MMF - Rock Music Not Conducive to Good Health

[Revolt]

you guys should check out a band callse delirious that often opens for u2 http://www.delirious.co.uk/

I know this dosnt make u2 christian though

 

[superdave]

You can find elements in almost any pagan philosophy that will agree somewhat with one or more tenets of Christianity. But you don't judge the truth or falsehood of a notion upon the basis of its abuses.

Bingo, Now you understand my point, or do you?

 

[superdave]

Some people don't think that the SI swimsuit edition is pornography either. But the idea that abstinence from sensual indulgences are of no value is not a Christian idea at all. In fact, that is a sensual, earthly, devilish idea.

I don't really see total equality between the two examples, but the issues are very similar in nature. Some people would say that wearing anything less than robes and a veil would be immodest, and they have as much Biblical support as those of us who favor the halter top!

The idea that Satan savours the things that be of men was expressed by Christ in Matthew 16:23. St. Paul told the Colossians not to set their affections on things on the earth, but upon things above where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God, Col. 3:1 & 2.

And the equation of earthly things with sensuality and devilishness is plain in James 3:15.

No, not straight our of gnosticism, but straight out of the Bible.

The things of earth will grow strangely dim, in the light of his glory and grace. The singing in heaven will be more glorious than any poor copy we can attempt here, but I do not agree with your interpretation that all things of the earth are inherently evil, That is not what James was referring to. Even so, it is a tough definition, and since I don't believe CCM is inherently Worldly by its nature, we are at an impasse

Also, you said first that Paul "...was not talking about physical or mental supression of physical appetites, because he knew that was not a profitable way to combat fleshly desires."

Now here you say, "His buffeting of the flesh was a mental/spiritual act of restraining the desires."

Which is it? And, how can one physically indulge his fleshly desires yet spiritually restrain them?

I was kinda hoping you wouldn't put these two quotes side by side, I am impressed. I would have felt a little guilty if I had edited after I found the discrepancy

My position is that Paul's comments were mainly in response to some type of physical brutality meant to improve ones control over the flesh. It was a common heresy that he dealt with given the pagan roots of many of the people in Asia Minor. However, I think Paul recognized that the battle with the flesh would be won not by physical flagellation, or by willpower, but by persuing a holy life through a relationship with Christ.

I can choose to never go into a place the sells the SI swimsuit issue, or I can choose to never listen to music with any pronounced rythmic beat, but those actions in and of themselves have little or no value in restraining the sensual desires of my flesh. Perhaps as an individual if listening to certain music, or going into certain establishments causes an inordinate amount of temptation, than it may not be a good idea for you, but I don't believe that music can be definitively linked with sensual thought, without previous psychological connection, or lyrical subject matter that lends itself to such thought. We cannot judge the validity of a medium based on its most serious abuses

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Smoke_Eater:

Commonly, only the first three verses of "Amazing Grace" are sung today.

None of them mentions Jesus specifically. Does that make it bad? Should we throw out all but the fourth verse?

The song is about grace and I think it makes it's point.

Read all the lyrics to Amazing Grace:
http://www.flash.net/~gaylon/jnewton.htm

It is the testimony of how John Newton got saved. He was once blind, but now can see, was once lost, but now is saved. Read through all the lyrics.
Then read through all the strange lyrics of "Grace" by U2. It's "grace," described in the feminine gender, could describe the grace of almost any deity. All the cults use the word grace. Most of them deny the deity of Christ as well. They don't believe in the God of the Bible. Is their grace the same as God's grace? Not in my books! The Muslims believe in Christ also (only as a prophet). They speak of their God (Allah) as being Gracious ( a God of grace). Does that song not describe Allah then? There is no comparison between the two songs. Allah doesn't save.
DHK

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by DHK:

Then read through all the strange lyrics of "Grace" by U2. It's "grace," described in the feminine gender, could describe the grace of almost any deity. All the cults use the word grace. Most of them deny the deity of Christ as well. They don't believe in the God of the Bible. Is their grace the same as God's grace? Not in my books! The Muslims believe in Christ also (only as a prophet). They speak of their God (Allah) as being Gracious (a God of grace). Does that song not describe Allah then? There is no comparison between the two songs. Allah doesn't save.
DHK

I'm aware of the origin of "Amazing Grace".

