506.htm

- --

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqWtn4ACgkQlZadkQh/RmGcywCeMehzK9cbSeGpjYFyQbkLYPLt
3YUAoL8Qaeu8F+IT9UunyL/q3cHHtMcg
=jg1T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> It may or may not be worth adding antiphonal speakers as well,
> depending on how long the sanctuary is. --scott

I'm hereby admitting ignorance (dangerous in this group, I know), but
what is an antiphonal speaker?

My understanding of the term antiphonal in music is that it means "call
and response," but I don't know how that applies to a speaker. I went
and googled it, but nothing useful showed up in ten pages of search.

I'm guessing from the "length of the sanctuary" that you're talking
about additional speakers, like a timed array or something?

---Jeff

[Scott Dorsey]

Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> It may or may not be worth adding antiphonal speakers as well,
>> depending on how long the sanctuary is. --scott
>
>I'm hereby admitting ignorance (dangerous in this group, I know), but
>what is an antiphonal speaker?
>
>My understanding of the term antiphonal in music is that it means "call
>and response," but I don't know how that applies to a speaker. I went
>and googled it, but nothing useful showed up in ten pages of search.
>
>I'm guessing from the "length of the sanctuary" that you're talking
>about additional speakers, like a timed array or something?

No, just for the organ.

With a traditional pipe organ, you have pipes in the front of the room,
sometimes pipes in the ceiling for the lower registers, and you may have
an antiphonal organ at the back of the room with more pipes, but controlled
from the main organ console. There are some pieces which have one part at
the front of the room and one part at the back, and some that have parts
that jump from front to back.

If you have an electronic organ instead of a traditional pipe organ, you
need to add rear speakers in order to fake the antiphonal cabinet.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> It may or may not be worth adding antiphonal speakers as well,
>>> depending on how long the sanctuary is. --scott
>> I'm hereby admitting ignorance (dangerous in this group, I know), but
>> what is an antiphonal speaker?
>>
>> My understanding of the term antiphonal in music is that it means "call
>> and response," but I don't know how that applies to a speaker. I went
>> and googled it, but nothing useful showed up in ten pages of search.
>>
>> I'm guessing from the "length of the sanctuary" that you're talking
>> about additional speakers, like a timed array or something?
>
> No, just for the organ.
>
> With a traditional pipe organ, you have pipes in the front of the room,
> sometimes pipes in the ceiling for the lower registers, and you may have
> an antiphonal organ at the back of the room with more pipes, but controlled
> from the main organ console. There are some pieces which have one part at
> the front of the room and one part at the back, and some that have parts
> that jump from front to back.
>
> If you have an electronic organ instead of a traditional pipe organ, you
> need to add rear speakers in order to fake the antiphonal cabinet.
> --scott
>

Ah, roger that.

My main worship experience has been with churches of Christ, which are
all a cappella--no pipe organs, guitars, drums, etc., so I've not spent
much time at all in church buildings that have pipe organs.

Thanks for enlightening me!

---Jeff

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Aug 26, 8:56 pm, TimR > wrote:
> I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
> point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
> was VERY instructive.
>
> I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
> for.
>
> My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
> wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
> HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
> that if it weren't.
>
> Unfortunately there is no sound system design beyond "include a sound
> system." Why that was missed I don't know, when every detail of
> foundation, plumbing, electrical, etc., was included, but it was, and
> I have to deal with it.
>
> And while I'm a musician I'm not knowledgable about sound systems.
> I'm sure you can't make me an expert, any more than I could teach HVAC
> design in one post, but ....... are there any suggestions?
>
> I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are even layout
> drawings available online, though I'm kind of going to give up
> plausible deniability once I post that link.

The most important to be considered before even thinking about a sound
system, is what are the basic acoustics of the church.

It is good that you are in the HVAC business because noisy HVAC has
destroyed more rooms for listening than anything that i can think of
with the possible exception of drywall.

Consider the acoustics of the room first.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>>> It may or may not be worth adding antiphonal speakers as well,
>>>> depending on how long the sanctuary is. --scott
>>> I'm hereby admitting ignorance (dangerous in this group, I know), but
>>> what is an antiphonal speaker?
>>>
>>> My understanding of the term antiphonal in music is that it means "call
>>> and response," but I don't know how that applies to a speaker. I went
>>> and googled it, but nothing useful showed up in ten pages of search.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing from the "length of the sanctuary" that you're talking
>>> about additional speakers, like a timed array or something?
>>
>> No, just for the organ.
>>
>> With a traditional pipe organ, you have pipes in the front of the room,
>> sometimes pipes in the ceiling for the lower registers, and you may have
>> an antiphonal organ at the back of the room with more pipes, but controlled
>> from the main organ console. There are some pieces which have one part at
>> the front of the room and one part at the back, and some that have parts
>> that jump from front to back.
>>
>> If you have an electronic organ instead of a traditional pipe organ, you
>> need to add rear speakers in order to fake the antiphonal cabinet.
>> --scott
>>
>
>Ah, roger that.
>
>My main worship experience has been with churches of Christ, which are
>all a cappella--no pipe organs, guitars, drums, etc., so I've not spent

Like they really need reinforcement !!
Well acoustic guitar.

>much time at all in church buildings that have pipe organs.

[GregS[_3_]]

In article >, (GregS) wrote:
>In article >, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It may or may not be worth adding antiphonal speakers as well,
>>>>> depending on how long the sanctuary is. --scott
>>>> I'm hereby admitting ignorance (dangerous in this group, I know), but
>>>> what is an antiphonal speaker?
>>>>
>>>> My understanding of the term antiphonal in music is that it means "call
>>>> and response," but I don't know how that applies to a speaker. I went
>>>> and googled it, but nothing useful showed up in ten pages of search.
>>>>
>>>> I'm guessing from the "length of the sanctuary" that you're talking
>>>> about additional speakers, like a timed array or something?
>>>
>>> No, just for the organ.
>>>
>>> With a traditional pipe organ, you have pipes in the front of the room,
>>> sometimes pipes in the ceiling for the lower registers, and you may have
>>> an antiphonal organ at the back of the room with more pipes, but controlled
>>> from the main organ console. There are some pieces which have one part at
>>> the front of the room and one part at the back, and some that have parts
>>> that jump from front to back.
>>>
>>> If you have an electronic organ instead of a traditional pipe organ, you
>>> need to add rear speakers in order to fake the antiphonal cabinet.
>>> --scott
>>>
>>
>>Ah, roger that.
>>
>>My main worship experience has been with churches of Christ, which are
>>all a cappella--no pipe organs, guitars, drums, etc., so I've not spent
>
>Like they really need reinforcement !!
>Well acoustic guitar.

I must say, i probably should go to church more often.
I do see some fairly eloborate systems in churches these days.
I do like hearing the choir from where they are at. I do
like hearing a electric organ from where its at.
I was at a recent Catholic Confirmation. The bishop came out and away from any
microphone and stood in front of the pews. we could all hear him well speaking in a good
loud voice. I thought it was special. There is more contact and intimacy that way.

greg





>>much time at all in church buildings that have pipe organs.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2037-Aug-27 07:04, George Gleason writes:
> remember you will get exactly what you have paid for
> If I was in your shoes I would skip the free advice and hire a
> local reputable firm to design and install then verify and
> document your system you will also have a go to guy when you need
> service or modifications

I'm with George here. Especially in this case. I read in
the other forum that this guy's wanting to do cookie cutter
designs for multiple churches, slab to finished building.
This tells me that he wants a reputable designer and
consultant involved from the get-go. This isn't something
you want to roll with while depending on all sorts of
advice, some conflicting that you got from a bunch of lamers on the internet. Open your wallet, hand a reputable
consultant some dollars, sit him/her down with your
blueprints. AFter all, there's more to this than just
hanging some speaker boxes and amps. ROom construction,
including the choice of materials used which might vary from one installation to another are going to impact the choices
made here.
Get it right, get a reputable installation contractor and
consultant involved, and keep him/her involved through the
building of all of your "cookie cutter" build outs. After
all, you can bet that somewhere down the road one of these
builds is going to change something which will force some
changes in the design of the system.

AS I understand it the op is a hvac guy. Get a pro sound
system designer/installer involved as well.


> You need a LOCAL contact, on who you can meet face to face with
> your prints, one who can absorb your needs, goals, desires and
> dreams
> then forge the pathway to achieve those
Agreed, but since this person is, as he states in another
forum, designing ten churches I would bet you these are
spread out over a region. HE's going to want to look
carefully for this person to make sure they're willing to
travel to these various locations to make sure they're
getting the expected results, etc.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Arkansan Raider]

GregS wrote:
> In article >, (GregS) wrote:
>> In article >, Arkansan Raider
>> > wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> Arkansan Raider > wrote:
>>>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It may or may not be worth adding antiphonal speakers as well,
>>>>>> depending on how long the sanctuary is. --scott
>>>>> I'm hereby admitting ignorance (dangerous in this group, I know), but
>>>>> what is an antiphonal speaker?
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding of the term antiphonal in music is that it means "call
>>>>> and response," but I don't know how that applies to a speaker. I went
>>>>> and googled it, but nothing useful showed up in ten pages of search.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing from the "length of the sanctuary" that you're talking
>>>>> about additional speakers, like a timed array or something?
>>>> No, just for the organ.
>>>>
>>>> With a traditional pipe organ, you have pipes in the front of the room,
>>>> sometimes pipes in the ceiling for the lower registers, and you may have
>>>> an antiphonal organ at the back of the room with more pipes, but controlled
>>>> from the main organ console. There are some pieces which have one part at
>>>> the front of the room and one part at the back, and some that have parts
>>>> that jump from front to back.
>>>>
>>>> If you have an electronic organ instead of a traditional pipe organ, you
>>>> need to add rear speakers in order to fake the antiphonal cabinet.
>>>> --scott
>>>>
>>> Ah, roger that.
>>>
>>> My main worship experience has been with churches of Christ, which are
>>> all a cappella--no pipe organs, guitars, drums, etc., so I've not spent
>> Like they really need reinforcement !!
>> Well acoustic guitar.
>
> I must say, i probably should go to church more often.
> I do see some fairly eloborate systems in churches these days.
> I do like hearing the choir from where they are at. I do
> like hearing a electric organ from where its at.
> I was at a recent Catholic Confirmation. The bishop came out and away from any
> microphone and stood in front of the pews. we could all hear him well speaking in a good
> loud voice. I thought it was special. There is more contact and intimacy that way.
>
> greg

We use very few mics. We have one at the baptistry, one on the podium,
and the preacher uses a lav mic. We don't use instruments, and the
songleader generally leads from the pulpit.

There are also some hanging area mics, because we record our services
and include the congregational singing. The singing is actually pretty
good because a very large proportion of the congregation is musically
trained and has sung in a cappella choirs. Believe it or not, this
congregation has pulled off an impromptu Hallelujah Chorus from Handel's
Messiah on occasion. But of course, those aren't patched into the P.A.
at all.

We will have some multimedia stuff patched in from time to time, but
that's about the extent of our sound requirements.

Pretty simple, and very few headaches.

However, it also means that all of my sound experience, such as it is,
is outside the church.

---Jeff

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2037-Aug-27 09:06, Laurence Payne writes:
>> > wrote:

>>alt.audio.pro.live-sound. is full of characters who are anti-God,
>>anti-Christianity, anti-church.
<snip>

WRong on that count. NOt anti-Christiantiy, anti-jEwish or
anything of the sort. Anti proselytizing of any sort.
IT's not a "god" forum, but sound reinforcement, whether
that be for a church, synagogue, mosque, theater lecture
hall or any other environment which may need sound
reinforcement applications.

>>Better choice - the PSW live sound web site, church sound forum.

> Dominated, unfortunately, by one company which disguises its touting
> for work under the "ministry" excuse.

WOuldn't know, no browser. But, any internet forum is the
wrong place for the original poster to be seeking what he
really needs here.

AS I understand it: Op is a hvac contractor who's been
tasked with playing general contractor on the build outs of
ten houses of worship, basically same design, but nobody's
talked about sound reinforcement or acoustics anywhere in
the design stage.

OP needs an acoustics consultant, period, end of story, end
of discussion.

tHis is a fairly complex gig seems to me, and the op would
be much better served. OF course, he can pick brains on
internet fora once the consultant has spec'd gear and
materials, etc. hE can then take posts from knowledgeable
individuals he gets in return back to consultant, but just
asking a few general questions gets every internet lamer and troll in the books to respond.

GEt the pro first, then hit the internet and get thoughts
from the peanut gallery.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote...
> (Richard Webb) wrote:
>>this guy's wanting to do cookie cutter
>>designs for multiple churches, slab to finished building
> ...snip...
>>ROom construction,
>>including the choice of materials used which might vary
>> from one installation to another are going to impact the
>> choices made here.
>
> NO!!! The design and materials MUSTN'T change!!!
> That would be EVOLUTION!!! :-)

No. "Evolution" would be that the building changes all by itself.
If humans have anything to do with it, its not "evolution" any more.

[PStamler]

I agree with several of the other posters that you should consult a
professional.

But you should also read two books: the Yamaha Guide to Sound
Reinforcement (general-purpose) and the Yamaha Guide to Sound
Reinforcement for Houses of Worship (more specific). I'm typing the
titles from memory so they might not be exactly right, but go dig up
these books. They'll give you an idea of the issues involved, and also
give you some knowledge base when you talk with the professional. With
luck, if the pro starts talking horse hockey, these books will help
you recognize it.

Peace,
Paul

[Richard Crowley]

"Richard Webb" wrote ...
>>> Arny wrote:
>>>alt.audio.pro.live-sound. is full of characters who are anti-God,
>>>anti-Christianity, anti-church.
>
> WRong on that count. NOt anti-Christiantiy, anti-jEwish or
> anything of the sort. Anti proselytizing of any sort.
> IT's not a "god" forum, but sound reinforcement, whether
> that be for a church, synagogue, mosque, theater lecture
> hall or any other environment which may need sound
> reinforcement applications.

I've tried a.a.p.l-s several times over the last many years
and in every case found it to be far less useful than it could
have been because of all the ill-tempered, foul-mouth regulars
that dominate the NG. I have to agree with the observation
that they are specifically and vehemently anti-belief in any form
and going there for advice on any kind of worship issue is just
a prescription for disaster. I wouldn't recommend a.a.p.l-s
to my worst enemy. The signal-to-noise ratio there is just
too bad to be of any practical use.

[Richard Crowley]

"TimR" wrote ...
> I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
> point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
> was VERY instructive.
>
> I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
> for.
>
> My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
> wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
> HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
> that if it weren't.
>
> Unfortunately there is no sound system design beyond "include a sound
> system." Why that was missed I don't know, when every detail of
> foundation, plumbing, electrical, etc., was included, but it was, and
> I have to deal with it.
>
> And while I'm a musician I'm not knowledgable about sound systems.
> I'm sure you can't make me an expert, any more than I could teach HVAC
> design in one post, but ....... are there any suggestions?
>
> I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are even layout
> drawings available online, though I'm kind of going to give up
> plausible deniability once I post that link.

