John Lennon's "Imagine" - Eden/Atlantis/Paradise/On Earth as in Heaven

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WarminIndy

So Lennon's own words on the matter are irrelevant then? I think it's a hit of a stretch to insist he left the lyrical interpretation up to the listener when he explains the subject matter himself leaving no doubt his intention.

Lennon said a lot of things, some while he was on drugs.

When people are on a psychedelic substance they can say anything.

This is an ignorant way to dismiss someone's opinion and shows a lack of knowledge of psychedelics. Though regardless, I could make similar arguments about alcohol, but that's fine because alcohol is actually legal.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

WHY did it have a profound effect?

Because of the message it has. And no...not the anti-Christian one you're reading into it.

Says whom? The ashram he was in certainly was religious. The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was certainly religious.

I think there are some who would argue that the Maharishi was a fraud and not particularly religious when it came down to it. John was among those people.

When? You mean at the ashram? You mean while practicing Transcendental Meditation?

He was there for 6 weeks and didn't even finish the program they were studying.

Yes, it does. THAT was his worldview.

Then exactly WHAT was his world view?

That is as deep as John went with a denouncement of “religion” being false in this song.

While practicing Transcendtal Meditation?

He was in India barely a month and a half. It's not like he gave up years of his life to devote to studying and practicing TM or kept up with it after leaving India.

Either he was just a strung out rock musician who had no meaning into his lyrics, just rambling on about nothing, or he was inserting his own worldview into his lyrics.

It depends on the song. There isn't a specific formula in play here. Nor is there a prerequisite that each song have deep meaning behind it. Some do, others are, in John's own words, gobbledygook. Words strung together to make a songs lyric flow sonically. This is an approach used by many artists. And the implication was NOT that the songs and lyrics have no meaning. The implication was that other people deciding how to interpret the lyrics with some sort of subversive message is complete and utter B.S. John was very straight forward and to the point about what the songs were about and spoke on several occasions about Imagine and the meaning behind it. The answer was always the same. To ignore what the song writer says his song is about is a fine example of intellectual dishonesty and it only becomes further compounded when you go off on a tirade about inserting world views into lyrics and how all songs have meaning yadda yadda yadda... Yes, Imagine has a specific meaning. John very clearly says what it means. You then ignore it and decide for yourself that it means something completely different while insisting that his songs are all open to interpretation, contradicting your rant on how all songs have meaning and ignoring the songwriters own explanation while dismissing John's own words with a wave of the hand and a tab of acid.

please, you know very well that every writer, musician, creator of some artistic model inserts their worldviews into what they make.

That's certainly true that an individuals art is often times a reflection of how they view society and the world around them. That doesn't mean though that every single piece of work is layered in subtext and filled with hidden meaning. Or any type of significance at all for that matter. I don't believe that to be the case with Imagine. I just strongly disagree with your position that its an anti-Christian diatribe.

BTW, the home he lived in when he was in Manhattan, was the SAME HOUSE as Roman Polanski filmed Rosemary's Baby.

And...? I'm not seeing how the film ties in with John's supposed religious views that you see within the lyrics to Imagine. Could you elaborate? Or are you attempting to tie it in with the Beatles stay in India as Mia Farrow was at the Ashram as well? her accusations of sexual misconduct against the Maharishi certainly played in to John's decision to leave when he did. It was only one of several reasons but when a religious figure is claiming to be celibate and then tries to bed down every woman that floats through the Ashram one has to winder what else is complete crap in the perfect picture that just isn't so.

And his quote about the hippies

The people who are in control and in power, and the class system and the whole bull# bourgeois scene is exactly the same except that there are a lot of middle-class kids with long hair walking around in trendy clothes… The same bastards are in control, the same people are running everything.7

Excuse me, but HE was a long haired wealthy hippie who wore trendy clothing. THEN, like a politician, offers an apology

You're conflating two separate quotes and instances. The "more popular than Jesus" thing was from early in their career. Being a long haired hippie was later in his career. And he wasn't just a trendy douche as you attempt to portray him. He put both his money and his time where his mouth was. He physically spent time aiding charities, gave away a lot of money and spoke up and raised awareness for many, many causes. You appear to have a great deal of contempt for John. Why is that?