That doesn't change the fact that it's still usually only the first three verses that are sung in modern churches and none of them mention Christ by name. That was, after all your point about the U2 song, "Grace".

Believe me, I know the lyrics to "Grace". I'm a huge U2 fan. I don't think it's a strange song at all. I think it's a very pretty song.

The song makes it clear that while the singer could mean a girl, he's also singing of "a thought that changed the world".

Whether or not "all of the cults use the word 'grace'", (which isn't true, by the way) isn't the point. The point is that the attributes of grace that this song talks about aren't found in "all of the cults" but are unique to Christianity.

Islam is ruled by a harsh God who believes in works righteousness so I don't think it could mean the islamic concept of grace.

Budhism doesn't believe in sin per se, so I don't see how they could mean the Budhist concept of grace.

Hinduism teaches that you earn your own grace (which means, of course that it's not grace in the first place) so that rules out Hinduism.

May I ask exactly which other religion teaches a concept of grace similar to that in the U2 song "Grace"?

I can't speak for cults or other religions and from what I've seen and read about Bono, he doesn't claim to either. All I can say is that I get his point and I think most other people are smart enough get it, too.

Mike

 

[Ransom]

DHK said:

Then read through all the strange lyrics of "Grace" by U2. It's "grace," described in the feminine gender, could describe the grace of almost any deity. All the cults use the word grace. Most of them deny the deity of Christ as well. They don't believe in the God of the Bible.

Since when is ambiguity a definitive proof of error?

 

[Cindy]

QUOTE]Actually there's a "Where Are They Now" show that's running on VH1 that interviewed Don MacLean.

In it, he reveals that he is a Christian and attends the Calvary Chapel pastored by Ritchie Furay, another popular 70's rocker (POCO, Manasass, Souther, Hillman, Furay Band, and one of the original members of the Eagles).

Mike[/QB][/QUOTE]

Wow,Smoke-Eater! Don't know how I missed this. Don McLean a Christian,huh? That's cool.

Interesting tidbit: Remember McLean's song,"Vincent," which I think is about the artist Vincent Van Gogh? The amazing new young singer,Josh Groban, has included that on his new CD.

You can hear the whole album at

http://www.joshgroban.com

(I'm not directing this at you, Mike, because you'll probably think he's pretentious and over-produced. )

Elizabeth

 

[JValen]

I am new to these boards, and it's more mature here than in the other Christian board website I
visit..I say THANK GOD!
I have 30+ years growing up with secular (satanic) heavy metal and MTV and all that other stuff that is sin-inducing, not about praise. I became a Christian 2 years ago, and I threw out 98% of all that Led Zeppelin, Ozzy, Rolling Stones, the Doors, all those bands, that have talent but use it for the wrong purpose. The Beatles wrote Sgt. Pepper's album on LSD and the Rolling Stones hung out with a satanist cult, and were into witchcraft. You can visit www.av1611.org. on the dangers of secular music, the horrific album covers and get this in a song by supposedly teen pop stars " Backstreet Boys " there's a song that all the song lyrics are in unison to BIBLE SCRIPTURE of what God says, which is a satnic influence that wrote the lyrics. We should fear Brittnet Spears, and singers that push "gay pride" and Christian artists that don't say CHRIST in their songs to make their song specific enough. I am in a rock praise team, and I refuse to believe Rock -n-Roll is the enemy's.
It is God's talent to all creation, and it depends on what's in the heart & the message. We are all entitled to praise as we like, because God understands what we need as long as we PRAISE and Worship HIM. I disagree with Christian bands having tatoos, and mosh pits, etc..but as long as
everyone is not out of control, and you can feel passion not chaos there. To each his own PRAISE!

