Did Aaron Invent Rock Music 3400 or So Years Ago Before Elvis?

[Scarlett O.]

When I think "warlike music" I think Rise of the Valkyrie.

LOL!!! I know that song reminds people of the infamous helicopter scene in Apocalypse Now but it always just reminds me of Bugs Bunny!

 

[OnlyaSinner]

LOL!!! I know that song reminds people of the infamous helicopter scene in Apocalypse Now but it always just reminds me of Bugs Bunny!

And Elmer Fudd. My love of classical music grew out of those cartoons.

 

[JonC]

Your statements are just your baseless opinions. Apparently, according to you, the Bible has to say in a passage that something is sinful, otherwise it is godly and pleasing to God. But, when it comes to your opinions, they are true whether the Bible says anything to support your views or not.

You have zero basis to call people "racists" for rejecting music just because you think that music is good.

You need to correct yourself. You make two very serious errors.

1. I never called anybody "racist". I simply listed an old secular argument against "rock music" (also the Blues). Geoff Bailey wrote a good study of this. But this objection to rock (a subversion of "White culture") is well documented.

The objection was, specifically, that rock music would "corrupt White youth and cause race mixing".

2. What I said that God approves of is for His people to worship Him in Spirit and truth.

I did not say that God approves of, or disapproved of, any worship based on the type of music used. That was your argument (and that IS strictly YOUR opinion elevated to the level of Scripture). That, not your preferences in music, was where you sinned.

My view that God desires for us to worship in spirit and in truth is not baseless. Your claim that God only approves of types of music you find pleasing is baseless.

 

[JonC]

This topic is an old (and I believe sinful) argument.

Many condemned the worship of Christians for their ude if taditional hymns. They were too secular, too approachable. Others condemned the use of traditional hymns because they departed from the psalms.

Many condemned the worship of Christians because they used secular instruments like painos and/or organs as they were used in secular music, so God will not accept their use in worship.

Today we see the same arguments and the same sin among some Christians, just against Christians who use music they dislike.

But all a Christian needs to do is read their Bibles to understand the evil foolishness of those arguments. What does the Bible say?


Worship in spirit and in truth. Obviously worship styles will differ among believers. So how do we judge the servants of Another? We don't. He will make them to stand.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

You need to correct yourself. You make two very serious errors.

1. I never called anybody "racist". I simply listed an old secular argument against "rock music" (also the Blues). Geoff Bailey wrote a good study of this. But this objection to rock (a subversion of "White culture") is well documented.

The objection was, specifically, that rock music would "corrupt White youth and cause race mixing".

2. What I said that God approves of is for His people to worship Him in Spirit and truth.

I did not say that God approves of, or disapproved of, any worship based on the type of music used. That was your argument (and that IS strictly YOUR opinion elevated to the level of Scripture). That, not your preferences in music, was where you sinned.

My view that God desires for us to worship in spirit and in truth is not baseless. Your claim that God only approves of types of music you find pleasing is baseless.

There is no evidence at all. There is pseudo-science, but as a Christian I am not given to such things. As a believer I discern the spirit of a thing by its fruit.

Also, initially the "rock beat" was a racist claim. It was not limited to Christians but to our society in general. The claim was that rock adopted an African beat (and influences from other Black influenced music). Much of White America wanted to keep "Black elements" from affecting White people.

You claim that you never called anybody "racist." Your statements say otherwise. You say in this quoted statement that Christians (as well as the people in society in general) who spoke against rock music because "rock adopted an African beat (and influences from other Black influenced music)" were making a racist claim. That is calling people racists.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

This topic is an old (and I believe sinful) argument.

Many condemned the worship of Christians for their ude if taditional hymns. They were too secular, too approachable. Others condemned the use of traditional hymns because they departed from the psalms.

Many condemned the worship of Christians because they used secular instruments like painos and/or organs as they were used in secular music, so God will not accept their use in worship.

Today we see the same arguments and the same sin among some Christians, just against Christians who use music they dislike.

But all a Christian needs to do is read their Bibles to understand the evil foolishness of those arguments. What does the Bible say?


Worship in spirit and in truth. Obviously worship styles will differ among believers. So how do we judge the servants of Another? We don't. He will make them to

Implicit in your beliefs is the wrong notion that God accepts whatever styles believers choose to use in their worship. The Bible does not teach any such thing anywhere.

 

[JonC]

You claim that you never called anybody "racist." Your statements say otherwise. You say in this quoted statement that Christians (as well as the people in society in general) who spoke against rock music because "rock adopted an African beat (and influences from other Black influenced music)" were making a racist claim. That is calling people racists.

