A Verdict That Demands Evidence

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Aaron, Apr 4, 2002.

  1. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    In another thread that has gone way too long, Ransom asked me to "prove" that rock music is evil.

    I asked him what he accepted as proof.

    He said:
    Therefore I have begun a new thread.

    [ April 04, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
  2. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Okay, Ransom accepts reasoning from the Scriptures as evidence.

    One other thing, Ransom, what is music to you?

    [ April 04, 2002, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
  3. Mike McK

    Mike McK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sigh... :rolleyes:
     
  4. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    One other thing, Ransom, what is music to you?

    Are you going to cite chapter and verse, Aaron, or aren't you? Stop filibustering, and cough up.
     
  5. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Define the terms, Ransom, and then I will cite chapter and verse.

    What is music? Is it communication? Why or why not.

    [ April 04, 2002, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
  6. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aaron said:

    What is music? Is it communication? Why or why not.

    Aaron, I believe the choices I gave you were:

    </font>
    • put up</font>

    • </font>
    Stop lollygagging around and post your scriptural proof that "rock music is evil" as you claimed.

    [ April 05, 2002, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
  7. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    I apologize. I thought you wanted to discuss this issue in good faith. I've always tried to believe the best of people and give them the benefit of the doubt. It's a weakness of mine.

    Here I have given you the opportunity to define the terms of a debate and list what you personally would accept as evidence--not that the merits of any evidence depends on your acceptance of it. I did it in good faith, and I think dispassionate observers have to agree I have gone more than the extra mile with you.

    All the evidence I have posted stands on its own. Whether Ransom accepts it or not is of no consequence.

    [ April 04, 2002, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
  8. Mike McK

    Mike McK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    You've posted evidence?

    Where?

    Mike
     
  9. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    I was speaking of multiple past threads. Look them up if you're interested.
     
  10. Mike McK

    Mike McK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    So was I.

    In every thread I've seen, you've either been defeated or people drop out because they get dizzy from your circular reasoning.

    I guess I was just curious to know what you plan to say in this thread that's any more substantial than any of the others.

    You've come up with the perfect title for this thread, since you seem to be quick to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to music.

    Mike

    [ April 04, 2002, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]
     
  11. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aaron said:

    I apologize. I thought you wanted to discuss this issue in good faith.

    Shall we talk a little about good faith, Aaron?

    How many times have we gone over this particular question? In all that time, have you ever asked anyone to define "music" in order to render your arguments sensible? No, it is only now that I have defined explicitly what constitutes good evidence (either clear Scripture or a necessary inference drawn from it) that you demand definitions of me.

    I submit to you that your present demands for "definitions" are not asked in good faith, but are in fact a stalling tactic.

    Here I have given you the opportunity to define the terms of a debate and list what you personally would accept as evidence--

    The terms of the debate are as follows:

    </font>
    • You have claimed that "rock music is evil."</font>
    • I have asked you to substantiate this claim.
      </font>
    The acceptable evidence is as follows:
    </font>
    • direct Scriptural evidence supporting the claim that "rock music is evil"; or</font>
    • reasoning from Scripture that supports this claim by good and necessary consequence.
      </font>
    Go to it.
     
  12. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    This should be good. Let's get it on... :D

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  13. Mike McK

    Mike McK
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2001
    Messages:
    6,630
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL...

    JB, you're either starved for entertainment or you don't spend much time in the music forums.

    Mike :cool:

    http://www.randystonehill.com

    [ April 04, 2002, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]
     
  14. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Admittedly,

    I don't spend much time here as I usually find it a waste of time...just not usually interested in the topics. But yes, I am kinda starved for entertainment. So let the blood-letting begin. None of this "Blessed are the peacemaker" junk. Take off the gloves and let's see you guys throw down over music being evil....YEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAW! :D

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  15. Carly33

    Carly33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2002
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 14:19' Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another."

    14:21" It is good neither to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor ANYTHING whereby thy brother STUMBLETH, or is OFFENDED, or is made WEAK."
     
  16. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Ransom,

    I have no need to stall, but what has become clear in our exchanges is that we are talking about different things. Either that or you simply change the definitions of the terms mid-debate to fit your arguments.

    For instance. The term "sensual." You define it as something that is simply discernible by the five senses. I have repeatedly defined it as something that appeals to our lower, natural apetites. That is the definition of the term as it is used in James 3:15 and Jude 1:19 where sensuality is presented as evil and devilish with no apologies.

    In every challenge you have presented I have answered, and every time I have answered you come up with some trifling reason why it doesn't exactly fit your frame of mind.

    And again, the term "terms." You have taken it to mean rules. I mean words.

    I did not offer you the opportunity to define the rules of the game. Now if I "go to it" as you say assuming that you are using the same definitions of the terms (words) that I am when you're really not, what good will it be?

    Now, you have told me what you will accept as proof, though your acceptance of evidence says nothing of the merits of the evidence itself. In good faith I offered to give you what you would accept as evidence. Now by proof, do you mean "evidence?" Or will you, as you have done in the past, switch on this definition?

    But lest I be accused again of simply stalling, I will define the terms (words).

