Domino Effect not just in the Power Grid

Travelsong said:

Winning is a nice trick to have.

In fairness to you Eric, you put up a reasonable fight early on but this debate was over three or four posts ago.

Enjoyed watching this one, thanks Eric and Aaron.

 

This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. First of all, you have no intention of ever ending your nonstop onslaught of accusation. That is the whole point of your being here in the first place. So stop acting as though you are engaged in a debate when all you are really doing is stuffing a strawman and then acting as though you have final authority to decree what you will.

Oh, if only this were the argument. This is only the argument up until the point you get spanked silly in your futile efforts to prove it, at which time you simply ignore all of the common sense objections and continue to stuff that stupid little strawman argument of yours that no one believes in.

You speak of evidence? Where is your Scriptural support for this assertion that certain rhythms appeal to the carnal mind? You can dress your false legalistic doctrine up any way you like, but the truth will always strip it naked.

 

Oh, Travelsong, you're just saying that because you're a poor guy who's still smarting from the last whopping I gave you—for which I don't blame you, because I can understand how it can happen!

 

And this is just another way of saying what Plato said, in the way you're using it a certain rhythm "appeals" to the carnal mind, which of course would help encourage their sinful lives, and possibly cause a Christian to fall or at least slide. While it is true that "And since sensuality is certainly forbidden to Christians as hostile to the law of God, it is a sin to indulge carnal music", I admitted earlier on that there was a sensual style used by stripteasers, but it is a combination of things that creates that effect, particularly the vocals and other sounds that may mimick the act of sex. You're trying to say a beat has this effect all by itself, just because of its accent, thus trashing a wide range of music. This is basically they type of thing Plato suggested, and there is no scriptural support for it.

You showed absolutely no evidence from that superseding NT, so the reasons I supposedly dreamed up in my head are no less than yours. I based mine on well known conditions in the early church. You just take things people said centuries later, and read them into the NT as some misty principle.

Polycarp and perhaps Clement of Rome are the only such associates of the Apostles we have the writings of, and I don't remember you citing them. You start with Justin a good century later. You cannot use him that late in the game as an example of the entire New Testament church, and even an earlier writer, there were still differences in the Churches, and any of these people after John are not inspired.

This is when they set up their own new institution of the synagogue. In the Temple, they would have still followed the OT. Elsewhere, they used a regulative principle since they were outside scriptural guidance, shunned things just to be on "the safe side".

You have not shown this teaching from anything Paul said.

This argument falls because the whole basis of calling one style "carnal" is how it is used by some. You ignore the spiritual minds who use it in a godly way, and claim they are ALL acting carnally. This is a cyclical argument. But the Bible teaches, "to the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but even their mind and conscience are defiled". (Titus 1:15) Of course, there are things, such as the music that directly refers to or mimics sex that are universally impure, but elements like a beat, syncopation, harmonies, etc. it is all based on the spiritual condition of those using it. You ARE basically saying "because that beat is pleasurable, it is 'feeding the flesh', and therefore carnal".

No, I was disproving your assumtion that they could not possibly be using false philosophy.

You have not shown any evidence that Paul said the "exact" same thing regarding music, so you (and those earlier writers) are apparently reading [someone else's] philosophy into Paul, and then concluding that Plato simply happened to agree with some universal principle God "showed" him and then later reveled to Paul (even though he does not even lay it down in his epistles). Once again, this is cyclical. You keep accusing me of having no evidence to counter your view, but you cannot get off of the first base of finding scriptural evidence for your view. You want all of this "evidence", and deal so much with secular and postapostolic writing --what men say, and mix this with what the Bible says until you can no longer tell the two apart. (And in accusing me of "Darwinism", you are doing the same "cause and effect" you accuse me of).

Travelsong,

 

At last! Some evidence.

When Paul states that "all things are pure," or that "there is nothing unclean of itself:" it is, without fail, in regard to things; not actions. Music is an act just like speaking. It is interaction. Communication. It is not something that exists apart from a man's intents and purposes like meat or time. These things exist apart and quite independent of any man.

A man can't pick music up off the ground and use it like a stone to either pound a tent stake or brain his neighbor. The form of a stone exists apart from that man's intents and purposes and lends itself to almost any application. Not so music. It's form is the act of a man's will.

Now you prove this with the second half of your statement in which you negate the point of the first half.