"I suppose if I had said television was more popular than Jesus, I would have gotten away with it. I'm sorry I opened my mouth. I'm not anti-God, anti-Christ, or anti-religion. I wasn't knocking it or putting it down. I was just saying it as a fact and it's true more for England than here. I'm not saying that we're better or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person or God as a thing or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong. Or it was taken wrong. And now it's all this."

THEN he says THIS

"People always got the image I was an anti-Christ or antireligion. I'm not. I'm a most religious fellow. I was brought up a Christian and I only now understand some of the things that Christ was saying in those parables. Because people got hooked on the teacher and missed the message. All this bit about electing a President. We pick our own daddy out of a dog pound of daddies."

I think you've given importance to the wrong line. the following one, Because people got hooked on the teacher and missed the message. is more important to how he views things IMO

Tell us then, did he not write his own worldviews into his lyrics to Imagine? Did he not write it from his position of not understanding the parables?

The quote relating to his not understanding parables was from the early 60's. Imagine was written in '71 so no... not written from that position.

He said "I only now understand". All that before, that was just nonsensical ramblings? After he led an entire generation, he then offers the apology for doing so, because NOW he understands the parables.

I think you're reading a little too much into this again. No offense but I think that once you had it in your head that he was an anti-Christian crusader, the blinders went on and nothing was going to deviate you from that path and every single thing written about him would be viewed through these skewed lenses as objectivity went out the window.

If you think that there was zero meaning in songs, Grace Slick says that lyrics most definitely have meaning.

Grace Slick can not speak for every artist on every song. She only speaks for Grace Slick.

a reply to: peter vlar

And you speak for John Lennon, but Grace Slick can't, even though she was there in the 1960s and experienced the same things as the Beatles?

Perhaps it is her telling the truth about what happened makes you a little uneasy.

BTW, I was just saying it was coincidence that Lennon moved to the house, perhaps maybe it was synchronicity.

I have no contempt for John Lennon, the man is dead. What I do think is wrong is for people to vaunt his messages on the one hand and then dismiss his messages on the other. Why is that?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

And you speak for John Lennon, but Grace Slick can't, even though she was there in the 1960s and experienced the same things as the Beatles?

I'm not speaking for John Lennon. I'm simply repeating his words on what HE says Imagine is about. I'm not imparting my own meaning onto the song like you are. Grace Slick was speaking in generalities, not specifically to John Lennon so she's not speaking for him either. It just seems that you want so badly for him to be anti-Christian that nothing will get in the way of that belief. That's too bad because if you put aside your ire and contempt, you might see how much his message during the 70's often times has in common with the message attributed to Jesus. His own words should not be discounted in favor of something that fits in better with your own preconceived notions. That's not fair to the man or his legacy.

"I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong."

and one you posted earlier-

"Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

Perhaps it is her telling the truth about what happened makes you a little uneasy.

What is there for me to be uneasy about? The statement makes no sense.

BTW, I was just saying it was coincidence that Lennon moved to the house, perhaps maybe it was synchronicity.

Ok... It just seemed a little out of place in the middle of your anti-Lennon rant and couldn't see the context you were assigning to it.

I have no contempt for John Lennon, the man is dead.

Your rhetoric and tone when writing about him would seem to indicate otherwise but if you say no, then I believe you.

What I do think is wrong is for people to vaunt his messages on the one hand and then dismiss his messages on the other. Why is that?

I can't speak for anyone else, only myself. I don't recall boasting or bragging about some of his words while entirely dismissing others. I only recall explaining the meaning of 2 songs based on John's own words. That is hardly vaunting. The only messages I've been dismissive of were ones you are falsely attributing to him.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

And you speak for John Lennon, but Grace Slick can't, even though she was there in the 1960s and experienced the same things as the Beatles?