    Sensual: as defined above.

    Music: A pleasing arrangement of sounds with the purpose of evoking specific emotional responses from the listener. The communication of moods, and emotions with sounds.

    Response forthcoming.

    For the sake of this debate, are there any objections to my asking that all other than Ransom or myself post in this thread?

    [ April 05, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
  17. Daniel

    Daniel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2001
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aaron---please check your personal e-mail in regard to your last sentence in the above post. It is urgent that you do so....
     
  18. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Daniel,

    You crack me up, brother.

    There is a precedent on the BB for having exclusive threads. Joseph Botwinick himself requested exclusive right to post a study on the Book of Malachi in one of the forums on the old BB, and Dr. Bob obliged. I wasn't trying to be a hard case about anything, but I can't carry on a debate with fifteen people at the same time, and if everyone wants to put in his two cents it makes the thread dis-jointed and unreadable.

    That was the reason for my request.

    As a token of my good faith, I'm leaving your post, since it was on a point of order, and I amended my request in the post above.

    Please, everyone, e-mail me or start a new topic with your objections or approvals to allowing only Ransom or myself to post from here on out in this thread. To keep this thread from degenerating into a meaningless hodge-podge of multiple topics I'm afraid I'll have to delete any future discussion on my moderating decisions that might appear in this thread.

    [ April 05, 2002, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
  19. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Communication is either good or evil. Evil communication will corrupt good character. The converse is also true, good communication will strengthen good manners. And no one is exempted from this principle. Not even Ransom. Evil communication will corrupt Ransom's good manners. Now that's not Aaron saying that. That's St. Paul.

    Music is intended to communicate. St. Paul as an ILLUSTRATION for the gift of tongues appeals to the common knowledge that music is intended to communicate something. Now pipes and harps are designed for the playing of not simply one note at a time, but for a melody supported by chords or harmony. So, please, don't offer the lame rebuttal that this could mean the same thing as the door bell or the buzzer in one's car!

    But here is the Scriptural evidence of something that everyone really knows, but only lately has been denied by CCM adherents, music is communication. It communicates moods and evokes specific emotions from the listener. (John Williams wanted us to feel tense during the TIE fighter attacks in Star Wars. So the background music had a lot of tension in it. It was not smooth or melodious at all.)

    Now, it has already been established that there is such a thing as evil communication (Though Paul did not supply here a criteria by which to discern "evil communication." He just says to stay away from it. And no, he's is not leaving the definition up to us.) It has also been established that music is communication. It therefore follows that there is such a thing as evil music.

    Psalms and hymns need no qualification. They define a style which is spiritual already. But any styles used that are not necessarily Psalms or hymns must be spiritual in character, and Paul wasn't just talking about the words. By definition a song has a musical accompaniament, so not only the words, but the style, had to be "spiritual."

    Ephesians 5:19 already shows us that Paul was focusing more on the melody, or the music in these verses.

    OK, so now it has been established that there is spiritual and carnal music.

    Sensuality is not always characerized by sexual impurity, though sexual impurity is sensual. Sensuality is merely being unspiritual, "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit," Jude 1:19. Sensuality by definition is that which is natural to fallen man. The propensity to act based upon his feelings and desires, and not according to the Word of God, Jude 1:18. It could be a strong desire for anything earthly, James 3:15. This could be food, houses, cars, position, status, occupation, entertainment, music, friends, etc." James goes on to call this kind of thinking "devilish."

    Sensual music then is along those lines. It is music which speaks to the body and its apetites. God didn't use the term "Rock," He used the term "sensual."

    The next post will describe how rock music is sensual in nature.

    Again, for the sake of fluidity, I would ask that all but Ransom and myself abstain from replying in this thread to the arguments.

    [ April 05, 2002, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
     
  20. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aaron cited:

    This is the verse that Aaron seems to quote most often to support his contention that "rock music is evil." The structure of his argument is essentially this:

    Premise 1. Some communication is evil.
    Premise 2. Music is communication.
    Conclusion. Some music is evil.

    Unfortunately for Aaron, he has already lost the argument from the beginning. Although he has not explicitly defined the term, it is evident from the context that by "communication" he means, as Webster's says:

    I wonder whether he bothered to check on the meaning of the word "communication" as it is used in the KJV? The Greek word so translated is homilia (Strongs #3657). It means "companionship, intercourse, communion." In the NASB, the same verse is translated: "Do not be deceived: 'Bad company corrupts good morals'" (emphasis mine).

    In fact, the definition of "communication" immediately following the two already cited from Webster's is: "Association; company." It gives an example of usage. What is it? 1 Cor. 15:33.

    So far, Aaron's argument fails on two points.
    </font>
    1. He has committed the fallacy of equivocation by using the wrong definition of "communication."</font>
    2. He has committed the fallacy of anachronism by reading a contemporary definition of the word "communication" into 1 Cor. 15:33 when an archaic definition was intended.
      </font>
    I demanded Scriptural reasoning that "rock music was evil." Aaron has misapplied his first and primary proof text. This is not encouraging.

    [ April 05, 2002, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
     

Share This Page

Loading...