Here you had to concede that to the pure not ALL things are pure.

Neither does a beat exist in and of itself. It is the product of an intelligent ordering of meter, stress, tempo, etc. Harmonies are the intelligent ordering of tones. There is nothing about music that does not require intelligence. It is therefore, not a thing. It is an act. It is a work. And it is either good or evil.

Now, you said:

Consider the following quotes:

"Rock is the total celebration of the physical"—Rock star Tedd Nugent. (Pop Goes the Gospel)

"Rock'n'roll is 99% sex."—John Oats. (Circus)

"In a sense all rock is revolutionary. By its very beat and sound it has always implicitly rejected restrainst and celebrated freedom and sexuality."—Time Magazine

"To deny rock music...was to deny sexuality. The big meat matches the great rhythms of the human body."—Frank Zappa. (Life)

"The music is a kind of sexual expression. The beat has genuine sexual implications."—Payne-Whitney Psychiatric Clinic. (The New York Times Magazine)

So you see, those who use it, and those who've studied it say that it is the beat that does this thing no matter how you dress it up.

Just like Huey Lewis sings:

You can't deny it. It's there. It's self-evident. Those who revel in their sensuality are not ashamed to admit it, and those who have their senses exercised to discern good and evil shun it.

The ONLY people who try to sanitize it are in the pro CCM camp.

 

Music is only comparable to speaking in the sense that it has the ability to express emotion. It cannot however give context to emotion or communicate explicit abstract meaning. The notion that music can express sinful intent or desires is as ludicrous as the notion that it can communicate righteous intent or desires.

Statues, buildings, cars, and guns are not things that exist apart from a man's intents and purposes like meat or time.

Here you have demonstrated entirely the point that it is man's will which is corrupt, not music or anything else. A statue of a calf is nothing more than a hunk of stone or metal in the image of a calf. It doesn't literally become a false god because I might decide to worship it, and it still remains a hunk of metal or stone if I simply use it for instructional purposes to show what a calf looks like. If I choose to worship a golden image of a calf, it is my will which is revealed as corrupt, and the sin resides in my own nature, not in the silly hunk of metal. I can use a gun for good, evil, or even a neutral hobby. The nature of the gun doesn't change because I might decide to murder someone, hunt game to feed my family, protect and defend loved ones, or simply practice a hobby.

Rain drops are percussive, boulders falling down the side of a mountain are percussive, beavers slapping their tails are percussive, shoes in the dryer are percussive.Birds and whales sing. There are a million examples of beats and music in nature and society that exist outside of or as an unitended by-product of human intent or will.

Your stated argument (which will innevitably change)is that there are rhythms which appeal to the carnal mind and are sinful in and of themselves.Here are a ton of common sense questions which you must avoid: Are these rhythms evil regardless of how they are produced? Is what you consider an evil drum beat still evil when a saved man is playing it? If so, what sin is he commiting, and how is the rhythm causing him to sin? You say that because it isn't naturally occuring, it is an act like communication, so what exactly is it communicating? Also, is the rhythm still evil if it happens to be unintentionally produced by heavy machinery or the slapping of a beaver tail or a deer stamping the ground?

This is where you can't help but bare your naked ignorance of rock n' roll. There are innumerable artists who use the medium of rock n' roll to express all kinds of sentiments which have nothing to do with sexuality.

Take Bob Dylan as an example. Almost the entire body of his work is dedicated to a quest for spiritual enlightenment and insights into the human condition. But you must necessarily avoid artists like these to support your strawman.

More ignorance. I don't consider myself pro CCM at all. In fact I don't think that most forms of rock n' roll are appropriate for worship. I have a strong preference for hymns.I don't try to sanitize the sinful music of people like Frank Zappa and others.So keep stuffing that strawman.

That about sums up your debate style. "I win! I win! Mad props to me for dropping knowledge like bombs!" It's the intellectual equivalent of a suburban white boy desperately trying to convince everyone he's from the mean streets. No, you can't legitimize yourself,it doesn't work that way. Truth comes from Scripture, and Scripture alone.

So back to the argument which as you stated is:

Please use Scripture to support your assertion that certain rhythms are evil or appeal to the carnal mind.Let's have it here.Use Scripture to legitimize your claims.