I'm not speaking for John Lennon. I'm simply repeating his words on what HE says Imagine is about. I'm not imparting my own meaning onto the song like you are. Grace Slick was speaking in generalities, not specifically to John Lennon so she's not speaking for him either. It just seems that you want so badly for him to be anti-Christian that nothing will get in the way of that belief. That's too bad because if you put aside your ire and contempt, you might see how much his message during the 70's often times has in common with the message attributed to Jesus. His own words should not be discounted in favor of something that fits in better with your own preconceived notions. That's not fair to the man or his legacy.

"I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong."

and one you posted earlier-

"Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

Perhaps it is her telling the truth about what happened makes you a little uneasy.

What is there for me to be uneasy about? The statement makes no sense.

BTW, I was just saying it was coincidence that Lennon moved to the house, perhaps maybe it was synchronicity.

Ok... It just seemed a little out of place in the middle of your anti-Lennon rant and couldn't see the context you were assigning to it.

I have no contempt for John Lennon, the man is dead.

Your rhetoric and tone when writing about him would seem to indicate otherwise but if you say no, then I believe you.

What I do think is wrong is for people to vaunt his messages on the one hand and then dismiss his messages on the other. Why is that?

I can't speak for anyone else, only myself. I don't recall boasting or bragging about some of his words while entirely dismissing others. I only recall explaining the meaning of 2 songs based on John's own words. That is hardly vaunting. The only messages I've been dismissive of were ones you are falsely attributing to him.

Well, see, now you did promote that he felt indifferent about religion, but you forgot this one



He obviously was a man most miserable and very conflicted within himself.

Had you used this song against my argument, then maybe you could have shown I was really anti-Lennon. I am not, I am against the idea that people used his lyrics for political and religious purposes and then deny there is anything political or religious in his music.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Well, see, now you did promote that he felt indifferent about religion,

He obviously was a man most miserable and very conflicted within himself.

Based on what? You're once again, injecting your own biases against the man into a debate based on no evidence.

I am against the idea that people used his lyrics for political and religious purposes and then deny there is anything political or religious in his music.

So you're against yourself then? This is getting confusing! Because that's exactly what you're doing by using your own interpretation of the lyrics and claiming that he purposely left them open to interpretation when he definitely did not. He was quite clear and specific about the 2 songs you referenced, Imagine and Come Together and then you further disrespect the man by dismissing his own words out of hand as just the slobbering of a drug addled fool who didn't know what he was saying despite the fact that the same question had come up repeatedly and the answer was always the same so he couldn't have been using psychedelics every day for years on end or he would've ended up like Syd Barret.
I don't know about any other posters, but I never claimed there weren't political or religious undertones to his lyrics. I only claimed that your personal claims of a specifically anti-Christian message was nonexistent and the result of your own interpretations and biases.

a reply to: peter vlar

Based on the fact that he cheated on his wife with Yoko, he took psychedelic drugs and tried to get clean but fell again into it. Also, based on the fact that he flip flopped on certain issues.

10 Unpleasant Facts About John Lennon

John Lennon Physically Abused His Wife

“I used to be cruel to my woman I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved…Man I was mean but I’m changing my scene and I’m doing the best that I can.” ~ John Lennon

John Lennon Playboy Interview

LENNON: When "Help!" came out in '65, I was actually crying out for help. Most people think it's just a fast rock-'n'-roll song. I didn't realize it at the time; I just wrote the song because I was commissioned to write it for the movie. But later, I knew I really was crying out for help. It was my fat Elvis period. You see the movie: He -- I -- is very fat, very insecure, and he's completely lost himself. And I am singing about when I was so much younger and all the rest, looking back at how easy it was. Now I may be very positive -- yes, yes -- but I also go through deep depressions where I would like to jump out the window, you know. It becomes easier to deal with as I get older; I don't know whether you learn control or, when you grow up, you calm down a little. Anyway, I was fat and depressed and I was crying out for help.