Anyone who attempts to offer specific advice *without* looking
at the drawings, surface finishes, etc. etc. is either a fraud or a fool.
Just as it would be foolish to ask for HVAC recommendations
without the slightest clue what the building is like (or where it is.)

A friend of mine who currently lives in Arizona specializes in custom
horn designs to precisely target the seating area for voice reinforcement
(to avoid exciting the surrounding room ambience, or wasting power
where there aren't any ears to hear.) He has done several churches
and they are quite pleased with the performance. Many of his jobs are
replacements for the original (poor-performing) system.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:34:55 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>> NO!!! The design and materials MUSTN'T change!!!
>> That would be EVOLUTION!!! :-)
>
>No. "Evolution" would be that the building changes all by itself.
>If humans have anything to do with it, its not "evolution" any more.

Humans would be the predator that killed off the unfit, allowing the
fit to multiply. Over a period of time the building would contain
less Bose, more Electrovoice (or whatever).

[Richard Crowley]

"Laurence Payne" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>> NO!!! The design and materials MUSTN'T change!!!
>>> That would be EVOLUTION!!! :-)
>>
>>No. "Evolution" would be that the building changes all by itself.
>>If humans have anything to do with it, its not "evolution" any more.
>
> Humans would be the predator that killed off the unfit, allowing the
> fit to multiply. Over a period of time the building would contain
> less Bose, more Electrovoice (or whatever).

If that is how Evolution works, then Amar Bose has debunked it.
It hasn't been doing very well lately, anyway.

[David Gravereaux]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:34:55 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> > wrote:
>
>>> NO!!! The design and materials MUSTN'T change!!!
>>> That would be EVOLUTION!!! :-)
>> No. "Evolution" would be that the building changes all by itself.
>> If humans have anything to do with it, its not "evolution" any more.
>
> Humans would be the predator that killed off the unfit, allowing the
> fit to multiply. Over a period of time the building would contain
> less Bose, more Electrovoice (or whatever).

I'll back that theory.
--



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqW9FkACgkQlZadkQh/RmEpGgCg2mUdKN2Xk7wviOumGkd0nKvQ
ApAAnirDotk0H3GNMXJME5lUyvrUy4MQ
=idge
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[nebulax]

On Aug 27, 11:56*am, "George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote:
>
> we just suffered one church "expert" who proposed pointing the speakers at
> the ceiling and "bouncing the sound around' for better intelligibility
> I recommend you contact a local acoustician
> George


Does the "expert" work for Bose?

-Neb

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"nebulax" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 27, 11:56 am, "George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote:
>
> we just suffered one church "expert" who proposed pointing the speakers at
> the ceiling and "bouncing the sound around' for better intelligibility
> I recommend you contact a local acoustician
> George


Does the "expert" work for Bose?

-Neb

no as far as we can tell he is unemployed
but he does clain a 6 figure income while spending several hours a day
posting on a range of newsgroups from audio to religion to toys
george

[Michael Dobony]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:24:00 -0400, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

> "Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 27/08/09 3:56, in article
>> , "TimR"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
>>> point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
>>> was VERY instructive.
>>>
>>> I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
>>> for.
>>>
>>> My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
>>> wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
>>> HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
>>> that if it weren't.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately there is no sound system design beyond "include a sound
>>> system."
>
> Look up "sound systems in the yellow pages, some ads will be for music store
> but I am sure one or two will stand out as pro design /instal firms
> call them
> get recommendations from other somewhat elaborate churches
> many small churches depend on voulenteers from the congragation who often
> have not fully formed the dicipline needed to buy the right equipment and
> instal i9t properly
> they also have no accountability twards warrenttee and maintence
> and they will not carry the proper insurances nor even know the NEC and
> related codes involved
> put your trust in someone whos livlyhood depends on your satifaction, who
> can prove system performace before you need to sign the check
> George

I'll second that. You are experiencing the terror of modern church
building. The sound system is an afterthought that the building designer
ignores. Sound reinforcement needs to be one of the first considerations
in designing a sanctuary. That is more than running conduit to the sound
booth. It is the choice of wall materials and eliminating parallel walls.
Getting a sound engineer should also include training the entire sound
staff in how to hold a mic, set proper gain structure, eqing a new mic or
instrument, performers communicating what is needed and why they can't have
the monitors so loud, etc. Get the sound engineer involved as early as
possible.

Mike D.

[Richard Crowley]

"Michael Dobony" wrote ...
> Perennial Troll Brian McCarty pretinding to be "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
<another steaming pile of typical McCarty drivel and blather>
<snipped as a public service to preserve your mental health>

> That proves you are totally unqualified to do sound.

The troll Brian McCarty (stupidly pretending to be Robert Morein)
is unquallified to do anything except troll these newsgroups.
Please do not feed this network pest. McCarty is living proof
that government-provided healthcare doesn't work. USA voters
beware.

[Mike Rivers]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

> no as far as we can tell he is unemployed
> but he does clain a 6 figure income while spending several hours a day
> posting on a range of newsgroups from audio to religion to toys

Oh, Jesus! $100,000!

OK, I know I've got the audio down, and I guess now the religion. Next
I have to do is work on my toys and I'll be set. <g>

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
>
>> no as far as we can tell he is unemployed
>> but he does clain a 6 figure income while spending several hours a day
>> posting on a range of newsgroups from audio to religion to toys
>
> Oh, Jesus! $100,000!
>

yes but isn't $1,265.33 also a six figure income :-)
George

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Thu 2037-Aug-27 16:04, Richard Crowley writes:

"C> "Richard Webb" wrote ...
>> WRong on that count. NOt anti-Christiantiy, anti-Jewish or
>> anything of the sort. Anti proselytizing of any sort.
>> IT's not a "god" forum, but sound reinforcement, whether
> that be for a church, synagogue, mosque, theater lecture
> hall or any other environment which may need sound
> reinforcement applications.

> I've tried a.a.p.l-s several times over the last many years
> and in every case found it to be far less useful than it could have
> been because of all the ill-tempered, foul-mouth regulars that
> dominate the NG. I have to agree with the observation
> that they are specifically and vehemently anti-belief in any form
> and going there for advice on any kind of worship issue is just a
> prescription for disaster. I wouldn't recommend a.a.p.l-s to my
> worst enemy. The signal-to-noise ratio there is just
> too bad to be of any practical use.

INdeed, but made worse by a couple of individuals that have
little knowledge, and who turn every thread on church sound
into an opportunity to proselytize.

I don't read usenet groups to get converted, scuse me.

I may not share someone's beliefs, but that doesn't mean I
can't provide them high quality services.

I find the cross pollination between the groups is often
when the snr gets out of control, i.e. the recent thread on
why live sound is too loud often, etc.
IF it's crossposted to rec.audio.opinion the snr goes even
lower.

I read this group more, but find occasionally a valuable
thread can get going over there, but if crossposted the snr
falls quickly.



Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Bob Howes]

"Joe Kotroczo" > wrote in message
...
> On 27/08/09 3:56, in article
> , "TimR"
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
>> point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
>> was VERY instructive.
>>
>> I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
>> for.
>>
>> My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
>> wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
>> HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
>> that if it weren't.
>>
>> Unfortunately there is no sound system design beyond "include a sound
>> system." Why that was missed I don't know, when every detail of
>> foundation, plumbing, electrical, etc., was included, but it was, and
>> I have to deal with it.
>>
>> And while I'm a musician I'm not knowledgable about sound systems.
>> I'm sure you can't make me an expert, any more than I could teach HVAC
>> design in one post, but ....... are there any suggestions?
>>
>> I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are even layout
>> drawings available online, though I'm kind of going to give up
>> plausible deniability once I post that link.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but the term "church" does not give us any useful information.
>
> "Churches" can range from medieval vaulted piles of stone with RT60 of
> lets-go-and-have-a-cup-of-tea to somebody's living room. Capacity can
> range
> from several thousand to just a handful. And the performance in a "church"
> can range from spoken word only to full symphonic orchestra. With a
> heavy-metal band thrown in for good measure.
>
> WTF do you want "plausible deniability" for, BTW?
>
> --
> Joe Kotroczo


Joe has it right. Just as you would accept that there's no standardised
design for a HVAC system and that every installation has to be planned and
designed by an expert, the same applies to sound system design.

If you haven't already read it, I suggest that you have a good look at this
document: http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/3Times.pdf by Jim Brown, an
acknowledged expert in this sort of design.

Using a good, independent consultant will save money in the long term when
you don't have to by the sound system 3 times.

Bob

[Mike Rivers]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

> yes but isn't $1,265.33 also a six figure income :-)

I'm not fussy. That's more than I make from posting now.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Arkansan Raider]

Richard Webb wrote:
> On Thu 2037-Aug-27 16:04, Richard Crowley writes:
>
> "C> "Richard Webb" wrote ...
>>> WRong on that count. NOt anti-Christiantiy, anti-Jewish or
>>> anything of the sort. Anti proselytizing of any sort.
>>> IT's not a "god" forum, but sound reinforcement, whether
>> that be for a church, synagogue, mosque, theater lecture
>> hall or any other environment which may need sound
>> reinforcement applications.
>
>> I've tried a.a.p.l-s several times over the last many years
>> and in every case found it to be far less useful than it could have
>> been because of all the ill-tempered, foul-mouth regulars that
>> dominate the NG. I have to agree with the observation
>> that they are specifically and vehemently anti-belief in any form
>> and going there for advice on any kind of worship issue is just a
>> prescription for disaster. I wouldn't recommend a.a.p.l-s to my
>> worst enemy. The signal-to-noise ratio there is just
>> too bad to be of any practical use.
>
> INdeed, but made worse by a couple of individuals that have
> little knowledge, and who turn every thread on church sound
> into an opportunity to proselytize.
>
> I don't read usenet groups to get converted, scuse me.

OTOH, we also have some here who take every thread on church sound to
expound on how religion, "xtianity" and "god-myth" are the scourge of
society, fit only for the mentally diminished. And this isn't always
provoked by proselytizing.

Of course, I've got Mike Dobony <plonked>, so I feel your pain--I'm a
Christian, and he offends *me* enough to plonk.

>
> I may not share someone's beliefs, but that doesn't mean I
> can't provide them high quality services.

Roger the livin' fool outa' that.

>
> I find the cross pollination between the groups is often
> when the snr gets out of control, i.e. the recent thread on
> why live sound is too loud often, etc.
> IF it's crossposted to rec.audio.opinion the snr goes even
> lower.

Thanks for the warning. I was tempted to subscribe to that one, but if
it's worse than these two, I won't waste my time.

>
> I read this group more, but find occasionally a valuable
> thread can get going over there, but if crossposted the snr
> falls quickly.
>

Again, roger the livin' fool outa' that. I completely concur.

---Jeff


>
>
> Regards,
> Richard
> --
> | Remove .my.foot for email
> | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
> | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[TimR]

Your comments have helped.

I appreciated that article on Triple Design. Yes, that is the
direction I've been trying to avoid. The suggestions of finding a
qualified consultant are great, but church specialists seem to be
rare, and I wanted to at least be able to ask intelligent questions
when I find one.

I've tried to avoid saying who I work for because people are sensitive
to criticism and then cooperation gets harder. It does appear that
acoustic design was not part of the standard, and audio equipment was
thought (hoped?) to be an easy add-on. My experience has been that
there is nothing easy about it if you don't know what you're doing,
and I don't.

There are aspects to this church that seem problematic even to an
amateur. It is a multi-congregation church that must serve a
traditional liturgical service part of the time, a contemporary praise-
and-worship band part of the time, and act as a lecture hall with high
speech intelligibility part of the time. The sanctuary is roughly 60
ft wide, with 25 feet of raised stage and 40 feet of pew space to hold
200 people. But connected to it at the back (with a movable divider)
is an activity hall roughly 40 feet wide by 50 feet long with a small
raised stage at the back, seating 150 people on chairs. The sound
system must accomodate the use of both areas simultaneously with the
curtain closed (different users) as well as combined into one large
hall for an overflow service.

[Richard Crowley]

"TimR" wrote ...
> Your comments have helped.
>
> I appreciated that article on Triple Design. Yes, that is the
> direction I've been trying to avoid. The suggestions of finding a
> qualified consultant are great, but church specialists seem to be
> rare, and I wanted to at least be able to ask intelligent questions
> when I find one.
>
> I've tried to avoid saying who I work for because people are sensitive
> to criticism and then cooperation gets harder. It does appear that
> acoustic design was not part of the standard, and audio equipment was
> thought (hoped?) to be an easy add-on.

That seems very much like Magical Thinking(TM). Too bad they
didn't have the same sense for acoustics and audio systems as they
seem to have for HVAC, etc.

> My experience has been that
> there is nothing easy about it if you don't know what you're doing,
> and I don't.

Indeed. You could try visiting other churches in the area, particularly
ones of similar dimensions and usage, and ask them who designed
their systems. Depending on the system performance, it could be a
decent guide for who might be helpful, (and who to avoid! :-)

> There are aspects to this church that seem problematic even to an
> amateur. It is a multi-congregation church that must serve a
> traditional liturgical service part of the time, a contemporary praise-
> and-worship band part of the time, and act as a lecture hall with high
> speech intelligibility part of the time.

A system that can handle the contemporary band mode should be
able to idle along with minimum sweat in the liturgical or lecture mode.

> The sanctuary is roughly 60
> ft wide, with 25 feet of raised stage and 40 feet of pew space to hold
> 200 people. But connected to it at the back (with a movable divider)
> is an activity hall roughly 40 feet wide by 50 feet long with a small
> raised stage at the back, seating 150 people on chairs. The sound
> system must accomodate the use of both areas simultaneously with the
> curtain closed (different users) as well as combined into one large
> hall for an overflow service.

Indeed, not the configuration for an amateur design.

[Scott Dorsey]

TimR > wrote:
>
>There are aspects to this church that seem problematic even to an
>amateur. It is a multi-congregation church that must serve a
>traditional liturgical service part of the time, a contemporary praise-
>and-worship band part of the time, and act as a lecture hall with high
>speech intelligibility part of the time.

In cases like this, you have two choices. Either you design the hall to
be as dead as possible and you rely on electronic amplification for whatever
ambience you need, or you build the hall deliberately so the room reverb
time and parameters can be adjusted. Moving curtains, adjustable traps,
fibreglass banners that are raiseed and lowered are all possibilities that
a good acoustician should suggest.

The sanctuary is roughly 60
>ft wide, with 25 feet of raised stage and 40 feet of pew space to hold
>200 people. But connected to it at the back (with a movable divider)
>is an activity hall roughly 40 feet wide by 50 feet long with a small
>raised stage at the back, seating 150 people on chairs. The sound
>system must accomodate the use of both areas simultaneously with the
>curtain closed (different users) as well as combined into one large
>hall for an overflow service.

That's easy, that's just a PA issue. It's one that will require some careful
design and some delay units, but it's not too difficult.

