We Must Heed the Vital Message of 1 Corinthians 10:18-20

Forum category

1 Corinthians 10:18-20 provides vital instruction that every believer must heed:

1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

To eat in a worship context of what has been sacrificed on an altar to an idol is to be a partaker of the altar. To do so is also to have fellowship with demons!

Such fellowship with demons is not contingent upon a person’s having to offer the sacrifices himself. Anyone who eats of such sacrifices comes into fellowship with demons.

The passage also does not provide any basis to say or to hold that this only happens sometimes—in a worship context, anyone who eats what has been sacrificed to an idol has fellowship with demons. God does not want any humans to have fellowship with demons!

Discussion

Scripture reveals that when a group of believers is filled with the Spirit, the first result of that filling is their ministering musically to one another with music that is acceptable to God:
Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Ephesians 5:18 καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι, 19 λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς [ἐν] ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ,
In strong contrast to Eph. 5:18-19, Acts 5:3 reveals to us that Satan can fill the heart of humans to sin against God:
Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

BGT Acts 5:3 εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Πέτρος· Ἁνανία, διὰ τί ἐπλήρωσεν ὁ σατανᾶς τὴν καρδίαν σου, ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ νοσφίσασθαι ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ χωρίου;
Noting that the same verb for filling (πληρόω) is used in both Eph. 5:18 and Acts 5:3, and considering that Exodus 32:6 points to the reality that the idolaters in the GCI were under strong demonic influence because they had idolatrously consumed things offered to an idol, it is noteworthy that the first specific thing that God reveals in some detail (2 verses) to us about the activities of those demonically influenced idolaters was about the music that they were producing under that influence:
Exodus 32:17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. 18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.
This comparison of these passages reveals that the passages show that control by the Spirit produces godly music in true worshipers (Eph. 5:18-19), and control by demons produces ungodly music in false worshipers (Exod. 32:6; 32:17-18).

[RajeshG]

Acts 5:3 indisputably proves that the devil can control the heart of a human being even when we have no information that the human being has engaged in idolatrous consumption of things offered to an idol. Because that is true, we have biblical basis to hold that what the devil does do to people who do engage in idolatrous consumption of things offered to an idol is something that goes beyond even controlling their hearts to sin against God.

But I don’t see that Acts 5:3 proves Satanic control. especially not “indisputably.” If your heart gets filled with a temptation, that doesn’t mean that you lose control over your own decisions. So there is something about the concept of “control” that you are thinking about in a different way than I am, and I haven’t figured out yet how to put that difference into words. You mentioned the verse about being “filled with the Spirit,” but that filling doesn’t control us to the extent that it overrides our intentional decisions. We still have to make intentional decisions regarding whether we will walk according to the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh, or walk according to the Spirit, fulfilling the desires of the Spirit.

Even if Ananias was controlled, the example of Ananias does not give “biblical basis” to show that “participation with demons” is an even greater control. That is an interpretive assessment on your part, not something that is directly stated in Scripture. In fact, it sounds awfully close to a “speculation” that you have told me you refuse to engage in. That sentence is the kind of declarative statement I am talking about when I say you make these declarative statements, then when I would try to dig into what evidence you have that it “goes beyond even controlling,” you would stop discussing what you just said, and you would tell me we can’t humanly know.

I’ve said all along that there are things which the Scriptures aren’t clear about regarding demon activity. Yet you are making this statement that there is “biblical basis” for saying fellowship with demons “goes beyond even controlling their hearts to sin.” I’m just trying to figure out why you think there’s a biblical basis for saying that. Your examples certainly don’t prove it.

[RajeshG]

Scripture reveals that when a group of believers is filled with the Spirit, the first result of that filling is their ministering musically to one another with music that is acceptable to God:

According to Acts 10:44-46, the first result of being filled with the Spirit was speaking in tongues.