 

[SorryDude]

". I disagree with Christian bands having tatoos, and mosh pits,"

Why? Im not saying i agree or disagree with either one of those, but i just want to know why you feel that way.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Since when is ambiguity a definitive proof of error?

Ambiguity is error. It is a form of neo-orthodoxy. The cults (SDA's Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, etc.) do this all the time. They are ambiguous in their terminology. By doing so they are easily able to redefine terms like grace, justification, redemption, etc. Thus grace to a Catholic or a Seventh Day Adventist, may not mean the same as it does to one who truly believes what the Bible says. If you are so shallow that you do not know who you are singing about, or even what you are singing about, you are in a pitiful situation.
There is no question about the words "What can wash away my sin, nothing but the blood of Jesus." No one can confuse those words with any other religion but Biblical Christianity.
There is a lot of questions about what the lyrics of "Grace" by U2 are talking about. And that is wrong.
DHK

[ June 13, 2002, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[SorryDude]

"Thus grace to a Catholic or a Seventh Day Adventist, may not mean the same as it does to one who truly believes what the Bible says"

Becareful there sparky your steping on hostile ground. They (being your so called "cults") could, and probally do say the same about us (being baptists) and what we think that grace, justification, redemption, etc are and what they mean. So I really think you should whatch your words specially when discribeing other Christian groups and how they go about living in faith.

[ June 13, 2002, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: SorryDude ]

 

[DHK]

SorryDude,
You're not a Baptist are you?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I was going to say the same thing. I would have left his beliefs alone, but it might be time to address this.

 

[Ransom]

I had asked re: U2's song "Grace," "Since when is ambiguity a definitive proof of error?"

DHK answered:

Ambiguity is error. It is a form of neo-orthodoxy.

In a theological sense, sure, but we are not talking about divine revelation here. "Grace" is a rock lyric, which is closer in genre to poetry than pronouncement. And in literature, ambiguity is considered a virtue, not a vice, because the reader pauses and reads closely in order to understand the nuances of the author's meaning.

The cults (SDA's Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, etc.) do this all the time. They are ambiguous in their terminology. By doing so they are easily able to redefine terms like grace, justification, redemption, etc.

Exactly. Their intention is to mislead by redefining terms to suit their own agenda. This is not what U2 is doing. The name "grace" in the song is not a redefinition of terms, it is word play.

If you are so shallow that you do not know who you are singing about, or even what you are singing about, you are in a pitiful situation.

You know what's even more pitiful? Someone who hears a song that he can't quickly resolve into a technically precise theological proposition, and automatically assumes that the songwriter must be shilling for the cults. One might say this attitude is distinctly lacking in grace.

There is a lot of questions about what the lyrics of "Grace" by U2 are talking about. And that is wrong.

Says who? A woman (named "Grace") is the recipient of divine grace ("She carries a pearl / In perfect condition") and lives her daily life graciously "Grace finds goodness in everything").

Not so questionable when you actually read the words.

[ June 14, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by JValen:
I am new to these boards, and it's more mature here than in the other Christian board website I
visit..I say THANK GOD!

Welcome, JValen.

The Beatles wrote Sgt. Pepper's album on LSD...

Urban myth

and the Rolling Stones hung out with a satanist cult, and were into witchcraft.

Another urban myth

You can visit...on the dangers of secular music

We've discussed that website's shortcomings in several threads. They use rumours and urban legands, shoddy journalism and outright deception to advance their ideology. If their point that all rock music was bad was true, I would think that it could stand on it's own merits without them having to make things up.

You say that you're in a praise band that uses rock music. Why are you so quick to believe what they say about mainstream music, yet you don't follow their warnings about Christian rock?

and get this in a song by supposedly teen pop stars " Backstreet Boys " there's a song that all the song lyrics are in unison to BIBLE SCRIPTURE of what God says, which is a satnic influence that wrote the lyrics.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

We should fear...Christian artists that don't say CHRIST in their songs to make their song specific enough.

Why?

I disagree with Christian bands having tatoos, and mosh pits, etc..but as long as
everyone is not out of control, and you can feel passion not chaos there. To each his own PRAISE!