Yes. I did not call anybody "racist". That is a fact verifiable by reading what I posted.

I did say that an initial argument (in the mid 1950's) was that rock music was inspired from African music and would corrupt the White youth and cause "race mixing".

That was a racist argument (rock music was influenced by country and the blues, not African music). What made it a racist argument was the reason behind the objection (to prevent "race mixing").

As far as I know that was a secular argument (I did not say it was a Christian argument). It was the precursor to the "Christian" argument (Satan's beat) and long before the pseudo-science that men are supernaturally controlled by a 4/4 time signature.

You are posting haphazardly, ignoring what I actually posted.

 

[JonC]

Implicit in your beliefs is the wrong notion that God accepts whatever styles believers choose to use in their worship. The Bible does not teach any such thing anywhere.

Implicit in my beliefs is that God is holy and faithful to His word, regardless of the culture of the worshipper.

He commands us to worship in spirit and in truth. Examples include worshipping with drums, stringed instruments and horns.

Scripture does not mention style. We know that traditional hymns did not fit into the biblical worship style (it is Western...they did not use the harmonies of Western music).

But as far as worship goes, contemporary worship music meets the criteria set by Scripture. So either God told the truth or He lied. I believe He told the truth.

 

[JonC]

Again...Scripture addresses this issue.

"Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand."

The biggest problem here is many professing Christ are quick to dismiss God in favor of their own preferences.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Yes. I did not call anybody "racist". That is a fact verifiable by reading what I posted.

I did say that an initial argument (in the mid 1950's) was that rock music was inspired from African music and would corrupt the White youth and cause "race mixing".

That was a racist argument (rock music was influenced by country and the blues, not African music). What made it a racist argument was the reason behind the objection (to prevent "race mixing").

As far as I know that was a secular argument (I did not say it was a Christian argument). It was the precursor to the "Christian" argument (Satan's beat) and long before the pseudo-science that men are supernaturally controlled by a 4/4 time signature.

You are posting haphazardly, ignoring what I actually posted.

I have not ignored anything. Here are your exact words again:

Also, initially the "rock beat" was a racist claim. It was not limited to Christians but to our society in general. The claim was that rock adopted an African beat (and influences from other Black influenced music). Much of White America wanted to keep "Black elements" from affecting White people.

Your first two sentences in this quotation say first, "Initially the 'rock beat' was a racist claim." Your next sentence says, "It was not limited to Christians . . ."

Saying that something "was not limited to Christians" means that whatever that something was, Christians were also doing "it." The antecedent of "it" at the beginning of your second sentence is what you say in the first sentence.

Taken together, your first two sentences certainly assert that Christians were making "a racist claim."

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Again...Scripture addresses this issue.

"Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand."

The biggest problem here is many professing Christ are quick to dismiss God in favor of their own preferences.

No, Scripture does not address this issue in that passage because Romans 14 does not apply to everything without any exceptions.

Furthermore, Romans 14 does not say anything directly about music in it. You are reading music into that passage when the passage does not say anything specifically about music.

 

[JonC]

No, Scripture does not address this issue in that passage because Romans 14 does not apply to everything without any exceptions.

Furthermore, Romans 14 does not say anything directly about music in it. You are reading music into that passage when the passage does not say anything specifically about music.

No, Romans 14 directly applies. You are judging others by your own preferences.

If not, then worship music must be what is described in Scripture (drums, horns and stringed instruments....nothing else).

Traditional hymns would be evil for adding Western style (to include harmony).

You have sinned by judging the worship music others use when the worship music you prefer is foreign to Scripture.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

No, Romans 14 directly applies. You are judging others by your own preferences.

If not, then worship music must be what is described in Scripture (drums, horns and stringed instruments....nothing else).

Traditional hymns would be evil for adding Western style (to include harmony).

You have sinned by judging the worship music others use when the worship music you prefer is foreign to Scripture.

You claim that what music styles are used in worship is merely a matter of preferences. The Bible does not teach that anywhere. You are asserting your opinion as if it was what Scripture says. Again, Romans 14 does not say anything directly about music.

 

[JonC]

I have not ignored anything. Here are your exact words again:


Your first two sentences in this quotation say first, "Initially the 'rock beat' was a racist claim." Your next sentence says, "It was not limited to Christians . . ."

Saying that something "was not limited to Christians" means that whatever that something was, Christians were also doing "it." The antecedent of "it" at the beginning of your second sentence is what you say in the first sentence.