Making music is one of the commands that Spirit filled people should obey, but the Bible doesn’t specify any particular musical style as being off limits in Ephesians 5:18.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Scripture reveals that when a group of believers is filled with the Spirit, the first result of that filling is their ministering musically to one another with music that is acceptable to God:

According to Acts 10:44-46, the first result of being filled with the Spirit was speaking in tongues.

Making music is one of the commands that Spirit filled people should obey, but the Bible doesn’t specify any particular musical style as being off limits in Ephesians 5:18.

The Bible does not say that the people in Acts 10:44-46 were filled with the Spirit.The Spirit does not use the verb (πληρόω) in any of the passages (Acts 10, 11, 15) about that event to say that those people were filled with the Spirit.
Moreover, there is no command in Eph. 5:18-19 to make music:
Ephesians 5:19 λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς [ἐν] ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ
The verb forms used here (λαλοῦντες and ψάλλοντες) are not commands; they are participles. You can try to show that they carry imperatival force here, but they are not commands. The command here is to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18).
Musicians who are controlled by the Holy Spirit are not going to use ungodly styles/genres created by reprobate idolaters who are “inventors of evil things” (Rom. 1:30). If you want to say that Romans 1:30 does not apply to musical styles/genres, the burden of proof is on you to show how and why that statement does not apply to musical styles.
You also have the burden of proof of showing how the Bible teaches that God accepts the use of all styles/genres in worship. If you cannot prove that view from the Bible, you have no basis to say that people who are filled with the Spirit will ever use in worship ungodly styles sourced in the occult or other evil activities of humans.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Acts 5:3 indisputably proves that the devil can control the heart of a human being even when we have no information that the human being has engaged in idolatrous consumption of things offered to an idol. Because that is true, we have biblical basis to hold that what the devil does do to people who do engage in idolatrous consumption of things offered to an idol is something that goes beyond even controlling their hearts to sin against God.

But I don’t see that Acts 5:3 proves Satanic control. especially not “indisputably.” If your heart gets filled with a temptation, that doesn’t mean that you lose control over your own decisions. So there is something about the concept of “control” that you are thinking about in a different way than I am, and I haven’t figured out yet how to put that difference into words… .

Even if Ananias was controlled, the example of Ananias does not give “biblical basis” to show that “participation with demons” is an even greater control.

When a person becomes drunk, they obviously are not in a state of merely being tempted by wine. When they are drunk, they have lost control of themselves and are under the control of the alcohol. The contrast in Eph. 5:18 is between a command not to be drunken with wine (totally under its control) and a command to be filled with the Spirit (totally under the control of the Spirit).
The verb πληρόω in Eph. 5:18 and Acts 5:3 never means to tempt someone. The Spirit uses the verb πειράζω many times in the NT to speak of tempting. Acts 5:3 does not teach that Satan merely tempted Ananias to lie to God. It teaches that Satan controlled Ananias’ heart to lie to God.
Acts 5:3 teaches that Satan controlled the heart of someone who at least professed to be a believer. We do not have any revelation about how or why Ananias’ heart was controlled by the devil. Had Ananias’ been involved in any other known egregious sins in his life at that time, Peter and other church leaders would have confronted him about those sins prior to his sin of lying to the Spirit.
In the case of unbelievers who idolatrously consume what has been offered to an idol, we know that they are guilty of committing egregious sins against God by their doing so. When unbelievers give the devil such a place in their lives, we can be confident that the devil exerts a far stronger control on them than he did on Ananias.
It’s telling that in an earlier comment, you wrote the following:

[Kevin Miller]
Why would you even think my position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn’t even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan?
It’s striking that in this previous comment, you acknowledge your perplexity about why I would “even think [your] position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn’t even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan.” In this statement, you speak in a way that points to your believing to be true the very thing that you are now trying to say cannot be said, namely, that worship of demons would be something more evil than what we know about what Ananias did.

