Bible passages that guide us about secular/unbelieving criticisms of Christian worship music/ministry?
“If you sing pop lyrics, you are going to have a problem with your ministry because rock n’ roll by definition, and popular music, is about sexuality.” A judge then interjected, “And demons.” Simmons then repeated, “And demons.”
— Gene Simmons, a famous rock musician; transcribed from a video clip from an episode where he appeared on American Idol
Should Christians care about what secular/unbelieving people say in negative comments such as these about the worship music/ministry of certain Christians? What Bible passages do you think guide us in knowing what to do with such comments?
- 168 views
[RajeshG]Jim wrote:
Jay’s a programmer. He’ll get this
With your help, this thread will not become a loop back to previous threads. Please require those who comment to stay on the topic of the thread, which is not CCM. The topic is, “Bible passages that guide us about secular/unbelieving criticisms of Christian worship music/ministry?”
OK, Rajesh, help me out here. You link a B list heavy metal bassist who is eligible for Medicare and Social Security saying that someone might sing country but not pop, you reference how you think secular criticisms might be applicable to Christian praise music and ministry, and this will have nothing to do with CCM exactly how?
Where else can this go, logically speaking, Rajesh? Honestly. I think the technical term for what you’re doing is called “splitting hairs.”
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Who said it has nothing to do with CCM? The point is how do we biblically assess these statements made by secular/unbelieving people. The place where this thread should go is to a discussion of applicable Bible passages concerning statements made by secular people/unbelievers or statements that speak of assessments made by unbelievers of the conduct of God’s people.OK, Rajesh, help me out here. You link a B list heavy metal bassist who is eligible for Medicare and Social Security saying that someone might sing country but not pop, you reference how you think secular criticisms might be applicable to Christian praise music and ministry, and this will have nothing to do with CCM exactly how?
Where else can this go, logically speaking, Rajesh? Honestly. I think the technical term for what you’re doing is called “splitting hairs.”
[RajeshG]The Scripture I would use to evaluate this is Philippians 1:15-18Here are some related comments/considerations from a current CCM musician that we also should consider how to evaluate scripturally:
Mario Sangermano
I’m a professional musician who has and does work with some of the most well known CCM artists. I’ve done tours, recorded on their albums , etc.. I can tell you first hand that it’s about the bottomline, not Jesus. The hypocrisy is rampant. And I will say many are not believers. I was on a tour bus one year with a well known act and I was mocked for reading my bible. I was yelled at by the drummer for calling out heretics on TBN. Many musicians like myself who work in the CCM market are not believers. They all call themselves Christian’s, but their words and actions betray them. And the biblical ignorance is beyond breathtaking. There ate [sic] true believers players and artists alike, but far and few between.From the comments to this article: Lauren Daigle Rebrands Image as Non-Christian Artist
“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,”
Paul was noting that some people have selfish ambition and are not sincere, but if the gospel is going out, Paul was rejoicing. Certain musicians may be in it for the money or the fame, but if Christ is being proclaimed, we can rejoice.
[Kevin Miller]Although this passage is not exactly addressing comments made by or opinions held by secular/unbelieving people, it is applicable more broadly. Thanks.The Scripture I would use to evaluate this is Philippians 1:15-18
“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,”
Paul was noting that some people have selfish ambition and are not sincere, but if the gospel is going out, Paul was rejoicing. Certain musicians may be in it for the money or the fame, but if Christ is being proclaimed, we can rejoice.
[RajeshG] The point is how do we biblically assess these statements made by secular/unbelieving people. The place where this thread should go is to a discussion of applicable Bible passages concerning statements made by secular people/unbelievers or statements that speak of assessments made by unbelievers of the conduct of God’s people.
Answered - explains all of human history (Psalm 37)
[RajeshG]You asked Jim the to do the following - “Please require those who comment to stay on the topic of the thread, which is not CCM. The topic is, “Bible passages that guide us about secular/unbelieving criticisms of Christian worship music/ministry?” “Who said it has nothing to do with CCM? The point is how do we biblically assess these statements made by secular/unbelieving people. The place where this thread should go is to a discussion of applicable Bible passages concerning statements made by secular people/unbelievers or statements that speak of assessments made by unbelievers of the conduct of God’s people.
The bolded part of your request made it seem like you didn’t want CCM to be part of the discussion, yet the comments you wish us to evaluate Scripturally happen to be about CCM.