 

Dead wrong!!! There is no word "thing" in the Greek text. It is "all" (pas), which means "all', "any", "every", " the whole. It means all of life itself; there is no distinction between material "things" and action. In fact, actions and communications are "things", as they are nouns-- they aren't persons or places, so... (and persons and places are special types of "things" anyway)
Your quoting of rock musicians and songs illustrates just what I am saying. All that is is the music being impure to the impure, and that's what all the critics constantly citing this stuff as the ultimate proof of their case don't understand. Their hearts are impure, so they find the most pleasant beats they can find, and use them for impurity, and revel in it. Just like drugs they use. These substances are natural things God created "good" like everything else, but they misuse those too for pleasure. That doesn't mean that there could never be a good use for them (some medicinal drugs can become addictive or harmful if overdone, or taken at the wrong time).

But think about it again. Who is completely pure? We still have a sin nature, and sex is deeply ingrained in us, and is one of the areas hit hardest by the Fall (see my discussion of this on my new page on Relativism). So something like sexual moaning can never be "pure" to us listening to it on some record made by someone else. But in our marriage bed, it is pure (Heb.13:4). This does not address how much the other "intelligent" sounds criticized in music (such as the accents of the beats) are indelibly associated with sensuality. They are simply used for it sometimes, like anything else. But they can also be removed from that context, unlike passionate moaning.

 

Ever shot fish in a barrel? Not much of a challenge, but very entertaining. For that reason I'll respond to Travelsong.

Music does not have the ability to express anything. Music is the expression itself. It is the musician with the ability. Music is his expression.

OK, for the 1 X 10 e+nth time. Let's see if it will finally sink in. The argument is that some music is sensual and some is not.

But a man can walk away from any of those objects and they still are still statues, buildings, cars and guns. A man cannot walk away from music and leave it there where he found it. Music requires a listener, whether he be another man or the musician himself. It is communication. It is interaction. You cannot get away from that fact.

Music is a work. An action. It is the expression of a man's will. It is therefore either good or evil. It doesn't need a context, it provides it's own.

*blithering about idols now rendered moot, so we'll skip it*

The answer to this absolutely absurd out-of-the-blue non-sequitur is so painfully obvious that a child could answer it—even with one-half his brain tied behind his back. Just to make it fair. So, because I'm an old softie, I'll give you an opportunity to think about this and rephrase it. (Hint: you will actually have to read some of my posts.)

Avoid, why? I've answered them all before.

Assuming that you mean the choice of instrument, of course. They cannot occur accidentally. That's like saying trees in a forest might accidentally fall and build a log cabin.

Certainly.

Sensuality.

The rhythm is the expression of his sin.

His sensuality.

These rhythms don't occur unintentionally.

Well, I don't know whether you unable to comprehend written communication or simply unwilling. What did all those quotes refer to? The lyrics or the beat?

What?

A little louder please.

THE BEAT!

Then the lyrics are irrelevant. (Another tiresome but necessary repitition.) Words are irrelevent to the sensuality of the music.

I am not required to present a Scripture that states this rhythm is sensual or that one isn't. We can tell by its fruits. "Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?"

When my daughter was six years old and I said, "Clean your room," I had to be very specific about what I mean. Now, when she is thirteen and I say "Clean the garage," I expect her from the extensive experience of cleaning of her room to know by nature what to do to clean the garage, even though there were never tools, car batteries, tires or lawn mowers in her room.

This principle is stated straightforwardly in the Scriptures.

And so Christ, by laying down general principles expects us to rightly judge specific situations though He did not address them directly. Thorns do not bear grapes, neither thistles figs.

And when Paul enumerated the works of the flesh in Gal. 5:21 ended the list with the words, "And the such like." He did not give us an exhaustive list. He did not expect to have to specify everthing. He expected the Galatians, even as dangerously close to apostasy as they were, to make judgements about things.

Now a child needs a more direct form of instruction. He is not yet able to draw certain inferences, but no one despises him for it. But when it comes time that he should be able to, but either refuses or is unable, then that man is either shamful or retarded. Either way he is not qualified to manage his own affairs.

So this demand you make, instead of strengthening your position actually weakens it. God has said that I can say "this is like fornication or adultery or witchcraft," but you, like a child, demand a straighforward maxim because you are either unwilling or unable to draw the inference.

Perhaps it's best you stay quiet and let the big boys talk about this.