[RajeshG]

Musicians who are controlled by the Holy Spirit are not going to use ungodly styles/genres created by reprobate idolaters who are “inventors of evil things” (Rom. 1:30). If you want to say that Romans 1:30 does not apply to musical styles/genres, the burden of proof is on you to show how and why that statement does not apply to musical styles.

You also have the burden of proof of showing how the Bible teaches that God accepts the use of all styles/genres in worship. If you cannot prove that view from the Bible, you have no basis to say that people who are filled with the Spirit will ever use in worship ungodly styles sourced in the occult or other evil activities of humans.

This brings us right back to the question of whether one is able to know that a style is “created by a reprobate idolater.” How can we tell if a style is “sourced in the occult”? Earlier you said, “I have rejected and continue to reject categorically all attempts to determine musicologically what characteristics of demonically influenced music make it unacceptable to God because making such determinations is humanly impossible. We are limited to knowing that what makes all such musics ungodly is the demonic agency in the creation/production/playing, etc. of that music.” Is there some way for humans to determine “demonic agency” in a style. We can’t do it musicologically, so how can it be done?

I can even concede that God doesn’t accept all styles in worship, but how would conceding that help me in my musical decisions? Maybe God hates opera. I have no idea who started the opera style, so I don’t know if it was started by a reprobate idolater. Is there any way to truly know that about any musical style? If a certain opera composer were to claim that they composed their opera in honor of Satan, would that make all opera off limits for worship?

You take the phrase “inventors of evil things” and act like it supports your position against styles of music, but even though a style may be a “thing,” you would still have to defend any claim that a particular style is an “evil” thing. Some styles may be, but if it is made evil by something humans are unable to distinguish, then humans are unable to tell that it is evil. Does this condemnation of evil things invented by idolaters also apply to transportation styles? if bicycles were invented by an idolater, would that make riding a bicycle displeasing to God? You sometimes evade my questions by saying you only meant something being used “in worship,” so I’ll have the person riding the bike be using the bike to travel as they witness to sinners. Surely that is a worshipful act that would be displeasing if done on an evil bicycle, no? Even if there was some odd chance that some transportation styles are evil things, then we would still have to determine in some way which styles are evil. Your position doesn’t give us any way to do that with music.

[RajeshG]

When a person becomes drunk, they obviously are not in a state of merely being tempted by wine. When they are drunk, they have lost control of themselves and are under the control of the alcohol. The contrast in Eph. 5:18 is between a command not to be drunken with wine (totally under its control) and a command to be filled with the Spirit (totally under the control of the Spirit).

The verb πληρόω in Eph. 5:18 and Acts 5:3 never means to tempt someone. The Spirit uses the verb πειράζω many times in the NT to speak of tempting. Acts 5:3 does not teach that Satan merely tempted Ananias to lie to God. It teaches that Satan controlled Ananias’ heart to lie to God.

Acts 5:3 teaches that Satan controlled the heart of someone who at least professed to be a believer. We do not have any revelation about how or why Ananias’ heart was controlled by the devil. Had Ananias’ been involved in any other known egregious sins in his life at that time, Peter and other church leaders would have confronted him about those sins prior to his sin of lying to the Spirit.

Do you really want to keep making the analogy between the filling of the Spirit and the filling of the heart of Ananias. To me the only similarity is the word “filled” and the fact that it involves a supernatural being. The control by the Holy spirit is dependent upon the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Was there an indwelling presence in Ananias? We’ve already determined that the Scriptures don’t support such an assertion. Your analogy seems to be comparing one type of control to a completely different kind of control.

In the case of unbelievers who idolatrously consume what has been offered to an idol, we know that they are guilty of committing egregious sins against God by their doing so. When unbelievers give the devil such a place in their lives, we can be confident that the devil exerts a far stronger control on them than he did on Ananias.
How can we be confident of that? You keep making assertions that sound to me simply like opinions.

It’s telling that in an earlier comment, you wrote the following:
Kevin Miller wrote:

Why would you even think my position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn’t even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan?