[Jim]Psalm 37:12-13 is one aspect of how we assess the conduct of unbelievers, but I do not see it as an explanation for all of their statements/assessments. For example,RajeshG wrote:
The point is how do we biblically assess these statements made by secular/unbelieving people. The place where this thread should go is to a discussion of applicable Bible passages concerning statements made by secular people/unbelievers or statements that speak of assessments made by unbelievers of the conduct of God’s people.Answered - explains all of human history (Psalm 37)
Ezekiel 16:27 Behold, therefore I have stretched out my hand over thee, and have diminished thine ordinary food, and delivered thee unto the will of them that hate thee, the daughters of the Philistines, which are ashamed of thy lewd way.
God relates in this statement that His people were so wicked at this time that the unbelieving Philistines were ashamed of their lewd way! Unbelievers have and can make valid critical assessments of ungodly sensual acts by those who profess to be God’s people. Moreover, God’s recording this statement for our profit shows us that He wants us to consider this profound reality and let it shape our living for Him.
[Kevin Miller]I’m asking that this thread not be allowed to become a contentious rehash about the propriety of CCM in general. Unbelievers have made critical statements about what Christians have done/are doing musically. What Bible passages/truths guide us in evaluating the validity of those statements by unbelievers about what Christians are doing musically in worship/ministry.RajeshG wrote:
Who said it has nothing to do with CCM? The point is how do we biblically assess these statements made by secular/unbelieving people. The place where this thread should go is to a discussion of applicable Bible passages concerning statements made by secular people/unbelievers or statements that speak of assessments made by unbelievers of the conduct of God’s people.
You asked Jim the to do the following - “Please require those who comment to stay on the topic of the thread, which is not CCM. The topic is, “Bible passages that guide us about secular/unbelieving criticisms of Christian worship music/ministry?” “
The bolded part of your request made it seem like you didn’t want CCM to be part of the discussion, yet the comments you wish us to evaluate Scripturally happen to be about CCM.
[RajeshG]Since only God can know the hearts of people, it might be be rather hard to limit our discussion to only comments from unbelieving people. In Philippians 1, I don’t know if these ministers with selfish ambitions really were believing people or not.Kevin Miller wrote:
The Scripture I would use to evaluate this is Philippians 1:15-18
“It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,”
Paul was noting that some people have selfish ambition and are not sincere, but if the gospel is going out, Paul was rejoicing. Certain musicians may be in it for the money or the fame, but if Christ is being proclaimed, we can rejoice.
Although this passage is not exactly addressing comments made by or opinions held by secular/unbelieving people, it is applicable more broadly. Thanks.
Now, I’ve heard criticisms from some people (can’t tell for sure if they are believers or not) that certain Christian music is boring or not relevant to people today. I suspect we would use the same Scriptures to assess those comments as we would use to assess comments that certain music is sexual in nature. Right?
Thanks for the laugh, Jim. I am actually not a programmer - database and infrastructure is more my thing - but I did get the joke.
As for this:
Please require those who comment to stay on the topic of the thread, which is not CCM. The topic is, “Bible passages that guide us about secular/unbelieving criticisms of Christian worship music/ministry?”
We’ve already tried that on other threads, Rajesh, and it didn’t go anywhere. As for the ‘main question’ - if Simmons et al want to voice their opinions, that’s fine, but I’m not going to take anything they say seriously if they aren’t (at a minimum), being serious themselves, as someone else noted.
Seriously. The unsaved man does not understand the things of God. Period. So there is little to no point in asking what they think about our worship services. This is not hard.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Kevin Miller]Without going back and looking at the passage again carefully, it seems at first glance that your point about the people in Philippians 1 is a valid one so I can see how that passage could apply to comments made by people whose spiritual state is not clear to us.Since only God can know the hearts of people, it might be be rather hard to limit our discussion to only comments from unbelieving people. In Philippians 1, I don’t know if these ministers with selfish ambitions really were believing people or not.
Now, I’ve heard criticisms from some people (can’t tell for sure if they are believers or not) that certain Christian music is boring or not relevant to people today. I suspect we would use the same Scriptures to assess those comments as we would use to assess comments that certain music is sexual in nature. Right?
I’m still more interested in scriptural statements made by those whom we know are unbelievers because statements made or opinions held by believers bring in additional considerations that change how those statements have to be handled.
[Jay]No, Ezekiel 16:27 shows that your conclusion is not biblical. Unbelievers can make at least some valid assessments of ungodly behavior by those who profess to be God’s people.Seriously. The unsaved man does not understand the things of God. Period. So there is little to no point in asking what they think about our worship services. This is not hard.
