Diversity of Opinion

If I lied then I'm sorry for that, and I'm sorry for being rude. Are we good now?:thumbs:

 

"If you lied"? You know you lied. It's already been demonstrated that you lied.

 

Show me where I lied.:type:

 

I've already pointed out the lies in the article you posted and agreed was true.

They may not have been your words, but the moment you presented them as truth, you became culpable for the truth or falsehoods contained, therein. So, unless you disavow that article or refute my demonstrations that these things are false, you are a partner with them in their lying.

Caught you in another one in post #51:

You've avoided answering every question I asked.

 

I have a lot of posts where people have not answered my questions but I do not get upset with them, I move on

There will be many who disagree on the BB and in life

He has appologized, lets move on and get on track with this thread, please :flower:

If you feel offended then take it to PM but do not discourage a new member from posting by attacking and demanding appologies

I know I have no place to comment on this but this is a good thread that I am enjoying and do not want people to turn away because of "Liar liar, take it back or I'm telling mommy"

Thank you for letting me put in my two cents, if it is worth that much :laugh:

 

Rudeness does not deserve rudeness in return - OK, I am done :tongue3:

 

I don't know that I'd give you two cents for that. He hasn't apologized.

He gave a Bill Clinton apology, in which blame is turned back on the offended part (us), rather than taking responsibility for his actions.

Not once did he say, "I'm sorry I lied to you all". He said, "I'm sorry it seemed as though I lied", "I'm sorry you were offended". That isn't an apology, that's a "screw you, I'll say whatever I have to say to get you off my back".

If someone comes onto a public thread and does this, then it's perfectly accpetable and reasonable for the people in that thread to hold him accountable for it.

 

Now I said I was sorry and you still have been on my tail over this, you think that for me to give you an answer I have to agree, well I will never say that CCM is fine to listen to, I will never say it is ok for a girl to wear pants, I will never say it is ok to smoke, I will never say it is ok to drink beer, I will never say that it is ok to be gay, and I did answer your question, go back and find it and then we will talk. :type:

 

You said that you were sorry that I was offended. You said that you were sorry that it seemed like you lied.

You still haven't apologized for lying.

Not at all. In order for you to give an answer, your response to the question has to be related to the question.

All you did was offer a series of non-sequiters designed to avoid having to answer the question and admit that the "facts" persented in the link you posted and stand behind are false.

No. I have already demonstrated that you did not answer the question. If you believe that you did, then feel free to reiterate those answers or tell us what numbered post they are to be found in.

 

1st of all, I don't believe this is applicable to all "CCM" songs. Just as all hymns are not theologically sound. IMO, much of CCM does not fit in our regular congregational worship setting. But for the songs that do, here are some of the qualities I share with hymns.

Reverent in nature
Spiritual in quality
Devotional
Doctrinally sound
Brings the Word of God into our minds
Expresses our attitude towards God

We don't sing any modern CCM or here kitty, kitty songs in our corporate worship. Some sing "new" contemporary solos from time to time; Mercy Me, CC, Chris Tomlin, ect.

 

I lied. I gave you a link and the link I gave has false facts. And I'm sorry for that. Now it's your turn Mike.:type:

 

Let's recap these alleged "answers" of yours, shall we?

The first question was:

Here is your answer:

You did not even address the song.

Notice that the question asked what about the posted lyrics is "New Age". You did not explain what about the posted lyrics is New Age.

The second question was:

Here is your answer:

You didn't even address the song. Instead, you gave a non-sequiter answer to avoid the question.

The third question was:

Your answer was:

You didn't address the song or the group or explain what makes either the song or the group bad.

In addition, your non-sequiter answer implies that Point of Grace does not perform Christian music, which I believe you know is not true.

The seventh question was:

Your answer was:

This doesn't address the song or the group, nor does it explain why the song is bad or why the group is wrong for doing a version of Dorsey's song.

You also don't explain who "the people" are or what "rolling" is or why it's bad.

Question #8 techincally was not phrased as a question so you get off on a technicality, but you still did not address the song or the group.

So, as we can clearly see, you did not answer the questions at all.

 

OK. You did lie and you finally have acknowledged that.

Now, are you going to lie in the future or are you going to tell the truth?

 

I will try to tell the truth from now on. Are you gonna stop knocking the brains out of me now on this subject now? lol

 

That sir, has earned my respect for you!
You are a breath of fresh air.

We need to stick to our convictions. You included.
Now there is a difference between opinions and convictions.

Convictions must be rooted in the Word of God.
We must go to our grave standing firm on them.

Opinions do not have to be rooted in the Bible, and everyone has them.
No one should seperate over opinions.

Knowing the difference comes from maturity, and wisdom.
And your statement above is a signal that you are more mature than a lot of anti-CCMs that have graced our presence before.

Thank you.

 

Too bad he doesn't have a conviction that lying is wrong.

 

Thank you Tim! But do to people that will not let things go I'm just gonna walk away now. Have fun guys.:wavey:

 

Dude, you posted a link (a bad one) that fans the flame that could burn a hole in the North Pole. What did you expect?

Don't be mad, get glad raise:

 

I agree here, most CCM isn't necessarily appropiate for worship. But for everyday listening I think it is great. I work in a factory and on Monday's they play CCM and it really helps the day go by much faster. I just work and sing all day. The rest of the week they play worldly music and I just try to ignore it.

 

Tim,

If you wish to accuse me of something, get it right, please. If you would have bothered to more carefully read my post, you would have seen my love for the hymns of the faith expressed, and our proclivity to use hymns, and even ancient songs of the faith...along with newer stuff. I don't appreciate your accusation.

As for your second quote I bolded, that scares me. So a church that tries something to reach different people is wrong? If that was the case, then tonight the 175 teens at our church wouldn't have had black, asian, native american, and white folks worshipping as one. Why? Because in 1958, that would have been methodologically different.

And I'll stand my ground--on Scripture and its principles. I'm not about to stand my ground on what instrument or style of music is holier than another. And I won't condemn someone for their preferences. But I WILL point out when someone has taken on the role of judge and jury when it is not theirs to have.

By the way...before referring to choruses as "7-11," (I don't like seeing someone's preference for worship insulted) read Psalm 136. "His love endures forever" appears 26 times. Too repetitive? Take that one up with God. (would that be a "3-26" psalm?)

I just ask that you not paint me as being critical of traditional forms of worship. I'm not, and you can't find a post of mine that says I am.