It’s striking that in this previous comment, you acknowledge your perplexity about why I would “even think [your] position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn’t even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan.” In this statement, you speak in a way that points to your believing to be true the very thing that you are now trying to say cannot be said, namely, that worship of demons would be something more evil than what we know about what Ananias did.

I spoke that way because I understand YOUR position to be that worshipping demons would be more evil than what Ananias did. I was asking ‘How can you think this is my position, when it doesn’t even meet the standard for YOUR position.” That doesn’t point to me thinking your position is true. It points to my perplexity at having you make up positions that you think I hold, and the position you made up was even stronger than the one you yourself hold.

[Kevin Miller]
Quote:It’s telling that in an earlier comment, you wrote the following:

Kevin Miller wrote:

Why would you even think my position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn’t even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan?

It’s striking that in this previous comment, you acknowledge your perplexity about why I would “even think [your] position should be that Satan would do his absolute worst to Ananias, when the Bible doesn’t even record that Ananias had been worshipping Satan.” In this statement, you speak in a way that points to your believing to be true the very thing that you are now trying to say cannot be said, namely, that worship of demons would be something more evil than what we know about what Ananias did.

I spoke that way because I understand YOUR position to be that worshipping demons would be more evil than what Ananias did. I was asking ‘How can you think this is my position, when it doesn’t even meet the standard for YOUR position.” That doesn’t point to me thinking your position is true. It points to my perplexity at having you make up positions that you think I hold, and the position you made up was even stronger than the one you yourself hold.

In an earlier comment, you made a statement that reflects a persistent misunderstanding on your part about what my position is:
[Kevin Miller]
Sure, my understanding does not have demons doing their ultimate worst when humans worship them. But then, your perspective doesn’t either, since demons have the ability to possess people, but your position is that demons are not controlling all the way to possession when they are worshipped. Why isn’t your position appreciating the full nature of what demons are able to do to people? [bold added to original]
My position is not “that demons are not controlling all the way to possession when they are worshipped”! My position is that we cannot say whether they do or do not possess people who are actively worshiping them because the Bible does not provide the data necessary to be able to say with certainty whether they do or do not possess people who idolatrously consume things sacrificed to an idol.
It is entirely possible that they do possess some or all the idolaters who idolatrously consume what has been sacrificed to an idol, but the Bible does not provide the information necessary for us as humans to know whether they do or do not do so.
Perhaps having this misunderstanding corrected may help you to understand the other things that I have been saying.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Musicians who are controlled by the Holy Spirit are not going to use ungodly styles/genres created by reprobate idolaters who are “inventors of evil things” (Rom. 1:30). If you want to say that Romans 1:30 does not apply to musical styles/genres, the burden of proof is on you to show how and why that statement does not apply to musical styles.

You also have the burden of proof of showing how the Bible teaches that God accepts the use of all styles/genres in worship. If you cannot prove that view from the Bible, you have no basis to say that people who are filled with the Spirit will ever use in worship ungodly styles sourced in the occult or other evil activities of humans.

This brings us right back to the question of whether one is able to know that a style is “created by a reprobate idolater.” How can we tell if a style is “sourced in the occult”? Earlier you said, “I have rejected and continue to reject categorically all attempts to determine musicologically what characteristics of demonically influenced music make it unacceptable to God because making such determinations is humanly impossible. We are limited to knowing that what makes all such musics ungodly is the demonic agency in the creation/production/playing, etc. of that music.” Is there some way for humans to determine “demonic agency” in a style. We can’t do it musicologically, so how can it be done?

I can even concede that God doesn’t accept all styles in worship, but how would conceding that help me in my musical decisions? Maybe God hates opera. I have no idea who started the opera style, so I don’t know if it was started by a reprobate idolater. Is there any way to truly know that about any musical style? If a certain opera composer were to claim that they composed their opera in honor of Satan, would that make all opera off limits for worship?