The problem you will almost certainly encounter, though, is that the airwall
provides very poor acoustic isolation. It IS possible to get good isolation
with a moveable wall, but it is frighteningly expensive. In most cases
where I have seen people do this sort of design, they discover that they
can really only use one room at a time for most events. Again, an acoustician
can help.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

>"TimR" wrote ...
>> Your comments have helped.
>>
>> I appreciated that article on Triple Design. Yes, that is the
>> direction I've been trying to avoid. The suggestions of finding a
>> qualified consultant are great, but church specialists seem to be
>> rare, and I wanted to at least be able to ask intelligent questions
>> when I find one.
>>
>> I've tried to avoid saying who I work for because people are sensitive
>> to criticism and then cooperation gets harder. It does appear that
>> acoustic design was not part of the standard, and audio equipment was
>> thought (hoped?) to be an easy add-on.
>
>That seems very much like Magical Thinking(TM). Too bad they
>didn't have the same sense for acoustics and audio systems as they
>seem to have for HVAC, etc.

PA systems make sound louder. They don't make sound better. Too many
people today design crappy-sounding rooms, with the totally misguided
notion that the PA system will fix all of their problems. What they wind
up with in the end is crappy sound that is too loud.

A really good room will work without any PA. A bad room won't work with
or without PA.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Wecan do it]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "TimR" wrote ...
>> Your comments have helped.
>>
>> I appreciated that article on Triple Design. Yes, that is
>> the
>> direction I've been trying to avoid. The suggestions of
>> finding a
>> qualified consultant are great, but church specialists seem
>> to be
>> rare, and I wanted to at least be able to ask intelligent
>> questions
>> when I find one.


That's funny, cause when I read the trades like FOH (Front of
House) and Live Sound there are always church showcases and
sound companies specializing in House of Worship sound. In
some cases church's have more gizzies than municipal
auditoriums and live music venue's, some churches being even
bigger than the secular gathering places. And churches have
almost unlimited funds when god is writing the checks.

peace
dawg

[Scott Dorsey]

Wecan do it > wrote:
>
>That's funny, cause when I read the trades like FOH (Front of
>House) and Live Sound there are always church showcases and
>sound companies specializing in House of Worship sound. In
>some cases church's have more gizzies than municipal
>auditoriums and live music venue's, some churches being even
>bigger than the secular gathering places. And churches have
>almost unlimited funds when god is writing the checks.

Maybe, but I have had more churches attempt to bargain things down,
to get out of contracts, and to take desperate measures to avoid
paying, than just about any other organization out there.

There are still plenty of churches that I am happy to work with, but
there are a remarkable number that I'm not. And that is sad.

Don't even talk about Christian radio....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Wecan do it > wrote:
>> That's funny, cause when I read the trades like FOH (Front of
>> House) and Live Sound there are always church showcases and
>> sound companies specializing in House of Worship sound. In
>> some cases church's have more gizzies than municipal
>> auditoriums and live music venue's, some churches being even
>> bigger than the secular gathering places. And churches have
>> almost unlimited funds when god is writing the checks.
>
> Maybe, but I have had more churches attempt to bargain things down,
> to get out of contracts, and to take desperate measures to avoid
> paying, than just about any other organization out there.
>
> There are still plenty of churches that I am happy to work with, but
> there are a remarkable number that I'm not. And that is sad.
>
> Don't even talk about Christian radio....
> --scott
>

Unfortunate, but true.

It's something we really have to work on.

---Jeff

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Fri 2037-Aug-28 12:24, Arkansan Raider writes:
>> INdeed, but made worse by a couple of individuals that have
>> little knowledge, and who turn every thread on church sound
>> into an opportunity to proselytize.

> OTOH, we also have some here who take every thread on church sound
> to expound on how religion, "xtianity" and "god-myth" are the
> scourge of society, fit only for the mentally diminished. And this
> isn't always provoked by proselytizing.

ONe in particular, I know, would agree. But, some who are
in the ahteist camp make some of their living doing church
sound installs, and I"m sure any church that hires those
individuals would get high quality service, because I know
the individual.

> Of course, I've got Mike Dobony <plonked>, so I feel your pain--I'm
> a Christian, and he offends *me* enough to plonk.

I too am a Christian, and I"ve plunked MIke for having
nothing relevant to say. OF the two groups, so far the op
has received better advice from this one. <aapls regulars
take note here>

<snippage>

>> I find the cross pollination between the groups is often
>> when the snr gets out of control, i.e. the recent thread on
>> why live sound is too loud often, etc.
>> IF it's crossposted to rec.audio.opinion the snr goes even
>> lower.

> Thanks for the warning. I was tempted to subscribe to that one, but
> if it's worse than these two, I won't waste my time.

That's where the ice cream man impostor comes from, and some other reprehensible characters. YOu don't even want to wade into that cesspool.

>> I read this group more, but find occasionally a valuable
>> thread can get going over there, but if crossposted the snr
>> falls quickly.

> Again, roger the livin' fool outa' that. I completely concur.


Thanks for the vote of confidence.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> TimR > wrote:
>>
>> The church will be used by a variety of services, mostly
>> contemporary but occasionally traditional liturgical.
>> An electronic organ is planned, if I had to guess it
>> will be an Allen somewhere around the ADC-100 style.
>> Connecting the organ to the sound system was my first
>> question but that had not been considered at that point.
>> Jacks for guitars was on the list.

> Okay, your first task here, then, is to get the room as
> dry as possible

Not a reasonable goal in churches where congrgational singing is an
important part of worship.

For most such churches (and they are in the majority) there's a narrow path
to walk, and that is reverberant enough for congregational signing and dry
enough for speech, media, and drama.

Makes a case for a room with adjustable acoustics, no?

> and bring the RT60 down to something
> where a contemporary group is manageable.

Agreed that if you have a room that was designed reasonably for a
piano/organ/choir church, the room will either need some treatment or some
speakers that have spectacular dispersion control.

> This means a
> very different room design than a traditional church,
> unfortunately.

Indeed.

> Most of the folks talking about
> traditional church acoustics also don't pay much
> attention to the lower couple octaves any more either,
> and that's going to be important in your case.

Agreed.


> I suggest not using the main PA system for the organ, if
> at all possible.

Seems easy if there is an acoustic organ, but its not. If you have a pipe
organ, it will try to take over every open mic.

> Because the room will be so dry, you
> will probably want to get your ambient sounds from the
> organ using additional organ speaker cabinets, to make
> the room sound larger and more resonant when the organ is
> played. The Allen folks can help you with that. It may
> or may not be worth adding antiphonal speakers as well,
> depending on how long the sanctuary is. --scott

Even the Catholic church is doing significant amounts of congregational
singing these days. If you want that to work, you need a reasonably live
room.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message


> Maybe, but I have had more churches attempt to bargain
> things down, to get out of contracts, and to take
> desperate measures to avoid paying, than just about any
> other organization out there.

Part of that is IME due to a fairly global leadership problem in churches.

They are probably not so much bad as disengaged, unqualified, and
disorganized.

> There are still plenty of churches that I am happy to
> work with, but there are a remarkable number that I'm
> not. And that is sad.

There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not growing faster:

(1) Pastors, particularly senior pastors

(2) Church lay leadership

(3) The congregation

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:57:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not growing faster:
>
>(1) Pastors, particularly senior pastors
>
>(2) Church lay leadership
>
>(3) The congregation

Oh dear, Arny, have you upset EVERYONE at your church? :-)

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
>> TimR > wrote:
>>>
>>> The church will be used by a variety of services, mostly
>>> contemporary but occasionally traditional liturgical.
>>> An electronic organ is planned, if I had to guess it
>>> will be an Allen somewhere around the ADC-100 style.
>>> Connecting the organ to the sound system was my first
>>> question but that had not been considered at that point.
>>> Jacks for guitars was on the list.
>
>> Okay, your first task here, then, is to get the room as
>> dry as possible
>
> Not a reasonable goal in churches where congrgational singing is an
> important part of worship.
>
> For most such churches (and they are in the majority) there's a narrow
> path to walk, and that is reverberant enough for congregational signing
> and dry enough for speech, media, and drama.
>
> Makes a case for a room with adjustable acoustics, no?
>
>> and bring the RT60 down to something
>> where a contemporary group is manageable.
>
> Agreed that if you have a room that was designed reasonably for a
> piano/organ/choir church, the room will either need some treatment or some
> speakers that have spectacular dispersion control.
>
>> This means a
>> very different room design than a traditional church,
>> unfortunately.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> Most of the folks talking about
>> traditional church acoustics also don't pay much
>> attention to the lower couple octaves any more either,
>> and that's going to be important in your case.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> I suggest not using the main PA system for the organ, if
>> at all possible.
>
> Seems easy if there is an acoustic organ, but its not. If you have a pipe
> organ, it will try to take over every open mic.
>
>> Because the room will be so dry, you
>> will probably want to get your ambient sounds from the
>> organ using additional organ speaker cabinets, to make
>> the room sound larger and more resonant when the organ is
>> played. The Allen folks can help you with that. It may
>> or may not be worth adding antiphonal speakers as well,
>> depending on how long the sanctuary is. --scott
>
> Even the Catholic church is doing significant amounts of congregational
> singing these days. If you want that to work, you need a reasonably live
> room.


My impression is that most churches built in the late 1800's through 1940 or
so handle both music and speaking very well. It seems only the earlier
stone cathedrals and the more modern masonary and glass churches that have a
problem. Something about defying good acoustic principles in design.......
?

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

>> TimR > wrote:
>>>
>>> The church will be used by a variety of services, mostly
>>> contemporary but occasionally traditional liturgical.
>>> An electronic organ is planned, if I had to guess it
>>> will be an Allen somewhere around the ADC-100 style.
>>> Connecting the organ to the sound system was my first
>>> question but that had not been considered at that point.
>>> Jacks for guitars was on the list.
>
>> Okay, your first task here, then, is to get the room as
>> dry as possible
>
>Not a reasonable goal in churches where congrgational singing is an
>important part of worship.

Read the paragraph above. He says that traditional liturgical services
are an "occasional" thing.

>For most such churches (and they are in the majority) there's a narrow path
>to walk, and that is reverberant enough for congregational signing and dry
>enough for speech, media, and drama.

You can always fake reverberation. It's expensive to do well and it's
a little cheesy when done cheaply, but it's a reasonable solution if
you need a room to be versatile.

You CANNOT remove reverberation if it is there.

>> I suggest not using the main PA system for the organ, if
>> at all possible.
>
>Seems easy if there is an acoustic organ, but its not. If you have a pipe
>organ, it will try to take over every open mic.

Life is like that. If it's an electronic organ, you need to have seperate
speaker cabinets just for the organ in order to make for a sound effect
that is like a pipe organ. The folks at Allen have this down to a science
and they will sell you a kit that does the job well. Don't use the main PA
for the organ, use a set of organ cabinets.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Harry Lavo > wrote:
>My impression is that most churches built in the late 1800's through 1940 or
>so handle both music and speaking very well.

In the case of protestant churches, this is generally the case. The rooms
are designed to have a lot of early reflections which make speech come
across well, without having a lot of late reflections that muddy it. In
general they were built without actual acoustical science, but they were
built using good rules of thumb and built by copying known-good halls.

> It seems only the earlier
>stone cathedrals and the more modern masonary and glass churches that have a
>problem. Something about defying good acoustic principles in design.......

The earlier stone cathedrals were mostly built for services where voice
intelligibility didn't matter. When there's no actual sermon, just a
mass which is the same every time and where the congregation knows all
of the words and responses anyway (and where the services were often in
a language foreign to the congregation anyway), speech intelligibility
does not matter. The big stone cathedrals sounded imposing and impressive
and that was more important.

The problems come when you try and put modern services into those
cathedrals, which just weren't built with that in mind. It does not
work.

As far as the modern post-Vatican II masonry and glass thing.... all I
can do is just stare at them and wonder WHAT the hell these people were
thinking when they built that.

There's a church in our area where they added on a fellowship hall that
was supposed to be used for services, for overflow from the main service,
and also as a basketball court. Even the architect said that the room
wouldn't work. They built it anyway. It doesn't work. When you pay
an authority for advice and then you don't listen to it, you just get
trouble. Lot's wife found that out.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> My impression is that most churches built in the late
> 1800's through 1940 or so handle both music and speaking
> very well.

Not at all.

In the traditional church, articulation of spoken or sung words was at best
secondary. Remember, most lessons were taught in Latin, and most
church-goers spoke something else. They couldn't have understood it even if
the acoustics for spoken word were good. Latin continued in US RC churches
until the at least the mid-50s.

A lot of churches are designed to resemble earlier churches. My church's
sanctuary was a semi-clone of a zillion north-european churches built from
the 1400's on. There are even AES papers about its inherent challenges for
SR.


Sometimes using a retro-design works, but often it does not. Things that
worked at one time stop working when there is a big change in worship
styles, as has happened recently in the evangelical church in the US.
Gregorian chant and rap are optimal in different rooms! ;-)

> It seems only the earlier stone cathedrals
> and the more modern masonry and glass churches that have
> a problem.

In general, cathedrals and other older churches don't have that awful much
glass - the laws of physics as they were known in the day mitigated against
that. However, just glass and stone don't define the room's acoustics. The
shapes, both architectural and also decorative, are all-critical.

> Something about defying good acoustic principles in design....... ?

The laws of physics rule!

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"TimR" > wrote in message
...
> Your comments have helped.
>
> I appreciated that article on Triple Design. Yes, that is the
> direction I've been trying to avoid. The suggestions of finding a
> qualified consultant are great, but church specialists seem to be
> rare, and I wanted to at least be able to ask intelligent questions
> when I find one.
>
> I've tried to avoid saying who I work for because people are sensitive
> to criticism and then cooperation gets harder. It does appear that
> acoustic design was not part of the standard, and audio equipment was
> thought (hoped?) to be an easy add-on. My experience has been that
> there is nothing easy about it if you don't know what you're doing,
> and I don't.
>
> There are aspects to this church that seem problematic even to an
> amateur. It is a multi-congregation church that must serve a
> traditional liturgical service part of the time, a contemporary praise-
> and-worship band part of the time, and act as a lecture hall with high
> speech intelligibility part of the time. The sanctuary is roughly 60
> ft wide, with 25 feet of raised stage and 40 feet of pew space to hold
> 200 people. But connected to it at the back (with a movable divider)
> is an activity hall roughly 40 feet wide by 50 feet long with a small
> raised stage at the back, seating 150 people on chairs. The sound
> system must accomodate the use of both areas simultaneously with the
> curtain closed (different users) as well as combined into one large
> hall for an overflow service.

I would be comfortable being contracted to either consult, or do the entire
job
Refrences available, I am based in upstate NY so if this is quite a ways
away significant travel and living costs would be needed, as well as the
fee.
george Gleason

>

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Maybe, but I have had more churches attempt to bargain
>> things down, to get out of contracts, and to take
>> desperate measures to avoid paying, than just about any
>> other organization out there.
>
> Part of that is IME due to a fairly global leadership problem in churches.
>
> They are probably not so much bad as disengaged, unqualified, and
> disorganized.