 

Eric, I'll respond later. I don't have a lot of time tonight.

 

t for the time being, I can jump on this:
"The rhythm is the expression of his sin". And the sin is sensuality. But how do we know he is being sensual? Because he's using this rhythm. See how cyclical this is? Continuing, How do we know this rhythm is sensual? Of course, it goes back to other people use it for sin. But all of this still does not prove it is sensual in itself, other than being impure to the impure. It is only based on a limited association, and someone saved who is using it is assumed to be sensual rather than it being pure to the pure (remember, it is not as specifically sexual as something like sensual moaning).

 

No, no, no, no, no.
All music is sensual.

 

An entire generation of people have learned true worship using music which you say is wrong. They on a daily basis sing praises to the King using songs which you say are sinful. Personally, I lift up my worship and praise to God through music which you say is wrong, and God, in return, brings me peace. I'll take those fruits anytime.

If this is the crux of your argument, then you have sorely failed.

 

I can play all sorts of things on my guitar. I can play slow and fast, I can finger and pick, I can play chords, I can play in a minor or major key in varying styles. I can do all of this without ever expressing anything. I can play sad without being sad, and I can play happy without being happy. Music expresses emotion, and it does not have to reflect the state of the one playing or listening to it.

The basis of this argument rests on your assertion that music is communication in the same way that speaking is. If this is so, then music is in fact communicating something is it not? So when will the obvious sink in? If you are separating the emotive power of music from this so called "sensuality", then what exactly are you talking about? I could say that some music is infterblat and some music isn't, and it would make the same amount of sense.

Music is still created by arranging sound which is just as much a part of God's creation as rocks which make buildings and metal which make statues.And like everything in God's creation, it all passes.

Again, it is only communication in the sense that it has the ability to express emotion. Beyong that, it is up to you to define this supposed "sensuality" music expresses. While you're at it, you have also stated that music it either good or evil, so if it is good, what is it expressing?

Again, I can play all sorts of things on a guitar, and all sorts of rhythms on the drum without them ever being a reflection of my emotional or spiritual state.

You can only hope that I would let you get away with that. The fact is that music is just as much a part of God's creation as buildings, cars, guns and anything else a man can make. Non of these things are sinful or "sensual" in themselves.

This response assumes I don't already see your argument as completely transparent. Try not to assume.

laff

Ok then, what is it exactly that makes these evil rhythms evil? What is this supposed "sensuality" that is being expressed?

Do you say this because the beat is evil in and of itself or because it is an expression of evil from the performer?

How can you tell, can you read the hearts of men?

How can you tell, can you read the hearts of men?

 

How can you tell? I assume you are making a distinction between emotion and this thing you call "sensuality" so what does it look like to communicate sensuality, or can you read the hearts of men?

You said, and I quote: "The form of a stone exists apart from that man's intents and purposes and lends itself to almost any application. Not so music. It's form is the act of a man's will."

So you very well know that what I mean when I give these example of rhythms, I mean to say that they exist apart from man's intentions, or as an unintended by product. In the case of nature producing percussive sound, it is apart from man's "intents or purposes", and in the case of machines in a factory, shoes in the dryer, or countless other examples, there is no intent to produce that percussive beat. Therefore the question which you though tyou could dodge remains. Are these beats that occur outside the "intents and purposes" of man either good or evil?

So you quote a bunch of debaucherous men who have used the medium of rock n' roll for debauchery. Is this conclusive of something? Do I need to engage you in a stupid quote battle to show that there are just as many people who view rock n' roll as a medium to encourage, uplift, enlighten or explore the human experience? If this is what you desire, I am more than up to the task, if not return to your Bible for truth, because you won't get it from sinners.

And this is where you utterly fail. Your approch is to look at all of the wickedness in music, relate examples of it, and then issue blanket condemnation to the entire genre.

Hebrews chapter 5 does not serve as a basis for determining whether or not music can be inherently evil or good.

Absolutely, but this does not serve as a basis for determing whether or not music can be inherently good or evil.

Incorrect, you have created an entire false doctrine premised on an axiom which is not even in Scripture. You are not saying that music is like fornication, adultery, or witchcraft. You are saying that music is like communication, and either expresses good or evil, that is where the argument lies, nowhere else. Why must you insist on constantly using diversionary tactics?