You take the phrase “inventors of evil things” and act like it supports your position against styles of music, but even though a style may be a “thing,” you would still have to defend any claim that a particular style is an “evil” thing. Some styles may be, but if it is made evil by something humans are unable to distinguish, then humans are unable to tell that it is evil. Does this condemnation of evil things invented by idolaters also apply to transportation styles? if bicycles were invented by an idolater, would that make riding a bicycle displeasing to God? You sometimes evade my questions by saying you only meant something being used “in worship,” so I’ll have the person riding the bike be using the bike to travel as they witness to sinners. Surely that is a worshipful act that would be displeasing if done on an evil bicycle, no? Even if there was some odd chance that some transportation styles are evil things, then we would still have to determine in some way which styles are evil. Your position doesn’t give us any way to do that with music.

Scripture teaches us all of the following truths:
1. Worship is of supreme importance to God.
2. Music is exceedingly important to God.
3. Corrupting, defiling, and perverting divine worship is an exceedingly important objective of Satan and his demons.
4. Humans who idolatrously consume things offered to idols partner with demons in what they do.
5. Humans who had idolatrously consumed things offered to an idol partnered with demons in producing music as part of their idolatry.
6. When Satan and his demons control wicked humans to engage in idolatrous worship, they direct them not only to worship the wrong object but also to do so in ungodly ways, including by offering ungodly things to the idols.
7. Reprobate idolaters who have been judged by God by His giving them over to their sinfulness are inventors of evil things.
8. God demands that His people not have anything to do with how idolaters worship their idols. He demands that His people not even inquire about how they do such things.

9. God commands His people not to have any fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness.
Based on all these biblical truths (and many more that I am not stating here), we know that music produced by idolaters who have idolatrously consumed things offered to an idol and is produced by them while they are in actual acts of worshiping idolatrously is wicked music that is totally off-limits to God’s people. Similarly, music sourced in/originated by/produced by and on that basis used by humans who are actively engaged in any occult practices is wicked music that is categorically off-limits to God’s people.
When it is an objective historical fact that a particular type or types of music are sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities, such music must be completely rejected by God’s people. CCM was birthed by people who took such music and brought it into the Church.
Christians who are musically conservative in our day are fully, biblically justified in rejecting the use of all such music in divine worship.

[RajeshG]

When it is an objective historical fact that a particular type or types of music are sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities, such music must be completely rejected by God’s people. CCM was birthed by people who took such music and brought it into the Church.

I’d be interested in seeing the source of any “objective historical fact” that you have found regarding a particular type of music that is sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities. How far back do your historical sources go regarding this music which the CCM people took?

[RajeshG]

6. When Satan and his demons control wicked humans to engage in idolatrous worship, they direct them not only to worship the wrong object but also to do so in ungodly ways, including by offering ungodly things to the idols.

Where do you find that “Scripture teaches us” the last part of your point - “including by offering ungodly things to the idols”? That sounds like an extrapolation you are trying to insist upon in order to make a point about music, but I don’t see it included in Scripture. Idolaters would offer cows in sacrifice, but I don’t think the Scriptures would say that “the Israelites offered godly cows, but the idolaters offered ungodly cows.” One of the most horrendous acts of idolatrous sacrifice mentioned in the Bible is when idolaters offered their own children to the fire. That is an extremely wicked way to sacrifice, but such an act of sacrifice would not make children themselves inherently ungodly. Now maybe “children” is a bad example, because all unsaved people, including unsaved children, are inherently ungodly, but that ungodliness is totally unrelated to being the object of an idolatrous sacrifice. Now I can see as how the idol itself would be an ungodly thing, but since many of the things sacrificed to idols were the same things that would be sacrificed to God, I don’t see as how the things themselves are ungodly. Where do you find this principle in Scripture?

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

When it is an objective historical fact that a particular type or types of music are sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities, such music must be completely rejected by God’s people. CCM was birthed by people who took such music and brought it into the Church.

I’d be interested in seeing the source of any “objective historical fact” that you have found regarding a particular type of music that is sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities. How far back do your historical sources go regarding this music which the CCM people took?

