*Christian* Hard Rock Experiment

[Gina B]

Ransom, for once in your life answer a question. 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. Do you really have anything valid on the subject itself, even just a few good reasons why you believe what you do, apart from you don't agree and want everyone else to show why you think like you do?

Gina

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Gina:
Slandering God's workers...hmmm. I don't think so. One isn't going to have to jump through hoops to find the witness of Christ in a person doing His work.

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

This shouldn't even have to be a discussion, it's easy enough to see it for what it is.

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

Why should I take my kids or myself to a church that seeks to fit in with the world by playing and or condoning rock music and groups like this?

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

BTW, if it's good enough to have in your home it's good enough to have in church.

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.

Do you really want this stuff there? Are you really comfortable giving it to your kids?

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.

 

[Gina B]

What's your reasons for not giving them to your kids Mike? What about regular Christian rock? Are you ok with that in your church?
Yes, I started the discussion. You miss my point. I also don't like that we need to discuss any type of sin.
Gina

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Gina:
What's your reasons for not giving them to your kids Mike?

Purely cultural.

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

What about regular Christian rock? Are you ok with that in your church?

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.

You miss my point.

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

I also don't like that we need to discuss any type of sin.

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.

 

[Gina B]

I thought I just clarified with that response.
Point: It needs to be discussed. I find it sad that certain things that I feel are wrong need to be discussed, everyone should just agree with me, because I believe I am biblically correct and we shouldn't have to talk about whether sin is right or wrong.

Gina

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
Now, about judging by appearances:

Clothes are a means of communication as much, if not more than utilitarian. And when a person who has the means to choose his style of clothing, you can be sure he is communicating something.

So, a style of clothing is a valid criteria upon which to judge something.

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 ]

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Mike McK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Refreshed:
Mike,

Maybe we should get a working definition of what the world is, what it is not, and what the Bible says about seperation from worldly things.

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 ]

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Aaron:

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

When did I ever reject James' definition of it? I happen to agree with James' definition of it. I just don't think that the things in James' definition are clearly defined well enough to include these things.

What, in your mind, is worldliness?

I asked first. When Gina and refreshed answer me, I'll answer.

Now, If you'll excuse me, between work, school, and helping my mom grade papers, I've been on this stupid computer for twelve hours now. That's enough.

I'm going to bed.

[ December 18, 2002, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Mike McK ]

 

[Gina B]

Anything not Christlike is worldliness.

Gina

 

[Refreshed]

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

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

 

[InHim2002]

Ransom, you accused me of being wrong. Burden of proof is on you

er?

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

you see the problem?

 

[Gina B]

InHim, thanks for the input!
Please share your thoughts and opinions on the music in question as long as you're here and looking.

Gina

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Gina:
Anything not Christlike is worldliness.

Gina

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

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

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Refreshed:
That which appeals to the natural man, inciting lust (not necessarily sexually).

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?

 

[Gina B]

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

Gina: What about a porn site that features only Christian husbands and wives? I've read no scriptures saying it would be wrong.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Gina:
Gina: What about a porn site that features only Christian husbands and wives? I've read no scriptures saying it would be wrong.

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.

 

[Gina B]

Mike: here's a decent reply someone gave me when talking about things that are most likely extra-biblical rules or preferences. Discussion
Just sharing.

You can use the entire thread link to see the whole discussion all at once.
Gina

 

[Mike McK]

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.

 

[Ransom]

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?

 

[Ransom]

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 ]