Not the local Assembly of God
they are outright dishonest

only church I had to sue to get paid
George

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>
>> My impression is that most churches built in the late
>> 1800's through 1940 or so handle both music and speaking
>> very well.
>
> Not at all.
>
> In the traditional church, articulation of spoken or sung words was at
> best secondary. Remember, most lessons were taught in Latin, and most
> church-goers spoke something else. They couldn't have understood it even
> if the acoustics for spoken word were good. Latin continued in US RC
> churches until the at least the mid-50s.

I work closly with Blessed Virgin Mother, a fundamentlist cathloic church,
who still do the Latin mass
>
> The laws of physics rule!

Come on now arnii, three days ago you were telling me science and budget
were not the controlling aspects of church sound system design
now you say they are
what about being CREATIVE, as in blasting the speakers into the ceiling, the
way you proposed in the lecture thread?

>
what gives arnii
please try to tell the same story the same way twice
George>

[nebulax]

On Aug 29, 6:57*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not growing faster:
>
> (1) Pastors, particularly senior pastors
>
> (2) Church lay leadership
>
> (3) The congregation
>


Well, I guess that includes just about everybody, except maybe the
janitor.

-Neb

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On 29 Aug 2009 20:48:15 GMT,
(Richard Webb) wrote:

>> You can always fake reverberation. It's expensive to do well and
>> it's a little cheesy when done cheaply, but it's a reasonable
>> solution if you need a room to be versatile.
>
>INdeed, in this case, congregational singing isn't going to
>be amplified via the pa so maybe not an option,

I think he's talking about a system where the effective reverberation
time of a space is changed by a mics/speakers system. If in.stalled,
the congregation WOULD be amplified, but not in quite the way you were
thinking of.

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

On Sat 2037-Aug-29 11:12, Scott Dorsey writes:
(1:3634/1000) wrote to All:

SD> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

>> TimR > wrote:
>>>
>>> The church will be used by a variety of services, mostly
>>> contemporary but occasionally traditional liturgical.
>>> An electronic organ is planned, if I had to guess it
>>> will be an Allen somewhere around the ADC-100 style.
>>> Connecting the organ to the sound system was my first
>>> question but that had not been considered at that point.
>>> Jacks for guitars was on the list.
>
>>> Okay, your first task here, then, is to get the room as
>>> dry as possible
>>Not a reasonable goal in churches where congrgational singing is an
>>important part of worship.

> Read the paragraph above. He says that traditional liturgical
> services are an "occasional" thing.

INdeed, which means dead as possible to not excite the room
with the guitar amps, etc. of the praise band.

THis, and the second space in the back tell me that the op
needs an acoustics consultant on this gig, accept no
substitutes, don't be fooled by cheap imitations.

> You can always fake reverberation. It's expensive to do well and
> it's a little cheesy when done cheaply, but it's a reasonable
> solution if you need a room to be versatile.

INdeed, in this case, congregational singing isn't going to
be amplified via the pa so maybe not an option, but I"d err
on the side of nonreverberant space for clarity of spoken
word and less problems with the band being too loud. helps
keep musicians' stage volume down too.

> You CANNOT remove reverberation if it is there.

Agreed, and if it is such that if causes the musos to turn
up their stage amps then you've got volume troubles all over the place. Dead room, good monitor system.

>>Seems easy if there is an acoustic organ, but its not. If you have a pipe
>>organ, it will try to take over every open mic.

> Life is like that. If it's an electronic organ, you need to have
> seperate speaker cabinets just for the organ in order to make for a
> sound effect that is like a pipe organ. The folks at Allen have
> this down to a science and they will sell you a kit that does the
> job well. Don't use the main PA for the organ, use a set of organ
> cabinets.
AGreed. THe United church of Christ I attended back in IOwa replaced a pipe organ with a good Allen. All our pipes etc. were up behind the altar, and they had us mount the organ's
speaker cabinet so as to throw the sound like the pipes
would. We mounted the speaker same physical location as the pipes, and used the room in the basement which formerly
housed the pumps et al was now storage, and eventually audio distribution throughout the building, including main
sanctuary mix <bummer>.

FOr most things however it didn't hurt as it was traditional style service. EVery now and then when we'd do something
with electronics keyboards would use the organ speaker, and
we'd bring a small microphone mixer up to the pulpit to mix
vocals.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
#! rnews 2156
Path: ftn!116-901!NOT-FOR-MAIL
From: R

[Scott Dorsey]

nebulax > wrote:
>On Aug 29, 6:57=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>> There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not growing faster:
>>
>> (1) Pastors, particularly senior pastors
>>
>> (2) Church lay leadership
>>
>> (3) The congregation
>>
>
>
>Well, I guess that includes just about everybody, except maybe the
>janitor.

"I like your Christ so much. Why cannot your Christians be more
like your Christ?"
-- M. Gandhi (paraphrased)

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne > wrote:
>On 29 Aug 2009 20:48:15 GMT,
(Richard Webb) wrote:
>
>>> You can always fake reverberation. It's expensive to do well and
>>> it's a little cheesy when done cheaply, but it's a reasonable
>>> solution if you need a room to be versatile.
>>
>>INdeed, in this case, congregational singing isn't going to
>>be amplified via the pa so maybe not an option,
>
>I think he's talking about a system where the effective reverberation
>time of a space is changed by a mics/speakers system. If in.stalled,
>the congregation WOULD be amplified, but not in quite the way you were
>thinking of.

That's one possibility. It's also possible to take just a little
bit of sound from ambient mikes around the altar and put them into
some distant hall speakers, maybe with a little digital reverb added.
A little bit can go a long, long way.

There are some commercial "controlled reverberation" systems which
employ a large number of speakers and microphones to turn a dry room
into any one of a number of kinds of different acoustics. None of
them are perfect but the best of them are nearly indistinguishable
from the real thing. The best are expensive, mind you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>>
>>> TimR > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The church will be used by a variety of services,
>>>> mostly contemporary but occasionally traditional
>>>> liturgical. An electronic organ is planned, if I had
>>>> to guess it will be an Allen somewhere around the
>>>> ADC-100 style. Connecting the organ to the sound
>>>> system was my first question but that had not been
>>>> considered at that point. Jacks for guitars was on the
>>>> list.
>>
>>> Okay, your first task here, then, is to get the room as
>>> dry as possible
>>
>> Not a reasonable goal in churches where congrgational
>> singing is an important part of worship.

> Read the paragraph above. He says that traditional
> liturgical services are an "occasional" thing.

I'm not talking about liturgical services at all. I'm talking about
non-liturgical services with congregational singing.


>> For most such churches (and they are in the majority)
>> there's a narrow path to walk, and that is reverberant
>> enough for congregational signing and dry enough for
>> speech, media, and drama.

> You can always fake reverberation. It's expensive to do
> well and it's a little cheesy when done cheaply, but it's a reasonable
> solution if you need a room to be versatile.

Agreed.

> You CANNOT remove reverberation if it is there.

Totally agreed. We had one consultant who suggested that we could reduce the
perception of undesirably long reverberation times by adding lots of short
(10-25 mSec) reverb. I gave him a Lexicon box and asked him to give us a
demo. The best he could do reminded us of spring reverbs in the back seat of
a 1965 Impals.

>>> I suggest not using the main PA system for the organ, if
>>> at all possible.

>> Seems easy if there is an acoustic organ, but its not.
>> If you have a pipe organ, it will try to take over every
>> open mic.

> Life is like that.

Agreed.

> If it's an electronic organ, you need
> to have seperate speaker cabinets just for the organ in
> order to make for a sound effect that is like a pipe
> organ.

That is typically how it is done. Since I have a pipe organ with a 16' rank,
I'm unlikely to ever go there.

> The folks at Allen have this down to a science
> and they will sell you a kit that does the job well.

I've looked carefully at their speaker line, and I don't see anything all
that special.

> Don't use the main PA for the organ, use a set of organ
> cabinets.

Liek I said, as long as we have the real thing, I'm unlikely to investigate
the alternatives.

In theory, if you have a main system that has plenty of dynamic range and
bandwidth, it should be able to handle a synthesized or recorded pipe organ.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:57:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
>> growing faster:
>>
>> (1) Pastors, particularly senior pastors
>>
>> (2) Church lay leadership
>>
>> (3) The congregation
>
> Oh dear, Arny, have you upset EVERYONE at your church?
> :-)

Not at all. It is very hard to upset people who are very satisfied with the
status quo.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message

> nebulax > wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 6:57=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
>>> growing faster:
>>>
>>> (1) Pastors, particularly senior pastors
>>>
>>> (2) Church lay leadership
>>>
>>> (3) The congregation
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I guess that includes just about everybody, except
>> maybe the janitor.
>
> "I like your Christ so much. Why cannot your Christians
> be more like your Christ?"
> -- M. Gandhi (paraphrased)

That quote has rung in my ears for the 40+ years since I heard it the first
time.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
>
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:57:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
>>> growing faster:

actually both in the USA and the world christianity is shrinking
most likely due to good folks meeting christians like you
'george

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
>> nebulax > wrote:
>>> On Aug 29, 6:57=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
>>>> growing faster:
>>>>
>>>> (1) Pastors, particularly senior pastors
>>>>
>>>> (2) Church lay leadership
>>>>
>>>> (3) The congregation
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I guess that includes just about everybody, except
>>> maybe the janitor.
>>
>> "I like your Christ so much. Why cannot your Christians
>> be more like your Christ?"
>> -- M. Gandhi (paraphrased)
>
> That quote has rung in my ears for the 40+ years since I heard it the
> first time.

lots of empty space between those ears of yours arnii
what is the rt60 of your empty skull? 40+ years from what you have posted
george
>
>

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Joe Kotroczo wrote:

>> And while I'm a musician I'm not knowledgable about sound systems.
>> I'm sure you can't make me an expert, any more than I could teach
>> HVAC design in one post, but ....... are there any suggestions?

I can't find the original post, however this is native to the
alt.sci.physics.acoustics turf.

>> I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are even layout

Simples stuff like dimensions and requirements would help. However as the
spec for the building is "include a sound system" it is simple to provide a
complete answer: there no answer with "sound system" being an undefined
variable, get it defined, just as many people here have suggested.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Michael Dobony wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:59:04 +1000, Soundhaspriority wrote:

>> > wrote in message
>>

That post too is missing over here.

>>> OP needs an acoustics consultant, period, end of story, end
>>> of discussion.

Correct.

> That proves you are totally unqualified to do sound.

no surprise, the poster is Mccarty, just listen to the tone ...

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
m
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in
>> message
>>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:57:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
>>>> growing faster:

<note that George deleted this portion of my post for some reason known only
to him.>

>>>> (1) Pastors, particularly senior pastors

>>>> (2) Church lay leadership

>>>> (3) The congregation

<end of the portion that George deleted from my post for some reason known
only to him.>

> actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
> shrinking

I can find many sources that contradict this claim.

George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that agrees
with you.

Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China and
Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
false point.

> most likely due to good folks meeting christians (sic) like you

I take it George that you did not understand the 3 points that I presented
above but that you somehow felt free to delete.

They basically agree with you.

This is very interesting behavior on your part, George.

I provide evidence that supports a claim that you intend to make.

You delete that evidence.

You then make a personal accusation against me.

Don't you think that is a little strange?

Might you be distorting the truth to pick a fight with me? ;-)

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
> m
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in
>>> message
>>>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:57:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
>>>>> growing faster:
>
> <note that George deleted this portion of my post for some reason known
> only to him.>
>
>>>>> (1) Pastors, particularly senior pastors
>
>>>>> (2) Church lay leadership
>
>>>>> (3) The congregation
>
> <end of the portion that George deleted from my post for some reason known
> only to him.>
>
>> actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
>> shrinking
>
> I can find many sources that contradict this claim.

post them
>
> George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that agrees
> with you.

after you .
>
> Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China
> and Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make
> a false point.

turn this into another bible thumper arnii, your standard practice
please move it over to aapls
you have ruined that group, no need for you to destroy another
>
>> most likely due to good folks meeting christians (sic) like you
>
> I take it George that you did not understand the 3 points that I presented
> above but that you somehow felt free to delete.

I delete them because they had been restated several times and were no
longer needed to follow the thread
does it **** you off when a tread gets trimed for clearity?

>
> They basically agree with you.
>
> This is very interesting behavior on your part, George.
>
> I provide evidence that supports a claim that you intend to make.
>
> You delete that evidence.
>
> You then make a personal accusation against me.
>
> Don't you think that is a little strange?

I think you are very strange
lacking the skills to tie your shoes , much less be left alone in public
>
> Might you be distorting the truth to pick a fight with me? ;-)

I do not pick fight with you arnii
stop posting horse **** and I will stop shoveling it out to the sewer
George
>
>

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
>> shrinking
>
>I can find many sources that contradict this claim.
>
>George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that agrees
>with you.
>
>Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China and
>Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
>false point.

OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?

[TimR]

On Aug 28, 1:51*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>
> In cases like this, you have two choices. *Either you design the hall to
> be as dead as possible and you rely on electronic amplification for whatever
> ambience you need, or you build the hall deliberately so the room reverb
> time and parameters can be adjusted. *Moving curtains, adjustable traps,
> fibreglass banners that are raiseed and lowered are all possibilities that
> a good acoustician should suggest.
>

I see that I did not read precisely enough the first time.

I thought people were recommending a sound system expert, and that's
what seemed reasonable to me. But an acoustician is differerent, I
think?

It may be too late to affect the acoustical design of the hall, and I
can pretty much guarantee this is not a factor that was considered,
because I review a lot of designs for this organization. I have
access to a similar church already built about a three hour drive
away, I guess I need to get up there and look at it.

My home church (not this one) is an older traditional liturgical
church. If I drop a handbell, I can polish it and put it back in the
case before the room stops echoing. (slight exaggeration, but it's
pretty live) We don't do contemporary but tried it once and it was
truly awful. Is sustain the biggest thing to look for?

[Scott Dorsey]

TimR > wrote:
>I see that I did not read precisely enough the first time.
>
>I thought people were recommending a sound system expert, and that's
>what seemed reasonable to me. But an acoustician is differerent, I
>think?

Yes. If the hall acoustics are lousy, a PA system will make things worse.
If the hall acoustics are designed for the job, a PA system install will
be comparatively cheap and easy.

>It may be too late to affect the acoustical design of the hall, and I
>can pretty much guarantee this is not a factor that was considered,
>because I review a lot of designs for this organization. I have
>access to a similar church already built about a three hour drive
>away, I guess I need to get up there and look at it.

Similar-looking rooms can sound dramatically different from one another,
and you can make a lot of changes to the room in terms of materials
even after the first set of plans have been drawn up. You can't do
things like move walls around and cock them in and out so they are
not quite parallel, perhaps, but you can add diffusion and diffraction
and you can change drywall out for acoustical materials.