I’ve already provided some information of that sort earlier in this thread through quotes from rock musicians themselves who said that their music was sourced in or connected to the occult. It’s telling that when those statements were first made, there was not a widespread outcry from believing and unbelieving musicians alike that that information was false.
If you are seriously intent upon getting more information, I would recommend that you consult the following sources: “Measuring the Music” by John Makujina; “Can We Rock the Gospel: Rock music’s impact on worship and evangelism” by John Blanchard and Dan Lucarini; and other such sources.

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

I’d be interested in seeing the source of any “objective historical fact” that you have found regarding a particular type of music that is sourced in idolatrous, occult, or other evil activities. How far back do your historical sources go regarding this music which the CCM people took?

I’ve already provided some information of that sort earlier in this thread through quotes from rock musicians themselves who said that their music was sourced in or connected to the occult. It’s telling that when those statements were first made, there was not a widespread outcry from believing and unbelieving musicians alike that that information was false.

If you are seriously intent upon getting more information, I would recommend that you consult the following sources: “Measuring the Music” by John Makujina; “Can We Rock the Gospel: Rock music’s impact on worship and evangelism” by John Blanchard and Dan Lucarini; and other such sources.

So are you telling me that the statements of a small sampling of rock musicians regarding what they feel is the meaning of rock music become, in your mind, an “objective, historical fact” that a certain beat they pulled from previous styles is historically sourced in the occult? It sounds like you are misunderstanding the meaning of “objective, historical fact.”

The rock musicians who made the statements could certainly be using the rock beat themselves in an occultic way, but does anyone truly know the first use of the beat that is currently found in rock music? Wouldn’t we have to somehow know that to definitively state as “historical fact” that the rock beat itself is sourced in the occult?

[Kevin Miller]

So are you telling me that the statements of a small sampling of rock musicians regarding what they feel is the meaning of rock music become, in your mind, an “objective, historical fact” that a certain beat they pulled from previous styles is historically sourced in the occult? It sounds like you are misunderstanding the meaning of “objective, historical fact.”

The rock musicians who made the statements could certainly be using the rock beat themselves in an occultic way, but does anyone truly know the first use of the beat that is currently found in rock music? Wouldn’t we have to somehow know that to definitively state as “historical fact” that the rock beat itself is sourced in the occult?

The statement(s) about rock music and the occult that I cited earlier was/were not statement(s) about what those musicians “feel is the meaning of rock music.” They plainly said that their music employed something that had already existed in occult practices prior to the use of those things in rock music.
Similarly, the statements were not statements about how the musicians were using rock music in an “occultic” way; they stated that what those musicians were using in rock music was previously used (and continues to be used) in certain occult practices.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

6. When Satan and his demons control wicked humans to engage in idolatrous worship, they direct them not only to worship the wrong object but also to do so in ungodly ways, including by offering ungodly things to the idols.

Where do you find that “Scripture teaches us” the last part of your point - “including by offering ungodly things to the idols”? That sounds like an extrapolation you are trying to insist upon in order to make a point about music, but I don’t see it included in Scripture. Idolaters would offer cows in sacrifice, but I don’t think the Scriptures would say that “the Israelites offered godly cows, but the idolaters offered ungodly cows.” One of the most horrendous acts of idolatrous sacrifice mentioned in the Bible is when idolaters offered their own children to the fire. That is an extremely wicked way to sacrifice, but such an act of sacrifice would not make children themselves inherently ungodly. Now maybe “children” is a bad example, because all unsaved people, including unsaved children, are inherently ungodly, but that ungodliness is totally unrelated to being the object of an idolatrous sacrifice. Now I can see as how the idol itself would be an ungodly thing, but since many of the things sacrificed to idols were the same things that would be sacrificed to God, I don’t see as how the things themselves are ungodly. Where do you find this principle in Scripture?

