Aaron said:
Though I enjoy our exchanges, you need to know that you have a terrible habit of leaping to conclusions. When I say that we know by nature that the rhythm is inextricably linked to the character of a piece isn't saying anything about the morality of a certain rhythm. Okay? All men know when they're hearing music and when they're not. They don't have to be taught that. Neither do they need to be taught that certain modes sound "sad" or "happy" or "solemn" or "triumphant," etc. They just know, and they know it by nature. Paul appealed to that knowledge in 1 Cor. 12 as an example in the proper use of tongues.
Then what is the point? Your line of reasoning seems to be "y'all know it's wrong, because nature says so". That is what I said can be subjective. It shows that it is
your conviction, not that it really is "nature". This is what I mean when I discuss the "Cycle" of this argument. When the "nature" argument doesn't work, then some other way of pejorating the style must be found.
That's simply not true. They may have had a twinge of conscience about it, but the natural man is groping about in darkness and his foolish mind is easily blinded, and he can be so reprobate that he cannot tell his right hand from his left, morally speaking, Jonah 4:11.
In our context, I'm talking about regenerated Christians. All of us will have the full conscience, but then your side will often just claim Christians who do not have your conviction on this issue are "blinded", and practically reprobate, as well. Basically, your side tends to want to dictate to all which music is good, without any true scriptural authority or universal convictions
Not by a long shot.
So much more goes into the genre other than the beat.
Then, your side may mention harmony once in awhile (to emiminate the styles such as jazz or soft rock, which do not have the heavy beat). With rap, it is almost pure rhythm that is the issue.
Paul makes that distinction, too. "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess..."
And nobody's disputing Paul. But still, that does not prove which style is always bad or good. Any style can be used with wine, and a person can listen to any style and still engage in riotous living.
Clothing is for modesty, protection, gender distinction, and rank or occupation. I believe the clothes God fashioned for Adam and Eve met all these purposes, and that they were perfectly tailored. I certainly don't buy the suggestion that they were mere pelts draped over half-naked bodies.:type: Hmm, a leather suit tailored by God, Himself. That suggests a lot of dignity to me.
It's true that nobody knows exactly what these clothes were like, and it doesn't make sense to argue too much on it (It was only a passing comment I made at someone else's statement). If it was just skins (as God did not develop linens for them at that point), I don't think it would be anything like our clothes, or later Israelite and Muslim garb, all of which seemed to develop later.