>My home church (not this one) is an older traditional liturgical
>church. If I drop a handbell, I can polish it and put it back in the
>case before the room stops echoing. (slight exaggeration, but it's
>pretty live) We don't do contemporary but tried it once and it was
>truly awful. Is sustain the biggest thing to look for?

No you want the SHORTEST POSSIBLE sustain (as measured as RT60 or T30)
possible, if you're going to have contemporary services in there. You
want the room dry, dry, dry. A room that sounds great with a choir
will turn into a horrible nightmare when you have a rock band playing
in it. Go back and read my last four posts on this thread.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

This is exactly the kind of anti-faith pile of excrement that has made
a.a.p.l-s useless. Please don't wreck what is left of r.a.p with the same
kind of dreck. Hypocricy is undesirable on both sides.

[Arkansan Raider]

Richard Webb wrote:
> Thanks for the vote of confidence.
>
>
> Regards,
> Richard

No problem at all. It's deserved.

---Jeff

[Michael Dobony]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:27:19 +0100, Joe Kotroczo wrote:

> On 27/08/09 3:56, in article
> , "TimR"
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
>> point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
>> was VERY instructive.
>>
>> I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
>> for.
>>
>> My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
>> wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
>> HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
>> that if it weren't.
>>

For some reason the OP's posts are not coming through my server and the
above address is not receiving mail. You say the design is well thought
out. This is off-topic, but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists who
live on the road? I know of many evangelists who live out of RV's and I
have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to accommodate
these people. Just a thought to consider.

[Chris Whealy]

TimR wrote:
> I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
> point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
> was VERY instructive.
>
> I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
> for.
>
> My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
> wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
> HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
> that if it weren't.
>
> Unfortunately there is no sound system design beyond "include a sound
> system." Why that was missed I don't know, when every detail of
> foundation, plumbing, electrical, etc., was included, but it was, and
> I have to deal with it.
>
> And while I'm a musician I'm not knowledgable about sound systems.
> I'm sure you can't make me an expert, any more than I could teach HVAC
> design in one post, but ....... are there any suggestions?
>
> I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are even layout
> drawings available online, though I'm kind of going to give up
> plausible deniability once I post that link.
>
Tim, talk to Joe de Buglio in Toronto (http://www.jdbsound.com). He has
specialised in church acoustics and church sound systems for 25 years now.
He'll be able to help you avoid many of the common mistakes made during
church construction projects.

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[Michael Dobony]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:33:04 -0400, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:57:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
>>>> growing faster:
>
> actually both in the USA and the world christianity is shrinking
> most likely due to good folks meeting christians like you
> 'george

Ignorance is such bliss. Yes, it is shrinking in the US, but NOT
world-wide. BTW, Abraham Maslow said spirituality was the HIGHEST level of
performance and motivation. Unfortunately, psychobabilists ignore this fact
and that is why they have a terrible track record on abuse recovery and
Christianity has such a great track record on abuse recovery.

[Michael Dobony]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:09:12 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>> actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
>>> shrinking
>>
>>I can find many sources that contradict this claim.
>>
>>George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that agrees
>>with you.
>>
>>Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China and
>>Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
>>false point.
>
> OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?

It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking group?
It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who brought
us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:23:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:09:12 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
>>>> shrinking
>>>
>>>I can find many sources that contradict this claim.
>>>
>>>George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that agrees
>>>with you.
>>>
>>>Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China and
>>>Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
>>>false point.
>>
>> OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?
>
>It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking group?
>It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
>minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who brought
>us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
>school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?

In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
should mark their ears to identify them.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
behave in a totally servile manner.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.

In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.

Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
Clear enough?

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:18:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
> wrote:

>> actually both in the USA and the world christianity is shrinking
>> most likely due to good folks meeting christians like you
>> 'george
>
>Ignorance is such bliss. Yes, it is shrinking in the US, but NOT
>world-wide. BTW, Abraham Maslow said spirituality was the HIGHEST level of
>performance and motivation. Unfortunately, psychobabilists ignore this fact
>and that is why they have a terrible track record on abuse recovery and
>Christianity has such a great track record on abuse recovery.

Sure, if you can swallow the story that some Sky Fairy is looking out
for you, it must be very comforting. If a victim CAN swallow it, I'd
be loth to deny them their fluffy feeling of security. Let's all
believe in the Easter Bunny too.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:23:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
> wrote:

>> OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?
>
>It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking group?
>It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
>minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who brought
>us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
>school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?

That is just SO misinformed :-)

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Michael Dobony" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:33:04 -0400, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:57:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
>>>>> growing faster:
>>
>> actually both in the USA and the world christianity is shrinking
>> most likely due to good folks meeting christians like you
>> 'george
>
> Ignorance is such bliss. Yes, it is shrinking in the US, but NOT
> world-wide.

actually Mike , it is shrinking WORLDWIDE, there are some hot spots of
growth, (africa, china)but worldwide the % of people who identify themselves
as christian is falling
statistics are a dangerous thing
if you have a country with no christians and one person converts that is a
100% increase
you add up several of these and next thing you know people are saying "we
have a 70% growth of christianity" when in fact they have only a few dozen
converts
george

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:23:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:09:12 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
>>>>> shrinking
>>>>
>>>>I can find many sources that contradict this claim.
>>>>
>>>>George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that
>>>>agrees
>>>>with you.
>>>>
>>>>Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China
>>>>and
>>>>Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
>>>>false point.
>>>
>>> OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?
>>
>>It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking
>>group?
>>It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
>>minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who
>>brought
>>us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
>>school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
> keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
> should mark their ears to identify them.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
> must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
> behave in a totally servile manner.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
> your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
> you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
> her to death.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
> must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
> cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.
>
> In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
> population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
> women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
> must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.
>
> Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
> not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
> Clear enough?
pretty much how I see it
thanks Don
George

[Les Cargill]

Michael Dobony wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:33:04 -0400, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:57:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
>>>>> growing faster:
>> actually both in the USA and the world christianity is shrinking
>> most likely due to good folks meeting christians like you
>> 'george
>
> Ignorance is such bliss. Yes, it is shrinking in the US, but NOT
> world-wide. BTW, Abraham Maslow said spirituality was the HIGHEST level of
> performance and motivation. Unfortunately, psychobabilists ignore this fact
> and that is why they have a terrible track record on abuse recovery and
> Christianity has such a great track record on abuse recovery.

Maslow is truly a great figure in science. He's also
firmly identified as a Humanist.

"Higher" in Maslow does not mean "loftier" - it simply means
dependent on the layers below it. And I wouldn't make any claims
about any sort of "abuse recovery" without a big wad of
statistics and a qualified interpreter of them. AA, for example
is strictly nonsectarian - one cannot get more generic
than the phrase "higher power".

Not *my* idea, either - "render unto Ceaser" and all that :)

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:18:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
> > wrote:
>
>>> actually both in the USA and the world christianity is shrinking
>>> most likely due to good folks meeting christians like you
>>> 'george
>> Ignorance is such bliss. Yes, it is shrinking in the US, but NOT
>> world-wide. BTW, Abraham Maslow said spirituality was the HIGHEST level of
>> performance and motivation. Unfortunately, psychobabilists ignore this fact
>> and that is why they have a terrible track record on abuse recovery and
>> Christianity has such a great track record on abuse recovery.
>
> Sure, if you can swallow the story that some Sky Fairy is looking out
> for you, it must be very comforting. If a victim CAN swallow it, I'd
> be loth to deny them their fluffy feeling of security. Let's all
> believe in the Easter Bunny too.

It's a Useful Metaphor. Being useful, it can be abused,
just like everything else. Think of Bizarro Superman,
man :)

--
Les Cargill

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:23:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:09:12 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
>>>>> shrinking
>>>> I can find many sources that contradict this claim.
>>>>
>>>> George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that agrees
>>>> with you.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China and
>>>> Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
>>>> false point.
>>> OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?
>> It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking group?
>> It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
>> minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who brought
>> us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
>> school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
> keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
> should mark their ears to identify them.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
> must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
> behave in a totally servile manner.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
> your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
> you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
> her to death.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
> must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
> cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.
>
> In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
> population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
> women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
> must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.
>
> Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
> not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
> Clear enough?
>
> d

You ever figure out that cultural context thing?

Not enough time to discuss it now, but it truly is worth discussing.

Just look up the behavior of the surrounding nations of the time...

---Jeff

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Arkansan Raider wrote:
> Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>> < .....snip... >
>> Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
>> not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
>> Clear enough?
>>
>> d
>
> You ever figure out that cultural context thing?
>
> Not enough time to discuss it now, but it truly is worth discussing.
>
> Just look up the behavior of the surrounding nations of the time...
>
> ---Jeff
Cool, so where's the Eastern Europe bible, North America bible,
orient bible, Australia bible, etc.? Hey, what about South America,
they even had pyramids?

What about the old school, nailed to the cross part?


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[TimR]

On Sep 1, 9:41*am, Michael Dobony > wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:27:19 +0100, Joe Kotroczo wrote:
> > On 27/08/09 3:56, in article
> > , "TimR"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
> >> point me in the right direction. *The recent thread on lecture halls
> >> was VERY instructive.
>
> >> I'm building a church. *Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
> >> for.
>
> >> My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. *And,
> >> wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. *Even the
> >> HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
> >> that if it weren't.
>
> For some reason the OP's posts are not coming through my server and the
> above address is not receiving mail. *You say the design is well thought
> out. This is off-topic, but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
> considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists who
> live on the road? I know of many evangelists who live out of RV's and I
> have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to accommodate
> these people. Just a thought to consider.

Thanks for the thought. That won't be necessary for this particular
location but I'll keep it in mind for the future.

[Arkansan Raider]

Ron Capik wrote:
> Arkansan Raider wrote:
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>> < .....snip... >
>>> Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
>>> not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
>>> Clear enough?
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> You ever figure out that cultural context thing?
>>
>> Not enough time to discuss it now, but it truly is worth discussing.
>>
>> Just look up the behavior of the surrounding nations of the time...
>>
>> ---Jeff
> Cool, so where's the Eastern Europe bible, North America bible,
> orient bible, Australia bible, etc.? Hey, what about South America,
> they even had pyramids?
>
> What about the old school, nailed to the cross part?
>
>
> Later...
>
> Ron Capik
> --

Huh?

What does that have to do with context?

---Jeff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:41:27 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:23:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:09:12 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
>>>>>> shrinking
>>>>> I can find many sources that contradict this claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that agrees
>>>>> with you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China and
>>>>> Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
>>>>> false point.
>>>> OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?
>>> It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking group?
>>> It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
>>> minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who brought
>>> us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
>>> school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?
>>
>> In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
>> keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
>> should mark their ears to identify them.
>>
>> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
>> must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
>> behave in a totally servile manner.
>>
>> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
>> your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.
>>
>> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
>> you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
>> her to death.
>>
>> In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
>> must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
>> cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.
>>
>> In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
>> population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
>> women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
>> must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.
>>
>> Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
>> not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
>> Clear enough?
>>
>> d
>
>You ever figure out that cultural context thing?
>
>Not enough time to discuss it now, but it truly is worth discussing.
>
>Just look up the behavior of the surrounding nations of the time...
>
>---Jeff

You're going to have to help me out here. Give me a context in which
slaughtering babies and raping little girls is OK, cos I don't see it.
But then I'm not a Christian or a Jew of course.

Here's a saying to chew on. In general, good people will do good
things, and bad people will do bad things, but to make a good person
behave wickedly - that takes religion.

d

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:

> In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
> keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
> should mark their ears to identify them.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
> must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
> behave in a totally servile manner.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
> your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
> you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
> her to death.
>
> In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
> must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
> cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.
>
> In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
> population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
> women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
> must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.
>
> Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
> not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
> Clear enough?
>
> d

I was in prison last night, so I couldn't take the time I wanted to
answer this. (Don't worry, I was leading singing for a Bible lesson for
the inmates.)

The first thing to take into consideration is the cultural context of
the time. Keep in mind that the Israelites have been in slavery
themselves--400 years in Egypt. The land across the Jordan--Canaan--is
filled with some very unsavory characters. God is deciding to punish
them for their wicked ways in like manner to how they've behaved.

In one instance, you have a king who has been cutting off the big toes
and thumbs of those whom he's subjugated, so when he is captured, guess
what happens to him? Of course, they cut off his big toes and thumbs.

All of these countries are guilty of mass murder, ramming swords into
the bellies of pregnant women, raping and pillaging, etc. So God orders
the Israelites to wipe them out. God doesn't want any of them to survive
because they are worthy of death. The women are complicit in these
activities, and teach their young the same, so everyone needs to be
wiped off the face of the earth. This is a judgement against their
practices--they are *not* innocent victims. They are wicked people who
practice genocide themselves.

That's point number one. If I'm up to it tomorrow, I may answer some of
your other points. But it's late, and I'm cranky without my beauty sleep.

Shut up! I'm 42!

You kids get off my lawn!!!!!!