[RajeshG]Umm. I thought you wanted this thread to be about evaluating criticisms of music ministry. Ezekiel 16:27 doesn’t say anything about the Israelite’s music or about how to evaluate criticisms of music.Ezekiel 16:27 Behold, therefore I have stretched out my hand over thee, and have diminished thine ordinary food, and delivered thee unto the will of them that hate thee, the daughters of the Philistines, which are ashamed of thy lewd way.
God relates in this statement that His people were so wicked at this time that the unbelieving Philistines were ashamed of their lewd way! Unbelievers have and can make valid critical assessments of ungodly sensual acts by those who profess to be God’s people. Moreover, God’s recording this statement for our profit shows us that He wants us to consider this profound reality and let it shape our living for Him.
Again, there’s no where else your comments go but to agitate against CCM and other Christian pop.
But to the question of how we evaluate this Biblically, we start by evaluating its logic. OK, we have appeal to authority fallacy and guilt by association here, argument should be a non-starter, period.
But if we must persist, we go to the simple fact that I pointed out what Simmons almost certainly knows, but did not admit; the modern music world welcomes certain religiously oriented and even explicitly Christian music. I guarantee you, for example, that somewhat religious music by Bob Dylan and Norman Greenbaum gets a lot more play on the radio than KISS ever did. So Simmon’s comments ought to be nonstarters on a factual basis as well.
But if we ignore logic and facts, we can progress to the question Greg H. references; do we know that the speaker is actually saying what he believes, or does he have ulterior motives? And we know that Simmons’ comments reflect his group’s schtick, and Sangermano (your other source) appears to be a studio musician. OK, he knows some guys, but ask yourself Greg’s question; does he know these guys well enough to evaluate their faith, or is he tired of coming in for a session or two and then being out of work for a month or more?
And Lauren Diagle? Well, she got her big start at NorthPoint, where Andy Stanley is the pastor. Is her theological problem her music, or is it what she hears from the pulpit?
Sorry, Rajesh, but when you process what you’re trying to argue, it’s repeated swings and misses.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Kevin Miller]Yes, it does not say anything directly about music, but it shows that unbelievers can validly assess the conduct of professing believers for sensual conduct that is not fitting for those who profess to be God’s people. Now, if an unbeliever were to comment about sensuality in Christian worship/music …Umm. I thought you wanted this thread to be about evaluating criticisms of music ministry. Ezekiel 16:27 doesn’t say anything about the Israelite’s music or about how to evaluate criticisms of music.
Now, if an unbeliever were to comment about sensuality in Christian worship/music …
But we aren’t talking about that. The opening of this whole thread was about an unsaved rock star talking about secular rock music. It has nothing to do with CCM or Christian music in general, which, as others have noted, is the dead horse you keep dragging into the room(s) here on SharperIron.
Rajesh, the real problem is that you want an extremely tightly controlled discussion on very particular topics of importance to you. That’s not how discussion boards work.
And suffice it to say, I continue to disagree with you that the passages you have referred to have anything - anything at all - to do with worship music in the New Covenant / Church age.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[RajeshG]Well, if an unbeliever were to make accusations of sensuousness in Christian music, you would have to examine the truthfulness of the charge. What sensual conduct might he be referring to? If he says something like “breathiness,” then he may have a point, or he may be reading something into the presentation that just isn’t there. Different voices have different sounds. If he says, “the music has a beat, therefore it is sensual,” then he is putting his own preconceived notions of what is sensual into the music. Most people do not get a sense of sensuality when hearing music that has a beat, but I suppose some people could. That person should not listen to such music, but they can’t apply their own standard to everyone, because the music would not be affecting others in the same way.Kevin Miller wrote:
Umm. I thought you wanted this thread to be about evaluating criticisms of music ministry. Ezekiel 16:27 doesn’t say anything about the Israelite’s music or about how to evaluate criticisms of music.