Was I wrong for saying he was a man most miserable and conflicted within himself?

a reply to: WarminIndy

I won’t be systematically answering you usual onslaught of meaningless rhetorical questions.I stated very clearly what I meant.I said when someone like the OP and you interprets with their own extrapolation of what John Lennon clearly wrote in the lyrics of Imagine what YOU wrote has ZERO meaning.

This is why I do not converse with you.When you attack individuals with libel and gossip and your own very limited and bigoted views , your opinions are of a person with no credibility.You have proven this fact over and over at ATS and I don't anticipate any change on your part soon.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

Based on the fact that he cheated on his wife with Yoko, he took psychedelic drugs and tried to get clean but fell again into it. Also, based on the fact that he flip flopped on certain issues.

10 Unpleasant Facts About John Lennon

John Lennon Physically Abused His Wife

“I used to be cruel to my woman I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved…Man I was mean but I’m changing my scene and I’m doing the best that I can.” ~ John Lennon

John Lennon Playboy Interview

LENNON: When "Help!" came out in '65, I was actually crying out for help. Most people think it's just a fast rock-'n'-roll song. I didn't realize it at the time; I just wrote the song because I was commissioned to write it for the movie. But later, I knew I really was crying out for help. It was my fat Elvis period. You see the movie: He -- I -- is very fat, very insecure, and he's completely lost himself. And I am singing about when I was so much younger and all the rest, looking back at how easy it was. Now I may be very positive -- yes, yes -- but I also go through deep depressions where I would like to jump out the window, you know. It becomes easier to deal with as I get older; I don't know whether you learn control or, when you grow up, you calm down a little. Anyway, I was fat and depressed and I was crying out for help.

Was I wrong for saying he was a man most miserable and conflicted within himself?

I think you're bending over backwards to find nothing but the negative in the man while ignoring the positive and understanding that at the crux of it all, he's not a god, not a pariah, he's just a man and as human as you or I and as a result is just as prone to make mistakes as anyone else. Some of the claims in your links are just ridiculous, others are blown so far out of proportion that they don't resemble the truth at all. It's not even worth dignifying with a response.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

Based on the fact that he cheated on his wife with Yoko, he took psychedelic drugs and tried to get clean but fell again into it. Also, based on the fact that he flip flopped on certain issues.

10 Unpleasant Facts About John Lennon

John Lennon Physically Abused His Wife

“I used to be cruel to my woman I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved…Man I was mean but I’m changing my scene and I’m doing the best that I can.” ~ John Lennon

John Lennon Playboy Interview

LENNON: When "Help!" came out in '65, I was actually crying out for help. Most people think it's just a fast rock-'n'-roll song. I didn't realize it at the time; I just wrote the song because I was commissioned to write it for the movie. But later, I knew I really was crying out for help. It was my fat Elvis period. You see the movie: He -- I -- is very fat, very insecure, and he's completely lost himself. And I am singing about when I was so much younger and all the rest, looking back at how easy it was. Now I may be very positive -- yes, yes -- but I also go through deep depressions where I would like to jump out the window, you know. It becomes easier to deal with as I get older; I don't know whether you learn control or, when you grow up, you calm down a little. Anyway, I was fat and depressed and I was crying out for help.

Was I wrong for saying he was a man most miserable and conflicted within himself?

I think you're bending over backwards to find nothing but the negative in the man while ignoring the positive and understanding that at the crux of it all, he's not a god, not a pariah, he's just a man and as human as you or I and as a result is just as prone to make mistakes as anyone else. Some of the claims in your links are just ridiculous, others are blown so far out of proportion that they don't resemble the truth at all. It's not even worth dignifying with a response.

Thank you for your patience ,reason and credibility in answering these ludicrous libel accusations of John Lennon.You are 100% correct .....they do not dignify a response.