*Christian* Hard Rock Experiment

So then, there's a "Christian" way for your mechanic to change the oil in your car?

I agree, yet, you guys still start these threads.

If it's your conviction that it's wrong, then you shouldn't.

You'r overlooking one very important point. That is, this is not a Christian band and these aren't necessarily "Christian" songs or church music, but mainstream songs that reflect a Christian world view.

No. I don't want it in my church because that's not what it's for and I wouldn't give it to my kids, but probably not for the same reason you wouldn't.

 

Purely cultural.

I would just like to see them set their sites a little higher and find some better music out there.

Depends on which "Christian rock". That's a litte too vague.

Depends on what you mean by "in church".

If you mean simply condoning it, then I wouldn't have a problem with that, assuming that each artist were taken on an individual basis.

If you mean as part of a service, then I think it depends on the artist or song and I think it depends on the mission and personality of that church.

Evidently I did. Maybe you could clarify it for me?

Like it or not, it's one of those unpleasant things that we do have to discuss but, remember, nine pages later, we still haven't established that this is sin.

 

So then, how should we dress?</font>[/QUOTE]Generally speaking, we should dress in a manner that communicates order, cleanliness, and submission.

[ December 18, 2002, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

I've been asking that since day one in this and other threads. So far, none of the people who are always talking about "of the world" has been able to define it.</font>[/QUOTE]Correction, I have answered it several times, but you have simply rejected the answer.

This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. James 3:15.

The primary characteristic of worldliness is its sensuality.

We have also gone into great lengths discussing what sensuality is. One wants to limit it to sexual pleasure, but I have constantly affirmed with solid Biblical evidence that sensuality is anything that appeals to the natural man.

And so on, and so on...

But now I turn to you again. We know worldliness is a Biblical term describing something that Christians ought to shun.

You know my and St. James' definition, but you simply reject it.

What, in your mind, is worldliness?

[ December 18, 2002, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

That which appeals to the natural man, inciting lust (not necessarily sexually).

[ December 18, 2002, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Refreshed ]

 

er?

"I was abducted by aliens"
"No you weren't"
"prove it"

you see the problem?

 

What is "Christlike"? Is a song like "False Echoes" necessarily "un-CHristlike"?

What about a song set to rock music that expouses Biblical principles?

 

Since that varies from person to person, how can you really say what is "worldly" other than for yourself?

If it doesn't incite lust, is it OK, then?

 

I disagree. I believe the Bible speaks a great deal about the marriage bed.

It doesn't speak about different kinds of music though, except to tell us what they should contain in order to be worthy for worship.

We know porn is wrong because it has no other purpose than to "incite lust".

Music can incite lust in some people who are already prone to those thoughts if it's intentional, then the music's not to blame. If it is intentional then the artist is to blame for using it for illicit purposes, not the music.

Music is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

How the artist chooses to use it or how the listener chooses to interpret it is completely up to them.

 

I agree and I think he makes an excellent point, particularly:

Most of these extra-biblical sins are supported by a misused or misunderstood passage of scripture somewhere. OR sometimes they are supported by a misguided attempt to hold Christians under the ceremonial law of the OT. These things are called the weak and beggarly elements by Paul, who instead points us to Christ - the fulfillment of all those types and shadows.

Now if I decide for good reasons that we don't need a television in our home, that's one thing. But when I tell someone else it's just wrong to have a TV in the home, I have crossed the line. If I preach against televisions, I have crossed the line. If I state that we would be better off reading our Bible more and watching TV less, that would be fine. I'm not making a universal law there. But if I say, 'You people with TVs in your living room need to get right with God. TVs are straight out of hell,' then I've spoken and made a law where God didn't.

And if I get rid of my TV thinking it makes me a better Christian, I'm wrong. It doesn't. And if I look down on TV owners as if they are second class Christians, then I'm simply a Pharisee. If I put pressure on other Christians to get rid of their televisions hinting that they would be closer to God if they did, then I am wrong.

Perhaps it would seem noble of me to get rid of my television. Perhaps it would make me look spiritual. Perhaps others would think I really love the Lord an awful lot if I was willing to get rid of my TV for Him. Perhaps I could even put guilt trips on people: 'Aren't you willing to give up everything for Christ?' But the truth is, Jesus hasn't asked us to give up our TVs and in saying things like that I am being PRESUMPTIOUS, daring to speak where Christ is silent.

 

Gina said:

You do this in every discussion you enter, jump in with an opinion, and no effort to support it except to demand evidence from the other side.

The only "opinion" I have expressed here is that your description of the members of POD as "pseudo-Christian" is unsupported by any evidence.

You, on the other hand, have made a truth claim about POD. Whether someone is a Christian or a "pseudo-Christian" is not a matter of opinion. Either one is, or one isn't. Having had your truth claim challenged, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptics.

Maybe I wouldn't do this so frequently, if so many people didn't say so many ridiculous things without supporting them and didn't expect to be taken at their word. Remember, YOU made the charge; YOU back it up.

You told me I wasn't following my own advice, because I made a claim that you were wrong. Very well: I base my claim on the lack of positive evidence in favour of your position. If you cannot show your claim to be right, ergo it is not - or at least there is no reason to believe you.

There. I've supported my claim with evidence. Where's yours?

 

InHim2002 said:

"I was abducted by aliens"
"No you weren't"
"prove it"

Bingo.

While we're on the subject, have I mentioned lately that I am God incarnate?
Don't believe me? Fine. Prove me wrong.

[ December 19, 2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]