Yes, it does not say anything directly about music, but it shows that unbelievers can validly assess the conduct of professing believers for sensual conduct that is not fitting for those who profess to be God’s people. Now, if an unbeliever were to comment about sensuality in Christian worship/music …
Here is the passage that I was thinking of earlier:
“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”
1 Corinthians 2:14-16 ESV
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
You’d have to consider the source. What does the person say, what is his credibility, and how do his comments and the performance in question intersect with your own church’s style of corporate worship? This is why I suggested Prov 11:14.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
We probably ought to use its proper name, “whispering”. It’s the technique, I’m told, of letting some air pass by your vocal chords to either quiet one’s voice or create a particular vocal effect. Sometimes it’s sensual—you whisper something to your wife late at night—and sometimes it’s not—like when you tell your kids to be quiet in church. It has its purposes, not all of them nefarious.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]I was purposely referring to it by it’s nefarious name. After all, that’s how an accusation would be made.We probably ought to use its proper name, “whispering”. It’s the technique, I’m told, of letting some air pass by your vocal chords to either quiet one’s voice or create a particular vocal effect. Sometimes it’s sensual—you whisper something to your wife late at night—and sometimes it’s not—like when you tell your kids to be quiet in church. It has its purposes, not all of them nefarious.
https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-internet-trolls-3485894
The Persistent Debate Troll
This type of troll loves a good argument. They can take a great, thoroughly researched and fact-based piece of content, and come at it from all opposing discussion angles to challenge its message. They believe they’re right, and everyone else is wrong. You’ll often also find them leaving long threads or arguments with other commenters in community comment sections, and they’re always determined to have the last word – continuing to comment until that other user gives up.
[GregH]Rajesh is apparently very impressed by the anonymous commenter on the Daigle article because he dedicates an entire blog post to it here: https://apeopleforhisname.org/2019/01/revealing-comment-to-article-about-ccm/
Three comments:
- If we are going to start taking random anonymous comments on blog posts very seriously, we are fools of the first order.
- Rajesh only is impressed with that random anonymous comment because it supports his position. It is 100% for sure that he will not run around the internet breathlessly quoting anonymous comments that he disagrees with.
- That Rajesh is foolish enough to put so much stock in an anonymous blog comment says a great deal about his scholarship and also says a great deal about his desperation to prove his case.
By the way, if you want to know what Rajesh thinks about this entire question he poses, you can read his conclusions here on his blog: https://apeopleforhisname.org/2018/09/are-secular-testimonies-about-the-perverseness-of-rock-music-inherently-unreliable/ (Spoiler alert: He is all for listening to the unsaved when they support his opinions about music. Maybe less so when they don’t support his opinions on music.
)
So what you’re saying is that Rajesh isn’t really approaching this community as an honest searcher but rather to instruct us (us fools) using the Socratic method. Affirming the troll comment above.
[Craig Toliver]https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-internet-trolls-3485894
The Persistent Debate Troll
This type of troll loves a good argument. They can take a great, thoroughly researched and fact-based piece of content, and come at it from all opposing discussion angles to challenge its message. They believe they’re right, and everyone else is wrong. You’ll often also find them leaving long threads or arguments with other commenters in community comment sections, and they’re always determined to have the last word – continuing to comment until that other user gives up.
Guys, this thread has a topic of it’s own and bringing in the blog, troll accusations, etc., isn’t relevant to it. Taking over a thread someone else has started is the oldest no-no on the web.
Why not interact with people on their terms. If you’re so sure you have the truth on your side, you should be perfectly comfortable with doing that.
Leading questions is a legitimate debate technique, probably even older than Socrates, and isn’t any kind of trolling. If it’s too difficult for you, don’t participate in the thread.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
So first Rajesh gets accused of not providing us enough answers in regards to his own position, and now he is getting accused of trying to Instruct us fools. Why the antagonism towards him? He started the thread asking what other people think. Is that so bad? I’ve provided him with verses that I think might fit his request, and he’s told me why or why not he thinks they apply, but he’s never called anyone on the thread a fool or a troll as others have just done to him. If you don’t want to interact with him then don’t interact. I do see him as being inconsistent in regards to which comments from the unsaved he would be agreeing with, but that’s a point that can be made respectfully without calling him foolish. It sounds like some people are trying to intentionally drive him away.
[Aaron Blumer]Guys, this thread has a topic of it’s own and bringing in the blog, troll accusations, etc., isn’t relevant to it. Taking over a thread someone else has started is the oldest no-no on the web.
How exactly is bringing up his blog posts about the topic of this post not relevant to the topic? What possibly could be more relevant to the topic?
[GregH]Aaron Blumer wrote:
Guys, this thread has a topic of it’s own and bringing in the blog, troll accusations, etc., isn’t relevant to it. Taking over a thread someone else has started is the oldest no-no on the web.