I have already provided this information at least once previously in this thread. In brief, Scripture reveals that when the Antichrist (who will be energized and controlled by the devil) will cause himself to be idolatrously worshiped as god in the Temple, he will put to an end the godly sacrifices and will instead institute the offering of sacrifices that are unacceptable to God.

[RajeshG]

The statement(s) about rock music and the occult that I cited earlier was/were not statement(s) about what those musicians “feel is the meaning of rock music.” They plainly said that their music employed something that had already existed in occult practices prior to the use of those things in rock music.

So wouldn’t you then need historical sources to verify whether their statements are correct in order to claim that their statements are “objective, historical facts”? I could claim that the astronauts found blue cheese on the moon., but unless my statement could be verified, no one would say that my statement is an objective historical fact.

[RajeshG]

I have already provided this information at least once previously in this thread. In brief, Scripture reveals that when the Antichrist (who will be energized and controlled by the devil) will cause himself to be idolatrously worshiped as god in the Temple, he will put to an end the godly sacrifices and will instead institute the offering of sacrifices that are unacceptable to God.

I looked back at the post you made previously. You mentioned a number of verses which say that the regular offerings will cease and the “abomination of desolation” will be set up. This abomination of desolation seems to be the Antichrist himself from Mark 13:14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be . . ” Where do you see any specific sacrifices he is offering? I can figure that offering, say, a pig upon the altar would be a desecration because there are specific verses that tell us a pig is an unacceptable sacrifice to God. But we don’t know what the antichrist might be offering, if anything. Just taking over the temple and stopping the regular sacrifices would be a desecration. Offering something that the Bible specifically says can’t be brought as a sacrifice is a desecration. Unless you can show that a style of music is presented in the Bible an an unacceptable sacrifice, then this example of the antichrist wouldn’t really fit your point that a style of music could be an “ungodly thing” that demons get humans to sacrifice to idols.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

The statement(s) about rock music and the occult that I cited earlier was/were not statement(s) about what those musicians “feel is the meaning of rock music.” They plainly said that their music employed something that had already existed in occult practices prior to the use of those things in rock music.

So wouldn’t you then need historical sources to verify whether their statements are correct in order to claim that their statements are “objective, historical facts”? I could claim that the astronauts found blue cheese on the moon., but unless my statement could be verified, no one would say that my statement is an objective historical fact.

When those statements were made, there were no critical responses made saying that the statements were false. Opponents of conservative Christian music would have had every reason to seek to disprove their statements, but no one that I am aware has made any attempts to do so.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

I have already provided this information at least once previously in this thread. In brief, Scripture reveals that when the Antichrist (who will be energized and controlled by the devil) will cause himself to be idolatrously worshiped as god in the Temple, he will put to an end the godly sacrifices and will instead institute the offering of sacrifices that are unacceptable to God.

I looked back at the post you made previously. You mentioned a number of verses which say that the regular offerings will cease and the “abomination of desolation” will be set up. This abomination of desolation seems to be the Antichrist himself from Mark 13:14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be . . ” Where do you see any specific sacrifices he is offering? I can figure that offering, say, a pig upon the altar would be a desecration because there are specific verses that tell us a pig is an unacceptable sacrifice to God. But we don’t know what the antichrist might be offering, if anything. Just taking over the temple and stopping the regular sacrifices would be a desecration. Offering something that the Bible specifically says can’t be brought as a sacrifice is a desecration. Unless you can show that a style of music is presented in the Bible an an unacceptable sacrifice, then this example of the antichrist wouldn’t really fit your point that a style of music could be an “ungodly thing” that demons get humans to sacrifice to idols.

The point of this reasoning is to show that it disproves your previous assertions that what the devil would want most is to use the same godly sacrifices but direct them to the wrong object. When the devil has his way fully, he will put an end to the use of things that he knows are pleasing to God—he will not just redirect them to be offered to himself.
Applying that principle to music, we know that the demons did not influence the worshipers in the GCI to offer godly Israelite music to the calf. To get around this, one would have to hold that there is no such thing as ungodly music, which is something that you have already said you do not believe.