Are you a big boy Aaron? Let's examine your fruits. Have the years you've spent here yielded positive results of any kind? Have your countless accusations of sin served to convert one single person to your side? Or are you just upset because you can't force others into feeling the same hang ups about music that you do? Big boys don't need to troll message boards my friend.

 

click on the URL to get

ammunition for Bro Enda

 

Thanks Yod, interesting but not very surprising.

 

this quote is the best one

 

You are obviously confusing sensuality with sensation. When I use the term sensuality I am speaking not of those things which can be discerned with the five senses. I am speaking of those things that appeal to the "natural man," his animal apetites, his lusts.

You are right that the style of worship elicited by a kind of music is an eminent criterion by which to judge something, but in your statement you don't tell us how you know the worship is true.

This isn't the crux of my argument, however, as you well know. I merely trumped the irrational demand to present a verse that explicitly describes carnal rhythms before judgemnt can be passed on the subject. God expects us to think like adults and draw inferences.

Granted, it makes my job harder. Not because the inferences aren't there jumping up and down, shouting and waving their hands for attention, but because I have to describe the subject as if you are wearing blindfolds and earplugs.

So, tell me. How do you know that this generation has learned true worship? If this new worship is true, was the style of worship of the last generation false?

First, you must understand that sensuality encompasses more than sexuality. There is the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. When Jesus was tempted with the lust of the flesh, He was tempted to turn stones into bread, not babes. Though I agree that sexual surrogates are off limits, you can't limit criteria to just those things that are overtly sexual.

Second, you did not represent my reasoning at all. If my answers seemed circular it was only because they were straightforward responses to Travelsong's preposterous line of questioning. No where did he ask, "How do you know he is being sensual?" or "How do you know a certain rhythm is sensual?" until his verbose, trifling responses to my answers.

I have never said that music is like communication. Music is communication. And communication does not merely express good or evil; it is good or evil. This must be the bazillionth time I've said that.

For the quotes to be relevant, they must deal with the significance of the beat, not with what the artist thinks is his mission. So, knock yourself out. Let's hear a few of them. Michael Ventura certainly believes the Voodoo and the music that evolved from it is a medium to encourage, uplift, enlighten or explore the human experience, but then he believes that can only happen through sensuality. Remember, he rejects the Christian distincition between mind and body.

So, knock yourself out. Quote away O literate one, but if the quotes don't deal directly with the significance of the beat, it would indeed be a stupid response.

Well, let's see. I think I've answered this a bazillion times, too. So I'll simply summarize here. What makes the beat sensual is its nature. I can discern that nature by the physical responses to it.

The dancing that the beat invariably inspires is sexual and enticing to the lusts of the flesh. This can't be disputed. Not intelligently, anyway. That is why it is compatible with pagan religion. Pagans glory in the flesh, and this music really pumps it up.

 

The same way that you know that your singing of hymns is true. The exact same way.

Again - you're passing the buck. You can't even find Biblical support for music either being good or evil. You can't find Biblical support as to why Handel's Messiah is good, even though the song "And He Shall Purify" is a fun little ditty that makes me want to tap my feet and sway from side to side. Your inferences are incorrect, and you cannot prove them, except in your own little mind.

No, we hear and see loud and clearly.

Because I talk to them. Because of their testimonies. Because of my own testimony. Because the worship is done in spirit and in truth. You can take any one of those reasons.

Absolutely not. You are creating a false dichotomy here, and that's a logical fallacy.

And for a billionth time we've asked for Biblical support for that - to which you go on another tangent. Where do we see that music is good or evil depending on its rhythm?

You can discern that nature by YOUR physical responses to it. There is music that makes me want to vomit. That doesn't make it wrong for everyone - indeed, some people may find it edifying.

But it CAN be disputed. I don't begin bumping and grinding on the pew when I begin to hear praise and worship music. Instead, I lift my hands and begin praising God. I have a really hard time how you can see a song such as, "Here I Am To Worship" and think that it is somehow sexual. One must wonder what one's psychological state is if he or she would think that this music is sexual.

What about the pagan religions that use organ music and what would sound like regular hymns to us? Ever heard of what is often played during the Satanic rituals at the Church of Satan (founded by the high priest Anton Levay? It's not rock and roll music - it is often what many would consider "pretty" organ music. Hmm... maybe that means that organ music is wrong as well.