How exactly is bringing up his blog posts about the topic of this post not relevant to the topic? What possibly could be more relevant to the topic?
Agree 100% / and citing Rajesh’s own blog is hardly ad hominem because it’s his own blog. I don’t see any violation of our comment policy.
[Aaron Blumer]Thanks for letting me know your thoughts about what has been said about me/to me. I did not think that I had done anything that was problematic or illegitimate.Guys, this thread has a topic of it’s own and bringing in the blog, troll accusations, etc., isn’t relevant to it. Taking over a thread someone else has started is the oldest no-no on the web.
Why not interact with people on their terms. If you’re so sure you have the truth on your side, you should be perfectly comfortable with doing that.
Leading questions is a legitimate debate technique, probably even older than Socrates, and isn’t any kind of trolling. If it’s too difficult for you, don’t participate in the thread.
[Kevin Miller]I appreciate your comments, Kevin. I intend to continue to interact with brethren on SI, as God leads.So first Rajesh gets accused of not providing us enough answers in regards to his own position, and now he is getting accused of trying to Instruct us fools. Why the antagonism towards him? He started the thread asking what other people think. Is that so bad? I’ve provided him with verses that I think might fit his request, and he’s told me why or why not he thinks they apply, but he’s never called anyone on the thread a fool or a troll as others have just done to him. If you don’t want to interact with him then don’t interact. I do see him as being inconsistent in regards to which comments from the unsaved he would be agreeing with, but that’s a point that can be made respectfully without calling him foolish. It sounds like some people are trying to intentionally drive him away.
[Jim]Agree 100% / and citing Rajesh’s own blog is hardly ad hominem because it’s his own blog. I don’t see any violation of our comment policy.
Repeatedly calling me a fool hardly seems to be proper language that is in keeping with the following statements on the SI policy statement:
C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
malicious ridiculing of other participants
focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic
I believe that his comments calling me a fool were an ad hominem attack that is unbecoming for a Christian minister to use to address a fellow believer.
I really appreciated Kevin’s comment about deliberately choosing the “nefarious” sounding word rather than the more innocent one. :^)
And a super minor correction to Greg H’s comment; the comment is not actually anonymous. It’s by a guy named Mario Sangermano, who (as I noted above) from a quick Google search appears to be something of a session musician/studio musician, I presume in Nashville. (feel free to offer super minor correction of your own to boot)
Regarding leading questions, yes, that, and hypothetical questions, are legitimate in debate. I have personally been startled when people I thought ought to know better decided that answering hypotheticals and such was out of line.
That noted, the problem with the premiss here is not that, but (again) that it’s really guilt by association. That is indeed problematic and illegitimate.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[RajeshG]Jim wrote:
Agree 100% / and citing Rajesh’s own blog is hardly ad hominem because it’s his own blog. I don’t see any violation of our comment policy.
Repeatedly calling me a fool hardly seems to be proper language that is in keeping with the following statements on the SI policy statement:
C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:
derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
malicious ridiculing of other participants
focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic
I believe that his comments calling me a fool were an ad hominem attack that is unbecoming for a Christian minister to use to address a fellow believer.
I didn’t call you a fool! I expressed that I feel you treat us like fools by your methodology
[Jim]To clarify, I was not saying that you called me a fool. I was speaking of the person who linked to my blog who did so twice in his comments (whose comments and actions you approved of and did not think were problematic). I believe that his use of that wording was not in keeping with the SI policy and more importantly, with proper standards of Christian conduct.RajeshG wrote:
Jim wrote:
Agree 100% / and citing Rajesh’s own blog is hardly ad hominem because it’s his own blog. I don’t see any violation of our comment policy.
Repeatedly calling me a fool hardly seems to be proper language that is in keeping with the following statements on the SI policy statement:
C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:
derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
malicious ridiculing of other participants
focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic
I believe that his comments calling me a fool were an ad hominem attack that is unbecoming for a Christian minister to use to address a fellow believer.
I didn’t call you a fool! I expressed that I feel you treat us like fools by your methodology
Do you think there is an explicit verse or passage that addresses what you’re after? I think context matters. It all depends on who the person is, whether he’s credible, what his complaint is, and the context of your own congregation’s corporate worship. It’s worth considering the comment, though. I still think Proverbs 11:14 applies best, because we can’t go far beyond general principles without an explicit statement and context.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[RajeshG]Jim wrote:
RajeshG wrote:
Jim wrote:
Agree 100% / and citing Rajesh’s own blog is hardly ad hominem because it’s his own blog. I don’t see any violation of our comment policy.