Taken together, your first two sentences certainly assert that Christians were making "a racist claim."

Yes, INITIALLY it was a racist claim. The "Devil's beat" argument cane afterwards.

And yes, that initial claim was not limited to Christians. It was, however, made by Christians as well as non-Christians. It was made primarily by those who called themselves "Christian" (this was the 1950's).

Same with other racist arguments (races should not mix, no biracial marriages, Black people bear the mark of Cain, etc.). This came from, primarily, men and women who claimed to be Christian.


Your claim is a direct descendent of racism. Does this mean you are a racist? No.

Your claim is in contradiction to Scripture. It os "anti-Christian". Does this mean you are not a Christian? No. It means you are unaware of your sin. That is no excuse, as you have God's Word and choose yourself. But even disobedient Christians are Christian.

 

[JonC]

You claim that what music styles are used in worship is merely a matter of preferences.

Again, you make claims without reading (you post in willful ignorance).

I never claimed that music styles used in worship is merely a matter of preference. While preference is there (you probably worship in a style you prefer), that is not the main factor.

Worship styles is more a matter of culture. That is how traditional hymns came to be. We do not worship using Near Eastern music. We use Western music. Why? Because that is our culture.

For us, trying to worship in a way foreign to us (like the Eastern music they used in the Bible) would be to abandon worshipping in truth.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Yes, INITIALLY it was a racist claim. The "Devil's beat" argument cane afterwards.

And yes, that initial claim was not limited to Christians. It was, however, made by Christians as well as non-Christians. It was made primarily by those who called themselves "Christian" (this was the 1950's).

Same with other racist arguments (races should not mix, no biracial marriages, Black people bear the mark of Cain, etc.). This came from, primarily, men and women who claimed to be Christian.


Your claim is a direct descendent of racism. Does this mean you are a racist? No.

Your claim is in contradiction to Scripture. It os "anti-Christian". Does this mean you are not a Christian? No. It means you are unaware of your sin. That is no excuse, as you have God's Word and choose yourself. But even disobedient Christians are Christian.

Again, you have zero Bible basis to claim that rejecting one or more music styles is "racism," regardless of whose styles they are. That is your entirely unbiblical assertion.

 

[JonC]

Again, you have zero Bible basis to claim that rejecting one or more music styles is "racism," regardless of whose styles they are. That is your entirely unbiblical assertion.

Again, I never claimed that it was racist.

My statement was that the initial argument (1950's) was that rock music woukd "corrupt the White youth" and read to "race mixing". This was made secularly to include by professing Christians. This changed with the "Whitening of rock music" in the 1970's.

Evidence for this statement is documents on the University of Arkansas and University of Indiana websites. This was well documented in 1950's articles.

If you cannot find any of these facts it merely demonstrates laziness or willful ignorance (a fear of knowing).


Now...does the Bible speak of rock music? No. But the Bible does not mention ANY Western music.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Again, I never claimed that it was racist.

My statement was that the initial argument (1950's) was that rock music woukd "corrupt the White youth" and read to "race mixing". This was made secularly to include by professing Christians. This changed with the "Whitening of rock music" in the 1970's.

Evidence for this statement is documents on the University of Arkansas and University of Indiana websites. This was well documented in 1950's articles.

If you cannot find any of these facts it merely demonstrates laziness or willful ignorance (a fear of knowing).


Now...does the Bible speak of rock music? No. But the Bible does not mention ANY Western music.

Finding these so-called facts is irrelevant to the more important questions---does God accept the use of any and all kinds of instrumental music in worship simply because they are or were the music of a particular group of people?

Saying that the Bible does not mention rock music or ANY Western music establishes what?

 

[JonC]

Saying that the Bible does not mention rock music or ANY Western music establishes what?

It establishes the fact that your criteria for determining what God accepts is you.

Biblically worship music was monophonic. Our traditional hymns is harmonic (they are Western as opposed to the music of the Bible).

This is why those in the Near East consider our traditional hymns to be jarring and "flat".

Biblically, no person in the Bible would find our traditional hymns appropriate for THEIR worship.

Western music did not exist in the times Scripture was being written.

What this proves is that you are elevating yourself to the role of God in determining what style of music is acceptable.


Take contemporary worship music (which has that "rock" element). Traditional hymns would be just as foreign, just as off putting to the ear of those who wrote down Scripture, just as "jarring".

Yet you sovereignly declare that your preference is God standard and the music styles of orher Christians is rejected by God.