---Jeff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:16:40 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
>> keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
>> should mark their ears to identify them.
>>
>> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
>> must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
>> behave in a totally servile manner.
>>
>> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
>> your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.
>>
>> In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
>> you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
>> her to death.
>>
>> In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
>> must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
>> cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.
>>
>> In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
>> population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
>> women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
>> must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.
>>
>> Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
>> not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
>> Clear enough?
>>
>> d
>
>I was in prison last night, so I couldn't take the time I wanted to
>answer this. (Don't worry, I was leading singing for a Bible lesson for
>the inmates.)
>
>The first thing to take into consideration is the cultural context of
>the time. Keep in mind that the Israelites have been in slavery
>themselves--400 years in Egypt. The land across the Jordan--Canaan--is
>filled with some very unsavory characters. God is deciding to punish
>them for their wicked ways in like manner to how they've behaved.
>
>In one instance, you have a king who has been cutting off the big toes
>and thumbs of those whom he's subjugated, so when he is captured, guess
>what happens to him? Of course, they cut off his big toes and thumbs.
>
>All of these countries are guilty of mass murder, ramming swords into
>the bellies of pregnant women, raping and pillaging, etc. So God orders
>the Israelites to wipe them out. God doesn't want any of them to survive
>because they are worthy of death. The women are complicit in these
>activities, and teach their young the same, so everyone needs to be
>wiped off the face of the earth. This is a judgement against their
>practices--they are *not* innocent victims. They are wicked people who
>practice genocide themselves.
>
>That's point number one. If I'm up to it tomorrow, I may answer some of
>your other points. But it's late, and I'm cranky without my beauty sleep.
>
>Shut up! I'm 42!
>

I'm 59, and you do understand that all of that simply doesn't wash.
None of that stuff is wicked to a god who approves of slavery,
torture, child molestation, cannibalism etc.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
news:4a9f6da9.2598269921@localhost
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:16:40 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>> In your bible you will find instructions from God on
>>> how to take and keep slaves, how much you must pay
>>> their previous owners and how you should mark their
>>> ears to identify them.
>>>
>>> In your bible you will find instructions from God
>>> telling you that you must prevent your wife or daughter
>>> from voicing any opinions, and must behave in a totally
>>> servile manner.
>>>
>>> In your bible you will find instructions from God
>>> telling you that if your daughter is rude to you, you
>>> must stone her to death.
>>>
>>> In your bible you will find instructions from God
>>> telling you that if you marry, but suspect that your
>>> wife is not a virgin, you must stone her to death.
>>>
>>> In your bible you will find instructions from God to
>>> Jephthah that he must kill his own daughter in payment
>>> for a favour during an ethnic cleansing operation,
>>> which was also commanded by God.
>>>
>>> In your bible you find instructions from God to
>>> slaughter an entire population, taking care to run a
>>> sword through the stomachs of all the women in case
>>> they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
>>> must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your
>>> soldiers use.
>>>
>>> Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of
>>> ethics. It is not. It is the most stinking **** that a
>>> perverted man ever invented. Clear enough?
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> I was in prison last night, so I couldn't take the time
>> I wanted to answer this. (Don't worry, I was leading
>> singing for a Bible lesson for the inmates.)
>>
>> The first thing to take into consideration is the
>> cultural context of the time. Keep in mind that the
>> Israelites have been in slavery themselves--400 years in
>> Egypt. The land across the Jordan--Canaan--is filled
>> with some very unsavory characters. God is deciding to
>> punish them for their wicked ways in like manner to how
>> they've behaved.
>>
>> In one instance, you have a king who has been cutting
>> off the big toes and thumbs of those whom he's
>> subjugated, so when he is captured, guess what happens
>> to him? Of course, they cut off his big toes and thumbs.
>>
>> All of these countries are guilty of mass murder,
>> ramming swords into the bellies of pregnant women,
>> raping and pillaging, etc. So God orders the Israelites
>> to wipe them out. God doesn't want any of them to
>> survive because they are worthy of death. The women are
>> complicit in these activities, and teach their young the
>> same, so everyone needs to be wiped off the face of the
>> earth. This is a judgement against their practices--they
>> are *not* innocent victims. They are wicked people who
>> practice genocide themselves.
>>
>> That's point number one. If I'm up to it tomorrow, I may
>> answer some of your other points. But it's late, and I'm
>> cranky without my beauty sleep.
>>
>> Shut up! I'm 42!

> I'm 59, and you do understand that all of that simply
> doesn't wash.

I'm 63 (actually irrlevant) but it seems like an explanation that suits any
number of situations involving writings from over a period of thousands of
years.

Holding the Christian church of today (2 thousdand years after Christ) to
the Old Testament (a historic book that pre-existed Christ, some parts by
thousands of years) is like holding the modern government of Greece to what
happened during the Peloponnesian wars.

Also, what a lot of people don't seem to get is that the Bible contains any
number of negative examples. IOW, the lesson it teaches about some things is
"Don't do that!" Just because it happened in the Bible doesn't mean that it
is always right.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:57:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>news:4a9f6da9.2598269921@localhost
>> On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:16:40 -0500, Arkansan Raider
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>>> In your bible you will find instructions from God on
>>>> how to take and keep slaves, how much you must pay
>>>> their previous owners and how you should mark their
>>>> ears to identify them.
>>>>
>>>> In your bible you will find instructions from God
>>>> telling you that you must prevent your wife or daughter
>>>> from voicing any opinions, and must behave in a totally
>>>> servile manner.
>>>>
>>>> In your bible you will find instructions from God
>>>> telling you that if your daughter is rude to you, you
>>>> must stone her to death.
>>>>
>>>> In your bible you will find instructions from God
>>>> telling you that if you marry, but suspect that your
>>>> wife is not a virgin, you must stone her to death.
>>>>
>>>> In your bible you will find instructions from God to
>>>> Jephthah that he must kill his own daughter in payment
>>>> for a favour during an ethnic cleansing operation,
>>>> which was also commanded by God.
>>>>
>>>> In your bible you find instructions from God to
>>>> slaughter an entire population, taking care to run a
>>>> sword through the stomachs of all the women in case
>>>> they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
>>>> must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your
>>>> soldiers use.
>>>>
>>>> Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of
>>>> ethics. It is not. It is the most stinking **** that a
>>>> perverted man ever invented. Clear enough?
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>
>>> I was in prison last night, so I couldn't take the time
>>> I wanted to answer this. (Don't worry, I was leading
>>> singing for a Bible lesson for the inmates.)
>>>
>>> The first thing to take into consideration is the
>>> cultural context of the time. Keep in mind that the
>>> Israelites have been in slavery themselves--400 years in
>>> Egypt. The land across the Jordan--Canaan--is filled
>>> with some very unsavory characters. God is deciding to
>>> punish them for their wicked ways in like manner to how
>>> they've behaved.
>>>
>>> In one instance, you have a king who has been cutting
>>> off the big toes and thumbs of those whom he's
>>> subjugated, so when he is captured, guess what happens
>>> to him? Of course, they cut off his big toes and thumbs.
>>>
>>> All of these countries are guilty of mass murder,
>>> ramming swords into the bellies of pregnant women,
>>> raping and pillaging, etc. So God orders the Israelites
>>> to wipe them out. God doesn't want any of them to
>>> survive because they are worthy of death. The women are
>>> complicit in these activities, and teach their young the
>>> same, so everyone needs to be wiped off the face of the
>>> earth. This is a judgement against their practices--they
>>> are *not* innocent victims. They are wicked people who
>>> practice genocide themselves.
>>>
>>> That's point number one. If I'm up to it tomorrow, I may
>>> answer some of your other points. But it's late, and I'm
>>> cranky without my beauty sleep.
>>>
>>> Shut up! I'm 42!
>
>> I'm 59, and you do understand that all of that simply
>> doesn't wash.
>
>I'm 63 (actually irrlevant) but it seems like an explanation that suits any
>number of situations involving writings from over a period of thousands of
>years.
>
>Holding the Christian church of today (2 thousdand years after Christ) to
>the Old Testament (a historic book that pre-existed Christ, some parts by
>thousands of years) is like holding the modern government of Greece to what
>happened during the Peloponnesian wars.
>
>Also, what a lot of people don't seem to get is that the Bible contains any
>number of negative examples. IOW, the lesson it teaches about some things is
>"Don't do that!" Just because it happened in the Bible doesn't mean that it
>is always right.
>
>

Still won't do. The bible is either the work of God, or of man. If it
is the work of God, you have no choice but to accept it; if it is the
work of man it isn't holy, so no religion can be created from it.

The truth is that your morality, like mine, comes from yourself not
religion. You recoil, as will anybody decent, from the unpleasantness
you find there, so you reject it. I simply reject it out of hand, you
try to rationalize it away. Drop the religion and learn that you
already have everything you need within you and everything in the
world suddenly makes sense. Try it.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
news:4aa0d931.18142796@localhost

> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:57:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:


>> Holding the Christian church of today (2 thousand years
>> after Christ) to the Old Testament (a historic book
>> that pre-existed Christ, some parts by thousands of
>> years) is like holding the modern government of Greece
>> to what happened during the Peloponnesian wars.
>>
>> Also, what a lot of people don't seem to get is that the
>> Bible contains any number of negative examples. IOW, the
>> lesson it teaches about some things is "Don't do that!"
>> Just because it happened in the Bible doesn't mean that
>> it is always right.

> Still won't do.

Of course not. You are bound by your biases.

> The bible is either the work of God, or of man.

Then you don't understand the Bible. The Bible does not say that God
magically made it into its original form here on earth, or the translations
and interpolations that we have today. So the Bible is clearly not a work
of God as those words would indicate if taken in the way those words are
usually interpreted. OTOH, neither you nor I have scientific proof that the
Bible either is or is not wholly the work of man.

So, your little excluded-middle assertion is not all there is.

> If it is the work of God, you have no choice but to accept it;

Then you don't understand the Bible. Man has free will, more specifically
the ability to accept or deny the Bible in whole or part as he sees fit.

> if it is the work of man it isn't holy, so no religion can be created from
> it.

The you don't understand how people work. Mormonism was created from the
Book of Mormon, and that's about as highly questionable story as one can
find.

> The truth is that your morality, like mine, comes from yourself not
> religion.

Ya think?

The Bible is not really about morality, its about ethics or if you will, the
ideals that guide our moral choices. As a guide to making moral choices, it
can be helpful if intelligently followed. Of course most anti-Bible people
are not motivated to do much intelligent following of the Bible.

> You recoil, as will anybody
> decent, from the unpleasantness you find there, so you
> reject it.

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to understanding how to interpret
the Bible.

> I simply reject it out of hand,

That's obvious and that ruins any claim you might have to objectivity.

> you try to rationalize it away.


Wrong again. I try to rationalize my life around the Bible, which is far
different from what you say.

> Drop the religion and learn that you
> already have everything you need within you and
> everything in the world suddenly makes sense. Try it.

The idea that everything I need is already within me was disproved to my
satisfaction the first time I read a book that contained something that I
didn't know. ;-)

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to understanding how to interpret
>the Bible.
>

The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is gone.

>> I simply reject it out of hand,
>
>That's obvious and that ruins any claim you might have to objectivity.
>

No, my rejection comes from my objectivity. I have examined it and
found it wanting.

>> you try to rationalize it away.
>
>
>Wrong again. I try to rationalize my life around the Bible, which is far
>different from what you say.
>

No you don't. You accept the bits of the bible that resonate with your
life, and ignore the bits that don't (like the examples I gave),
claiming them to lack some sort of relevance. I don't think that
Christianity was meant to be an a la carte deal; the menu is prix
fixe.

>> Drop the religion and learn that you
>> already have everything you need within you and
>> everything in the world suddenly makes sense. Try it.
>
>The idea that everything I need is already within me was disproved to my
>satisfaction the first time I read a book that contained something that I
>didn't know. ;-)
>

Facile and silly. You know what I meant.

d

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to understanding how to interpret
>> the Bible.
>>
>
> The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is gone.

Au contraire, seafood plate. The OT is written in Hebrew. The NT is
written in a combination of Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Are any of
those your native tongue?

If not, then it needs to be interpreted. Credibility is not an issue here.

Then again, we have many things we need to interpret in our lives. The
Bible is not a science book with nothing but statistics and such, but
even *those* need interpretation.

Sorry, but that statement doesn't wash.

>
>>> I simply reject it out of hand,
>> That's obvious and that ruins any claim you might have to objectivity.
>>
>
> No, my rejection comes from my objectivity. I have examined it and
> found it wanting.

You don't sound very objective to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
started to explain why some things were written, and you dismissed them
out of hand without even a listen.

I don't mean this as a flame, and don't take it that way--you're
carrying on a discussion like this without flaming, and I find that
commendable given our present environment.

Just callin' it like I see it.

>
>>> you try to rationalize it away.
>>
>> Wrong again. I try to rationalize my life around the Bible, which is far
>> different from what you say.
>>
>
> No you don't. You accept the bits of the bible that resonate with your
> life, and ignore the bits that don't (like the examples I gave),
> claiming them to lack some sort of relevance. I don't think that
> Christianity was meant to be an a la carte deal; the menu is prix
> fixe.

Nice. I totally agree with the a la carte thing. Way too many people are
"cafeterialists" who take what they want and discard the rest.
Christianity is a package deal.

>
>>> Drop the religion and learn that you
>>> already have everything you need within you and
>>> everything in the world suddenly makes sense. Try it.
>> The idea that everything I need is already within me was disproved to my
>> satisfaction the first time I read a book that contained something that I
>> didn't know. ;-)
>>
>
> Facile and silly. You know what I meant.
>
> d

I'll have more food for thought for you later.

---Jeff

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:19:02 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to understanding how to interpret
>>> the Bible.
>>>
>>
>> The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is gone.
>
>Au contraire, seafood plate. The OT is written in Hebrew. The NT is
>written in a combination of Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Are any of
>those your native tongue?
>
>If not, then it needs to be interpreted. Credibility is not an issue here.
>

No, not interpreted, translated. The moment you start interpreting,
you are changing the meaning, and that always means filtering through
a modern mind. The original meaning is then gone forever.

>Then again, we have many things we need to interpret in our lives. The
>Bible is not a science book with nothing but statistics and such, but
>even *those* need interpretation.
>
>Sorry, but that statement doesn't wash.
>

A God who not only likes, but demands child sacrifice, extermination,
rape and mutilation does not require interpretation. The picture is
far too clear in the original for that. Any interpretation that can
wash that away is simply fabrication.

>>
>>>> I simply reject it out of hand,
>>> That's obvious and that ruins any claim you might have to objectivity.
>>>
>>
>> No, my rejection comes from my objectivity. I have examined it and
>> found it wanting.
>
>You don't sound very objective to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
>started to explain why some things were written, and you dismissed them
>out of hand without even a listen.
>

No, not so. You can't explain why those things were written any more
than I can unless you have sources of information that are denied to
me. All you have is your personal speculation. Either take them at
their face value or ignore them is all you can do legitimately.

>I don't mean this as a flame, and don't take it that way--you're
>carrying on a discussion like this without flaming, and I find that
>commendable given our present environment.
>
>Just callin' it like I see it.
>

I enjoy these chats far too much to flame over them. Of course there
will be individuals who draw my ire, but that will be because they are
rude, not contrary.

>>
>>>> you try to rationalize it away.
>>>
>>> Wrong again. I try to rationalize my life around the Bible, which is far
>>> different from what you say.
>>>
>>
>> No you don't. You accept the bits of the bible that resonate with your
>> life, and ignore the bits that don't (like the examples I gave),
>> claiming them to lack some sort of relevance. I don't think that
>> Christianity was meant to be an a la carte deal; the menu is prix
>> fixe.
>
>Nice. I totally agree with the a la carte thing. Way too many people are
>"cafeterialists" who take what they want and discard the rest.
>Christianity is a package deal.
>
>>
>>>> Drop the religion and learn that you
>>>> already have everything you need within you and
>>>> everything in the world suddenly makes sense. Try it.
>>> The idea that everything I need is already within me was disproved to my
>>> satisfaction the first time I read a book that contained something that I
>>> didn't know. ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Facile and silly. You know what I meant.
>>
>> d
>
>I'll have more food for thought for you later.
>

OK. We both know that neither will convert the other, of course.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:19:02 -0500, Arkansan Raider
> > wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to understanding how to interpret
>>>> the Bible.
>>>>
>>> The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is gone.
>> Au contraire, seafood plate. The OT is written in Hebrew. The NT is
>> written in a combination of Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Are any of
>> those your native tongue?
>>
>> If not, then it needs to be interpreted. Credibility is not an issue here.
>>
>
> No, not interpreted, translated. The moment you start interpreting,
> you are changing the meaning, and that always means filtering through
> a modern mind. The original meaning is then gone forever.
>
>> Then again, we have many things we need to interpret in our lives. The
>> Bible is not a science book with nothing but statistics and such, but
>> even *those* need interpretation.
>>
>> Sorry, but that statement doesn't wash.
>>
>
> A God who not only likes, but demands child sacrifice, extermination,
> rape and mutilation does not require interpretation. The picture is
> far too clear in the original for that. Any interpretation that can
> wash that away is simply fabrication.
>

I'll go into that in another post. I disagree on a number of the points
you just mentioned, but I want to make it a separate post for the
purposes of clarity.

