So misrepresenting God by failing to say what God did say is not worse than misrepresenting him by saying what he did not say? Got any Bible for that one? Or you make that up?
We should condemn what God condemns and ignore what God ignores when preaching.
There is no biblical precept about sounds of music, so when you preach that there are you make yourself a pope.
I happen to think they are both equally wrong. The responsibility to preach the whole counsel of God is just that. We don't get to leave parts out. It is just as bad to omit something as to add something.
Your philosophy betrays you here. When the Bible is silent on the morality of something but you make it a moral issue you condemn what God has not.
I totally oppose preaching the traditions of men as commandments of God, at least as much if not more than you do.
Apparently not.
I agree. But a sinful brother is one who does not have a problem with things God has condemned. And the fact is that God does not expect us to bury our heads in the sand.
But God has not condemned any genre of music so the "sinful brother" aspect is not applicable to yours and my exchanges.
The only thing that is applicable is the "weaker brother" aspect because it applies to you for having the hang up with something God has not condemned- namely, in this instance, certain musical sounds.
We are to understand what "things like these" are in Gal 5:21. Based on Scripture, you will not be able to say, "I didn't have a specific verse for it." God will say, "You should have known what 'things like these' were."
"things like these" are other things mentioned in the Bible that are sin. You don't just get to fill in the blanks with whatever you feel- unless you are a pope.
I am not jostling for intellectual high ground. I don't have a problem with things God has not condemned.
Yea, you do. You have a problem with music that God has not condemned. This makes you no different than the weaker brothers who had a problem with meat offered to idols. Except they actually had more bible for it didn't they? (Jerusalem council)
You won't last long in your supposed PhD work if you miss simple things like question marks.
You cannot provide a single reputable apologist or Christian philosopher who will say that music has intrinsic moral value.
Logical fallacy. A good point does not need specific examples and persuasive evidence. A good point is a good point when it is a good point. You are confusing points with evidence for points.
That's phenomenal. A good argumentative point- a point for purposes of argument must be supported. Surely you know this.
I could offer lots of examples, such as people who argued that interracial marriage was sinful. They meant well, but their minds were blinded by cultural situatedness and noetic sin.
yes. This is a perfect example of your music philosophy.
Here's the main point: How in the world can you say categorically that God has nothing to say about an issue unless you know everything and unless your thinking is completely untainted by sin, cultural situatedness, personal experience, bias, background, and the like?
The same way I know God has not said that interracial marriage is sinful. You sure flip flop a lot.
I think you have bought into a vain philosophy that isn't built on Jesus. And I think that is dangerous.
nah. I don't even think
you think that. I think you are insulted because I have pointed out how dangerous your philosophy is and the above comment is nothing but a childish- "I know you are but what am I?"