I agree to an extent. Passion can be good or bad, depending on the object of your passion. To say that something is right or wrong because you feel passionately about it is a dangerous thing.

JValens, if you'd like to read a good, balanced book on rock by a Christian artist, check out Dana Key's "Don't Stop the Music". It's probably otu of print by now, but it's well worth the effort to find.

Kerry Livgren, founder of the prog-rock group, Kansas, has an excellent book out that tackles many of the same subjects called, "Seeds of Change".

Elizabeth,

Thanks for the link. He's not bad.

Mike

[ June 14, 2002, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ransom:

Ambiguity is error. It is a form of neo-orthodoxy.

In a theological sense, sure, but we are not talking about divine revelation here. "Grace" is a rock lyric, which is closer in genre to poetry than pronouncement. And in literature, ambiguity is considered a virtue, not a vice, because the reader pauses and reads closely in order to understand the nuances of the author's meaning.

The cults (SDA's Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, etc.) do this all the time. They are ambiguous in their terminology. By doing so they are easily able to redefine terms like grace, justification, redemption, etc.

Exactly. Their intention is to mislead by redefining terms to suit their own agenda. This is not what U2 is doing. The name "grace" in the song is not a redefinition of terms, it is word play.

But here is what the Bible says:
Col.3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

The purpose of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs (i.e. Christian music) is for teaching and admonishing, or instruction. It is not simply a matter of poetry or literature. That is not the purpose of Christian music. Its primary purpose was instruction, whether by praise to God, or by history, or by other means. We learn much about who God is in the Psalms of praise in the Book of Psalms. Read how Moses, Miriam, Deborah, all broke out in song after they were victorious. You learn history, theology, precepts of prayer.

None of this wishy-washy vague, 'I don't know what your talking about' words about god, that could be any god.
DHK

 

[Aaron]

JValen,

Welcome aboard!! I've sent you a Private Message.

Aaron

 

[SorryDude]

Originally posted by DHK:
SorryDude,
You're not a Baptist are you?

Depends on what you consider a Baptist to be. I attend a Baptist church and I believe in water Baptisim. But i don't believe that because I attend a Baptist church that i have to ignore all other teachings by all other Christian denominations. I dont like being called a Baptist because i feel that I am Christian and nothing else. This whole denominaional thing is just stupid labeling that has probally caused more trouble then good. But if i had to pick one to be called i would call myself a Baptist. I hope this clears things up for you.

With Gods Love
SorryDude

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SorryDude:

Depends on what you consider a Baptist to be.

The reason that I ask, SorryDude, is that I consider a Baptist a Biblical Christian. That is one who nas trusted Christ as their saviour, and is born again. Jesus said in John 14:6,

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Christ is the only way to Heaven. There is no other way. The cults, without exception, say that there is another way to Heaven besides believing in Christ alone. You cannot be a Christian and a Mormon at the same time. You cannot be a Christian and a Jehovah's Witness at the same time. You cannot be a Christian and deny the deity of Christ at the same time (which most cults do). The SDA's believe that Christ is still making atonement for our sins. They also believe that their salvation occurs at their baptism. They believe that all who do not worship on the Sabbath, but rather on Sunday have the mark of the beast. These are heretical doctrines. Likewise the Catholic doctrines concerning purgatory, the immaculate conception, the assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, indulgences, forgiveness of sins by a priest, transubstantiation, putting the traditions of the Church on an equal level and authority as the Word of God--these are all heretical beliefs. The Baptists believe that the Bible is their only authority for all things in faith and practice. If it's not in the Bible or according to Biblical principles, then it is wrong. The cults are wrong. They are not Christian. They are not my Christian brothers and sisters. You can't be a Christian and deny Christ at the same time.
DHK

 

[SorryDude]

"The reason that I ask, SorryDude, is that I consider a Baptist a Biblical Christian. That is one who nas trusted Christ as their saviour, and is born again. Jesus said in John 14:6,"

You dont believe that being a Baptist is the only way to heaven do you? Thats why you asked? Im assumeing the other stuff had nothing to do with me.