>>>>> I simply reject it out of hand,
>>>> That's obvious and that ruins any claim you might have to objectivity.
>>>>
>>> No, my rejection comes from my objectivity. I have examined it and
>>> found it wanting.
>> You don't sound very objective to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
>> started to explain why some things were written, and you dismissed them
>> out of hand without even a listen.
>>
>
> No, not so. You can't explain why those things were written any more
> than I can unless you have sources of information that are denied to
> me. All you have is your personal speculation. Either take them at
> their face value or ignore them is all you can do legitimately.
>

I will endeavor to bring some of those sources to you in a readable way,
along with illuminating some of the sources you may already think you
know--there are many things in the Bible that are easy to misread due to
lack of context. I hope I can be helpful here.

>> I don't mean this as a flame, and don't take it that way--you're
>> carrying on a discussion like this without flaming, and I find that
>> commendable given our present environment.
>>
>> Just callin' it like I see it.
>>
>
> I enjoy these chats far too much to flame over them. Of course there
> will be individuals who draw my ire, but that will be because they are
> rude, not contrary.

Roger that. I've been plonked over disagreement before and not been
rude--and I appreciate your willing frank discussion without rudeness
yourself.

>
(snip)

>> I'll have more food for thought for you later.
>>
>
> OK. We both know that neither will convert the other, of course.
>
> d
>

I won't totally discard the idea, I rarely ever do, but that's not the
intent in this discussion. I'm the eternal optimist, you know. ;^)

For now, I'm content to prove that a Christian and a non-Christian can
have a frank, no-nonsense religious discussion without the histrionics
and character assassination we usually see.


---Jeff

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
>> understanding how to interpret the Bible.
>>
>
> The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
> gone.

I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe that we interpret our
environment.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message


> The moment you start
> interpreting, you are changing the meaning, and that
> always means filtering through a modern mind.

I can't believe that you don't understand that we interpret everything that
we perceive.

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:11:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
>>> understanding how to interpret the Bible.
>>>
>>
>> The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
>> gone.
>
>I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe that we interpret our
>environment.
>

You can't talk rationally when your words are based on faith, which is
by definition irrational.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:11:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
>>>> understanding how to interpret the Bible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
>>> gone.

>> I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe
>> that we interpret our environment.

> You can't talk rationally when your words are based on
> faith, which is by definition irrational.

I'll ignore the intentional insult and knee-jerk attack on spirituality.
Atheism is as irrational as theism. Only agnosticism is truly rational.

Your problem is in the secular domain. You don't seem to understand that we
interpret everything we perceive, or you're simply being obtuse.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
>>> understanding how to interpret the Bible.
>>>
>>
>> The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
>> gone.
>
> I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe that we interpret
> our environment.

arnii you can't talk rationally at all
you have serious issues that you have added Hank and Ty to your enemies list
I'd hate to be you on that dreadful day
george
>
>

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

> I'll ignore the intentional insult and knee-jerk attack on spirituality.

odd way to ignore something arnii, by going out of your way to point it out
have trouble with what the word ignore means, again?
George

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:11:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>> news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
>>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
>>>>> understanding how to interpret the Bible.
>>>>>
>>>> The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
>>>> gone.
>
>>> I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe
>>> that we interpret our environment.
>
>> You can't talk rationally when your words are based on
>> faith, which is by definition irrational.
>
> I'll ignore the intentional insult and knee-jerk attack on spirituality.
> Atheism is as irrational as theism. Only agnosticism is truly rational.
>
> Your problem is in the secular domain. You don't seem to understand that we
> interpret everything we perceive, or you're simply being obtuse.
>
>
From what I've seen of Don's posts I find it hard to believe
that any of his responses are knee-jerk. Just a guess but I
believe Don seems to be a general antiestablishmentarian, with
religion being but one of the [anachronistic] establishments.
....or I may be way out of line.


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[hank alrich]

George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> > news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
> >> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
> >>> understanding how to interpret the Bible.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
> >> gone.
> >
> > I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe that we interpret
> > our environment.
>
> arnii you can't talk rationally at all
> you have serious issues that you have added Hank and Ty to your enemies list
> I'd hate to be you on that dreadful day
> george
> >
> >

George,

I deleted AAPL-S from my list of subscribed newsgroups because Arny,
Phildo, and _you_ couldn't drop the bull****.

So, if you feel the need to keep this crap up, please restrain it to
AAPL-S. I have doubts at this point if any of you can restrain yourself,
period, but I can always hope.

Please don't help **** up RAP the way you have "contributed" to the
demise of AAPL-S.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> George's Pro Sound Co. > wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> > news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
>> >> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
>> >>> understanding how to interpret the Bible.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
>> >> gone.
>> >
>> > I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe that we
>> > interpret
>> > our environment.
>>
>> arnii you can't talk rationally at all
>> you have serious issues that you have added Hank and Ty to your enemies
>> list
>> I'd hate to be you on that dreadful day
>> george
>> >
>> >
>
> George,
>
> I deleted AAPL-S from my list of subscribed newsgroups because Arny,
> Phildo, and _you_ couldn't drop the bull****.
>
> So, if you feel the need to keep this crap up, please restrain it to
> AAPL-S. I have doubts at this point if any of you can restrain yourself,
> period, but I can always hope.
>
> Please don't help **** up RAP the way you have "contributed" to the
> demise of AAPL-S.
>
> --
> ha
> shut up and play your guitar

hank
I am working hard to not post here
I have passed on a couple of dozen posts
and am not going to dog arnii here
though I may not be 100% silent
george

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

> I deleted AAPL-S from my list of subscribed newsgroups because Arny,
> Phildo, and _you_ couldn't drop the bull****.

As did I.

> So, if you feel the need to keep this crap up, please restrain it to
> AAPL-S. I have doubts at this point if any of you can restrain
> yourself, period, but I can always hope.

Seconded.

> Please don't help **** up RAP the way you have "contributed" to the
> demise of AAPL-S.

Seconded.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:55:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:11:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>> news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
>>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
>>>>> understanding how to interpret the Bible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
>>>> gone.
>
>>> I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe
>>> that we interpret our environment.
>
>> You can't talk rationally when your words are based on
>> faith, which is by definition irrational.
>
>I'll ignore the intentional insult and knee-jerk attack on spirituality.
>Atheism is as irrational as theism. Only agnosticism is truly rational.
>
>Your problem is in the secular domain. You don't seem to understand that we
>interpret everything we perceive, or you're simply being obtuse.
>

No insult intended - that was literal fact. Faith is a certainty based
on no evidence while rationality is a near-certainty based on as much
evidence as possible.

And you are mistaken about Atheism. This is how Atheism works. I can't
say whether there is a god or not, but with absolutely no evidence for
one I cannot simply invent one to believe in.

There are two types of Atheist. Those who do not believe in a God, but
wish there were one, and those who do not, and are grateful that there
is no evidence for one. I am of the second persuasion, particularly
when it comes to the Judeo-Christian invention, which is cruel,
capricious, whimsical and egomaniacal (just read the first five
commandments for that one).

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
news:4aa0b4da.74375984@localhost
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:55:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:

>> Your problem is in the secular domain. You don't seem to
>> understand that we interpret everything we perceive, or
>> you're simply being obtuse.

> No insult intended - that was literal fact. Faith is a
> certainty based on no evidence while rationality is a
> near-certainty based on as much evidence as possible.

Well in an exclude-middle sort of way.

Nobody does anything based on pure rationality and nobody does anything
based on pure faith. That's because humans are incapable of either. We're
not pure but rather we are composites, shades of grey, and kinda-sorta.

> And you are mistaken about Atheism. This is how Atheism
> works. I can't say whether there is a god or not, but
> with absolutely no evidence for one I cannot simply
> invent one to believe in.

If you say that you can't say whether there is a god or not, then you are an
agnostic. A true atheist *knows* that there is no God.

From a typical dictionary:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


If you say that agnosticism does not lead to a belief in god, then that
makes sense. I think that is in fact what you said.

You could also say that you believe that there is a god, but you don't agree
that there is any purpose to worshiping him. That's just not being
worshipful.

I say that there is no scientific reason to believe in God. I believe in God
primarily due to my faith. I believe that it is good to worship God because
of my faith.


> There are two types of Atheist. Those who do not believe
> in a God, but wish there were one, and those who do not,
> and are grateful that there is no evidence for one.

All fine and good, but irrelevant to the discussion that remains unresolved.

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message


> George,
>
> I deleted AAPL-S from my list of subscribed newsgroups
> because Arny, Phildo, and _you_ couldn't drop the
> bull****.

That seems to me to be perfectly rational course of action.

If George and Phildo didn't crap all over my every post, I'd be very happy
to just post occasinally at AAPLS as I will.

As things stand, Geroge and Phildo spew far more against me than I ever
reply to of theirs.

If not me, then someone else. It's been that way at AAPLS for many, many
years.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:42:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>news:4aa0b4da.74375984@localhost
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:55:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>
>>> Your problem is in the secular domain. You don't seem to
>>> understand that we interpret everything we perceive, or
>>> you're simply being obtuse.
>
>> No insult intended - that was literal fact. Faith is a
>> certainty based on no evidence while rationality is a
>> near-certainty based on as much evidence as possible.
>
>Well in an exclude-middle sort of way.
>
>Nobody does anything based on pure rationality and nobody does anything
>based on pure faith. That's because humans are incapable of either. We're
>not pure but rather we are composites, shades of grey, and kinda-sorta.
>
>> And you are mistaken about Atheism. This is how Atheism
>> works. I can't say whether there is a god or not, but
>> with absolutely no evidence for one I cannot simply
>> invent one to believe in.
>
>If you say that you can't say whether there is a god or not, then you are an
>agnostic. A true atheist *knows* that there is no God.
>
>From a typical dictionary:
>
> 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
> 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
>
>
>If you say that agnosticism does not lead to a belief in god, then that
>makes sense. I think that is in fact what you said.
>

No, I am not an agnostic. I have reviewed the evidence - or rather the
lack of it - and decided that the balance of probabilities comes down
powerfully on the side of there being no god, so that is my position.

>You could also say that you believe that there is a god, but you don't agree
>that there is any purpose to worshiping him. That's just not being
>worshipful.
>

No, that is being Deist rather than Theist. It is perfectly possible
to hold a view that a god created the universe, but has not intervened
since - doesn't care what you do, who you sleep with etc. and doesn't
answer prayers. That is a Deist position.

>I say that there is no scientific reason to believe in God. I believe in God
>primarily due to my faith. I believe that it is good to worship God because
>of my faith.
>

Really?

>
>> There are two types of Atheist. Those who do not believe
>> in a God, but wish there were one, and those who do not,
>> and are grateful that there is no evidence for one.
>
>All fine and good, but irrelevant to the discussion that remains unresolved.
>
>

The discussion cannot be resolved for the very reason that prompted
this post. One side (that's me) is arguing from a position of
rationality. Were you arguing from that standpoint and simply mistaken
I could convince you by force of logic. You aren't doing that. You are
arguing from the irrational basis of faith, which is not susceptible
to a rational counter.

d

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:42:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> And you are mistaken about Atheism. This is how Atheism
>> works. I can't say whether there is a god or not, but
>> with absolutely no evidence for one I cannot simply
>> invent one to believe in.
>
>If you say that you can't say whether there is a god or not, then you are an
>agnostic. A true atheist *knows* that there is no God.

That's just a wriggle. When something is extremely unlikely and there
is no evidence it exists you don't need to invent an "-ism" in order
to not believe in it.

[Scott Dorsey]

TimR > wrote:
>On Sep 1, 9:41=A0am, Michael Dobony > wrote:
>> out. This is off-topic, but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
>> considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists wh=
>o
>> live on the road? I know of many evangelists who live out of RV's and I
>> have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to accommoda=
>te
>> these people. Just a thought to consider.
>
>Thanks for the thought. That won't be necessary for this particular
>location but I'll keep it in mind for the future.

You know, that's an interesting idea. And it would sure made life easier
for the recording truck too...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
news:4aa2ff31.93407453@localhost

> No, I am not an agnostic.

Ummm.

> I have reviewed the evidence -
> or rather the lack of it - and decided that the balance
> of probabilities comes down powerfully on the side of
> there being no god, so that is my position.

Hmm, so you based a logical decision in a situation where the evidence is
lacking, purely on the basis of reason?

I'm too much of a skeptic to buy that. It may be just me, but this is me
speaking, and that is what I think.

BTW much of my thinking, technical and otherwise is based on intuition.
Some would say that this is because I'm an ENTJ but then some very
well-experienced people who know me well say that I'm not really an ENTJ,
but rather I adopted the style of an ENTJ at some point in my life. My
response is yes, I probably did that to redefine myself around the age of 16
to resolve a situation caused by the mental illness of my mother.

Some would say, well you are also mentally ill because you are a Christian.
I say, well me and about a billion other people... ;-)

I think its good when Christians and non-Christians let it go and get on
with the areas where we have productive common interests.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> TimR > wrote:
>>On Sep 1, 9:41=A0am, Michael Dobony > wrote:
>>> out. This is off-topic, but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
>>> considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists
>>> wh=
>>o
>>> live on the road? I know of many evangelists who live out of RV's and I
>>> have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to
>>> accommoda=
>>te
>>> these people. Just a thought to consider.
>>
>>Thanks for the thought. That won't be necessary for this particular
>>location but I'll keep it in mind for the future.
>
> You know, that's an interesting idea. And it would sure made life easier
> for the recording truck too...

it is standard in a event rider that the venue has to provide "shore power"
for the RV's/tour busses seperate and at no charge from the stage/lights
distro
George

[Arny Krueger]

"TimR" > wrote in message


> On Sep 1, 9:41 am, Michael Dobony
> > wrote:

>> For some reason the OP's posts are not coming through my
>> server and the above address is not receiving mail. You
>> say the design is well thought out. This is off-topic,
>> but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
>> considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup
>> for evangelists who live on the road? I know of many
>> evangelists who live out of RV's and I have not been to
>> any churches that think ahead when building to
>> accommodate these people. Just a thought to consider.

What would you do to make a sophisticated venue more hospitable to traveling
road shows?

> Thanks for the thought. That won't be necessary for this
> particular location but I'll keep it in mind for the
> future.

I've hosted a number of these people and they generally layer their
technology on top of the bare, pre-technology venue. They use their own
lights, sound, and video. In many places this is the way to go, but it
obviously runs out of gas in large, sophisticated venues.

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
> TimR wrote:
>>Michael Dobony wrote:
>>> out. This is off-topic, but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
>>> considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists
>>> wh=
>>o
>>> live on the road? I know of many evangelists who live out of RV's and I
>>> have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to
>>> accommoda=
>>te
>>> these people. Just a thought to consider.
>>
>>Thanks for the thought. That won't be necessary for this particular
>>location but I'll keep it in mind for the future.
>
> You know, that's an interesting idea. And it would sure made life easier
> for the recording truck too...