Repeatedly calling me a fool hardly seems to be proper language that is in keeping with the following statements on the SI policy statement:
C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:
derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
malicious ridiculing of other participants
focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic
I believe that his comments calling me a fool were an ad hominem attack that is unbecoming for a Christian minister to use to address a fellow believer.
I didn’t call you a fool! I expressed that I feel you treat us like fools by your methodology
To clarify, I was not saying that you called me a fool. I was speaking of the person who linked to my blog who did so twice in his comments (whose comments and actions you approved of and did not think were problematic). I believe that his use of that wording was not in keeping with the SI policy and more importantly, with proper standards of Christian conduct.
Um no, I did not call you a fool. I did say you are foolish in regards to how much value you are placing on a random comment on a blog. I am foolish about things as well but I don’t consider myself a fool either.
You are foolish to allow your bias about music to compromise your thinking and scholarship on this issue. Many things you have said about music on these threads are foolish in my opinion.
[RajeshG]… whose comments and actions you approved of and did not think were problematic …
You are projecting a motive upon me! Not gonna stick!
[RajeshG]Jim wrote:
RajeshG wrote:
Jim wrote:
Agree 100% / and citing Rajesh’s own blog is hardly ad hominem because it’s his own blog. I don’t see any violation of our comment policy.
Repeatedly calling me a fool hardly seems to be proper language that is in keeping with the following statements on the SI policy statement:
C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:
derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
malicious ridiculing of other participants
focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic
I believe that his comments calling me a fool were an ad hominem attack that is unbecoming for a Christian minister to use to address a fellow believer.
I didn’t call you a fool! I expressed that I feel you treat us like fools by your methodology
To clarify, I was not saying that you called me a fool. I was speaking of the person who linked to my blog who did so twice in his comments (whose comments and actions you approved of and did not think were problematic). I believe that his use of that wording was not in keeping with the SI policy and more importantly, with proper standards of Christian conduct.
Here is what I find ironic. I love how when someone challenges you and those of your belief system, you get offended and start talking about proper standards of Christian conduct. And yet, you guys fairly ignorantly broadbrush an entire industry of fellow Christians in an almost slanderous way because you don’t like the instruments they use. You do know you will be in heaven with many of those drummers and guitarists right?
[GregH]Honestly, you used stronger language than that, such that I was under the impression you were calling him a fool. Using an “inclusive we” doesn’t absolve you. You said -Um no, I did not call you a fool. I did say you are foolish in regards to how much value you are placing on a random comment on a blog.
“If we are going to start taking random anonymous comments on blog posts very seriously, we are fools of the first order.”
You obviously know Rajesh took the comment seriously, so you obviously think he’s a fool of the first order. That’s how I took your comment. I’m glad to hear you didn’t mean it so seriously.
[GregH]Aaron Blumer wrote:
Guys, this thread has a topic of it’s own and bringing in the blog, troll accusations, etc., isn’t relevant to it. Taking over a thread someone else has started is the oldest no-no on the web.
How exactly is bringing up his blog posts about the topic of this post not relevant to the topic? What possibly could be more relevant to the topic?
Hmm… seems obvious, but the topic is in the first post in the thread. The blog isn’t here and seems to be a lot broader in scope. But even granting it relevance, it doesn’t speak much to the question Rajesh raised. Why not focus on that, since it’s what he seems to want to do with the thread? Why not take his questions at face value, or if not interested in doing that, simply don’t interact?
As for ad hominem, no, bringing the blog up isn’t ad hominem, making accusations about a person’s motives rather than their arguments is ad hominem fallacy. Most fallacies are fallacies because they aren’t relevant to proving or disproving the truth of claims… and motives are almost never relevant in that way.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
As I believe was said earlier, personally I would say that I am more likely to listen to an unbeliever on issues of common grace “If you then being evil know how to give good gifts to your children…” than specific practices within the church service. If my neighbor wants to give me advise on building a fence I’m all ears. If he wants to tell me how to undertake a spiritual act I’m going to politely say no thank you.
One other section that might have some insight is Jethro’s advise to Moses (Ex. 18) to delegate some of his judging responsibilities. I have always understood him to be an unbeliever (could be wrong on that) yet Moses listened to the advise. Still, that is a little different than Gene Simmons since he was connected with the group and wasn’t really giving sprititual advise.
Discussion