A mega-church here in PDX has rather nice docking facilities
for itenerant video production trucks (5-6 triax runs to all the
typical camera locations), and nice 5-pole cam-lock power
panels good for several hundred amps, etc. But limited audio
connections (half a dozen lines, mostly tie-lines to the FOH
system).

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

George Gleason writes:
>>> considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists
>>> who live on the road? I know of many evangelists who
>>>live out of RV's and I
>>> have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to
>>> accommodate
>>> these people.

>> You know, that's an interesting idea. And it would sure made life easier
>> for the recording truck too...

YEp, and sooner or later there will be one probably. Wish
more places had rv hookup.

> it is standard in a event rider that the venue has to provide
> "shore power" for the RV's/tour busses seperate and at no charge
> from the stage/lights distro
OF course, but a lot don't think about it. Much easier if
it's already thought of, though.


Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:35:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>news:4aa2ff31.93407453@localhost
>
>> No, I am not an agnostic.
>
>Ummm.
>
>> I have reviewed the evidence -
>> or rather the lack of it - and decided that the balance
>> of probabilities comes down powerfully on the side of
>> there being no god, so that is my position.
>
>Hmm, so you based a logical decision in a situation where the evidence is
>lacking, purely on the basis of reason?
>
>I'm too much of a skeptic to buy that. It may be just me, but this is me
>speaking, and that is what I think.
>
>BTW much of my thinking, technical and otherwise is based on intuition.
>Some would say that this is because I'm an ENTJ but then some very
>well-experienced people who know me well say that I'm not really an ENTJ,
>but rather I adopted the style of an ENTJ at some point in my life. My
>response is yes, I probably did that to redefine myself around the age of 16
>to resolve a situation caused by the mental illness of my mother.
>
The J bit is notably absent in the matter of religion. When you simply
accept something as being right, you are denying yourself judgment.
That is not healthy.

>Some would say, well you are also mentally ill because you are a Christian.
>I say, well me and about a billion other people... ;-)
>

I really wouldn't push that argument too far if I were you...

>I think its good when Christians and non-Christians let it go and get on
>with the areas where we have productive common interests.
>

In this case I am quite content to say that absence of evidence can be
taken as evidence of absence, certainly for a theist god although
maybe not a deist one. I have read the bible and have never seen a
word that could not have been imagined and written by a bronze age
Palestinian. If it were the word of god rather than man there would
have been at least something extraordinary in there that could not
have been known. As it is every scientific "fact" presented is simply
wrong.

As to your belief - you hold it because you are an American. Had you
been born in India you would have been a fervent Hindu, just as
convinced you are right. Had you been born in Libya you would have
been a Muslim. And so it goes for many thousands of religions. H. L.
Mencken drew up a list of Gods; I think he gave up the search
somewhere over 10,000. So here's a little problem for you. You are an
Atheist to every one of those gods - why is that? There is no evidence
that the one you have picked is any more correct than Thor or Zeus.
What are you going to do when you die? Perhaps you had better accept
Pascal's Wager with respect to every god on that list - and as many
others you can think of. Still with no certainty that you have the
right one of course.

As to letting it go, well up to a few years ago I was content to do
just that, but no more. 9/11 was a huge wakeup call to the world that
the Parties of God were on the rampage. Add to that nihilistic
Christians who can't wait for the Rapture and Fundamental Zionist Jews
who believe that if they can just steal all of Palestine for
themselves, they will prove worthy of the second coming and
Armageddon. And of course the situation is imminent where some of
these whackos will find themselves armed with nuclear and biological
weapons. So it is my belief that the next huge conflict will be
between religion and civilization - I intend that civilization will
win, and I do what I can, where I can, to make that happen. And of
course when the time comes, you will have to stand up and be counted.
Will you be on humanity's side?

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:35:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>news:4aa2ff31.93407453@localhost
>>
>>> No, I am not an agnostic.
>>
>>Ummm.
>>
>>> I have reviewed the evidence -
>>> or rather the lack of it - and decided that the balance
>>> of probabilities comes down powerfully on the side of
>>> there being no god, so that is my position.
>>
>>Hmm, so you based a logical decision in a situation where the evidence is
>>lacking, purely on the basis of reason?
>>
>>I'm too much of a skeptic to buy that. It may be just me, but this is me
>>speaking, and that is what I think.
>>
>>BTW much of my thinking, technical and otherwise is based on intuition.
>>Some would say that this is because I'm an ENTJ but then some very
>>well-experienced people who know me well say that I'm not really an ENTJ,
>>but rather I adopted the style of an ENTJ at some point in my life. My
>>response is yes, I probably did that to redefine myself around the age of
>>16
>>to resolve a situation caused by the mental illness of my mother.
>>
> The J bit is notably absent in the matter of religion. When you simply
> accept something as being right, you are denying yourself judgment.
> That is not healthy.
>
>>Some would say, well you are also mentally ill because you are a
>>Christian.
>>I say, well me and about a billion other people... ;-)
>>
>
> I really wouldn't push that argument too far if I were you...
>
>>I think its good when Christians and non-Christians let it go and get on
>>with the areas where we have productive common interests.
>>
>
> In this case I am quite content to say that absence of evidence can be
> taken as evidence of absence, certainly for a theist god although
> maybe not a deist one. I have read the bible and have never seen a
> word that could not have been imagined and written by a bronze age
> Palestinian. If it were the word of god rather than man there would
> have been at least something extraordinary in there that could not
> have been known. As it is every scientific "fact" presented is simply
> wrong.
>
> As to your belief - you hold it because you are an American. Had you
> been born in India you would have been a fervent Hindu, just as
> convinced you are right. Had you been born in Libya you would have
> been a Muslim. And so it goes for many thousands of religions. H. L.
> Mencken drew up a list of Gods; I think he gave up the search
> somewhere over 10,000. So here's a little problem for you. You are an
> Atheist to every one of those gods - why is that? There is no evidence
> that the one you have picked is any more correct than Thor or Zeus.
> What are you going to do when you die? Perhaps you had better accept
> Pascal's Wager with respect to every god on that list - and as many
> others you can think of. Still with no certainty that you have the
> right one of course.
>
> As to letting it go, well up to a few years ago I was content to do
> just that, but no more. 9/11 was a huge wakeup call to the world that
> the Parties of God were on the rampage. Add to that nihilistic
> Christians who can't wait for the Rapture and Fundamental Zionist Jews
> who believe that if they can just steal all of Palestine for
> themselves, they will prove worthy of the second coming and
> Armageddon. And of course the situation is imminent where some of
> these whackos will find themselves armed with nuclear and biological
> weapons. So it is my belief that the next huge conflict will be
> between religion and civilization - I intend that civilization will
> win, and I do what I can, where I can, to make that happen. And of
> course when the time comes, you will have to stand up and be counted.
> Will you be on humanity's side?
>
> d
> --
> Pearce Consulting
> http://www.pearce.uk.com

Every "great" nation and military action claims to have "god on thier side"
so god protects us while we slaughter Muslims, and God protects Muslims as
they slaughter us,why so much slaughtering?

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 05:20:46 -0400, "George's Pro Sound Co."
> wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:35:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>>>news:4aa2ff31.93407453@localhost
>>>
>>>> No, I am not an agnostic.
>>>
>>>Ummm.
>>>
>>>> I have reviewed the evidence -
>>>> or rather the lack of it - and decided that the balance
>>>> of probabilities comes down powerfully on the side of
>>>> there being no god, so that is my position.
>>>
>>>Hmm, so you based a logical decision in a situation where the evidence is
>>>lacking, purely on the basis of reason?
>>>
>>>I'm too much of a skeptic to buy that. It may be just me, but this is me
>>>speaking, and that is what I think.
>>>
>>>BTW much of my thinking, technical and otherwise is based on intuition.
>>>Some would say that this is because I'm an ENTJ but then some very
>>>well-experienced people who know me well say that I'm not really an ENTJ,
>>>but rather I adopted the style of an ENTJ at some point in my life. My
>>>response is yes, I probably did that to redefine myself around the age of
>>>16
>>>to resolve a situation caused by the mental illness of my mother.
>>>
>> The J bit is notably absent in the matter of religion. When you simply
>> accept something as being right, you are denying yourself judgment.
>> That is not healthy.
>>
>>>Some would say, well you are also mentally ill because you are a
>>>Christian.
>>>I say, well me and about a billion other people... ;-)
>>>
>>
>> I really wouldn't push that argument too far if I were you...
>>
>>>I think its good when Christians and non-Christians let it go and get on
>>>with the areas where we have productive common interests.
>>>
>>
>> In this case I am quite content to say that absence of evidence can be
>> taken as evidence of absence, certainly for a theist god although
>> maybe not a deist one. I have read the bible and have never seen a
>> word that could not have been imagined and written by a bronze age
>> Palestinian. If it were the word of god rather than man there would
>> have been at least something extraordinary in there that could not
>> have been known. As it is every scientific "fact" presented is simply
>> wrong.
>>
>> As to your belief - you hold it because you are an American. Had you
>> been born in India you would have been a fervent Hindu, just as
>> convinced you are right. Had you been born in Libya you would have
>> been a Muslim. And so it goes for many thousands of religions. H. L.
>> Mencken drew up a list of Gods; I think he gave up the search
>> somewhere over 10,000. So here's a little problem for you. You are an
>> Atheist to every one of those gods - why is that? There is no evidence
>> that the one you have picked is any more correct than Thor or Zeus.
>> What are you going to do when you die? Perhaps you had better accept
>> Pascal's Wager with respect to every god on that list - and as many
>> others you can think of. Still with no certainty that you have the
>> right one of course.
>>
>> As to letting it go, well up to a few years ago I was content to do
>> just that, but no more. 9/11 was a huge wakeup call to the world that
>> the Parties of God were on the rampage. Add to that nihilistic
>> Christians who can't wait for the Rapture and Fundamental Zionist Jews
>> who believe that if they can just steal all of Palestine for
>> themselves, they will prove worthy of the second coming and
>> Armageddon. And of course the situation is imminent where some of
>> these whackos will find themselves armed with nuclear and biological
>> weapons. So it is my belief that the next huge conflict will be
>> between religion and civilization - I intend that civilization will
>> win, and I do what I can, where I can, to make that happen. And of
>> course when the time comes, you will have to stand up and be counted.
>> Will you be on humanity's side?
>>
>> d
>> --
>> Pearce Consulting
>> http://www.pearce.uk.com
>
>Every "great" nation and military action claims to have "god on thier side"
>so god protects us while we slaughter Muslims, and God protects Muslims as
>they slaughter us,why so much slaughtering?
>

God really likes slaughtering. He says so in the Bible. It's a kind of
hobby for him, I guess.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

> God ...

Don, I'd rather not get used to skipping your posts.

> d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:24:12 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> God ...
>
>Don, I'd rather not get used to skipping your posts.
>
>> d
>

Don't worry, I'm bored with it all now. No more posts on the subject.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:35:46 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
>> news:4aa2ff31.93407453@localhost
>>
>>> No, I am not an agnostic.
>>
>> Ummm.
>>
>>> I have reviewed the evidence -
>>> or rather the lack of it - and decided that the balance
>>> of probabilities comes down powerfully on the side of
>>> there being no god, so that is my position.
>>
>> Hmm, so you based a logical decision in a situation
>> where the evidence is lacking, purely on the basis of
>> reason?
>>
>> I'm too much of a skeptic to buy that. It may be just
>> me, but this is me speaking, and that is what I think.
>>
>> BTW much of my thinking, technical and otherwise is
>> based on intuition. Some would say that this is because
>> I'm an ENTJ but then some very well-experienced people
>> who know me well say that I'm not really an ENTJ, but
>> rather I adopted the style of an ENTJ at some point in
>> my life. My response is yes, I probably did that to
>> redefine myself around the age of 16 to resolve a
>> situation caused by the mental illness of my mother.
>>
> The J bit is notably absent in the matter of religion.

In your opinion. You don't know what I believe, how I beleive or why I
believe it.

> When you simply accept something as being right,

Nothing simple about it.

> you are denying yourself judgment. That is not healthy.

rejecting the faith of over a billion people to quote "out of hand" is not
exactly healthy either.

If someone says "I really looked at it", and their talk and walk supports
that, then it is what it is, However, "out of hand" is truely a no-brainer
and in the bad sense of that phase.


>> Some would say, well you are also mentally ill because
>> you are a Christian. I say, well me and about a billion
>> other people... ;-)

> I really wouldn't push that argument too far if I were
> you...

Yes another dismissal, and with a parting insult.

>> I think its good when Christians and non-Christians let
>> it go and get on with the areas where we have productive
>> common interests.

> In this case I am quite content to say that absence of
> evidence can be taken as evidence of absence, certainly
> for a theist god although maybe not a deist one.

Your make the mistake of demaning absolute evidence for God while accepting
a great many other things on faith.

> I have read the bible and have never seen a word that could not
> have been imagined and written by a bronze age
> Palestinian.

That's pretty sad given that much of the Bible was written by folks who were
clearly in the iron age, going back at least as far as David.

> If it were the word of god rather than man
> there would have been at least something extraordinary in
> there that could not have been known. As it is every
> scientific "fact" presented is simply wrong.

That's wrong. There is a great deal of scientific confirmation for much of
what the Bible says. But what to say to someone who does know know that
David had iron armor, but rather thinks it was all bronze or worse?

> As to your belief - you hold it because you are an
> American.

No, I hold it because of who I grew up with and the things that I have
experienced. There are tens of millions of Americans who don't believe in
God and I could easily be one of them. Many of schoolmates were.

> Had you been born in India you would have been
> a fervent Hindu,

Plenty of atheists and Christians there. 24 million Christians in India
according to Wikipedia.

> just as convinced you are right.

But, I'm not all that convinced I am right. You are obviously far more
convinced that you are right than I.

[Arny Krueger]

"George's Pro Sound Co." > wrote in message
m

> Every "great" nation and military action claims to have
> "god on thier side" so god protects us while we slaughter
> Muslims, and God protects Muslims as they slaughter
> us,why so much slaughtering?

George, everybody who sees your incessant hate-mongering on AAPLS should
understand why people slaughter each other. :-(

[DIANE KIRK]

I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
was VERY instructive.

I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
for.

My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
that if it weren't.

Unfortunately there is no sound system design beyond "include a sound
system." Why that was missed I don't know, when every detail of
foundation, plumbing, electrical, etc., was included, but it was, and
I have to deal with it.

And while I'm a musician I'm not knowledgable about sound systems.
I'm sure you can't make me an expert, any more than I could teach HVAC
design in one post, but ....... are there any suggestions?

I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are even layout
drawings available online, though I'm kind of going to give up
plausible deniability once I post that link.





Lighting, Sound and Ventilation Solutions for the House of Worship: An Exploration of Creative Design Alternatives