[RajeshG]

The point of this reasoning is to show that it disproves your previous assertions that what the devil would want most is to use the same godly sacrifices but direct them to the wrong object. When the devil has his way fully, he will put an end to the use of things that he knows are pleasing to God—he will not just redirect them to be offered to himself.

I didn’t actually assert that what the devil would want most is to use the same godly sacrifices but direct them to the wrong object. The closest I came is when I said it seemed logical that, after Satan fell, he would want the same “style of praise” directed to him as had been directed to God. Are you denying that Satan would want to be praised in the same way God was praised? I never said that Satan would want the temple sacrifices of the Israelites to be directed to him. It is the temple sacrifices which the Antichrist stops. You can’t use that action of the antichrist to make any definitive assertion about what music may or may not have been used at any time in praise of Satan.

Applying that principle to music, we know that the demons did not influence the worshipers in the GCI to offer godly Israelite music to the calf.
My point has been that the Scriptures do not say what music was used, so any assertion about what type of music was used is impossible to justify. Yet you continue to make these definitive assertions without Scriptural justification. Do you have a crystal ball to see into the past and know what music was or wasn’t used?

To get around this, one would have to hold that there is no such thing as ungodly music, which is something that you have already said you do not believe.
Admitting that there is not enough information to make a definitive assertion about a particular event is NOT the same as saying there is no such thing as ungodly music. Where do you even come up with this logic? It doesn’t make sense.

[RajeshG]

When those statements were made, there were no critical responses made saying that the statements were false. Opponents of conservative Christian music would have had every reason to seek to disprove their statements, but no one that I am aware has made any attempts to do so.

Perhaps the users of CCM didn’t consider the conservative music people to be “opponents” and thus didn’t see the need to try disproving subjective comments for which no historical data was available either way. They probably just rolled their eyes and spent their time producing and performing songs of praise to God rather than arguing.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

When those statements were made, there were no critical responses made saying that the statements were false. Opponents of conservative Christian music would have had every reason to seek to disprove their statements, but no one that I am aware has made any attempts to do so.

Perhaps the users of CCM didn’t consider the conservative music people to be “opponents” and thus didn’t see the need to try disproving subjective comments for which no historical data was available either way. They probably just rolled their eyes and spent their time producing and performing songs of praise to God rather than arguing.

There was and is plenty of historical data to show the validity of their comments. Taking music that uses musical elements from practitioners of the occult and using it in music for divine worship is direct disobedience to divine mandates (Eph. 5:11, etc.).

[Kevin Miller]

Quote:

Applying that principle to music, we know that the demons did not influence the worshipers in the GCI to offer godly Israelite music to the calf.

My point has been that the Scriptures do not say what music was used, so any assertion about what type of music was used is impossible to justify. Yet you continue to make these definitive assertions without Scriptural justification. Do you have a crystal ball to see into the past and know what music was or wasn’t used?

The Scriptures do not have to say what music was used for us to know that it was not godly Israelite music. The character and objectives of demons and what God has revealed about what demons do when they direct humans in ungodly worship show us that the demons on that occasion did not direct the idolaters to use godly music in their idolatrous worship.
Furthermore, what God has revealed about the music and other activities of the people on that occasion after they came under demonic influence provides more than sufficient information to show that everything those people did on that occasion after they came under demonic influence was ungodly to the core.

Rajesh is incorrect that others have not pointed out the inapplicability of comments like those of Simmons. For starters, I’ve pointed out, repeatedly, that KISS is (or was, they’re basically done) basically a fringe group that has played for decades to basically the same half million fans in the same venues. It’s been a good schtick for him—he’s gotten rich and has had sex with a lot of beautiful women who otherwise wouldn’t have given him the time of day—but it’s silly, and a horrendous hasty generalization along with guilt by association, to pretend that comments like his apply to an entire genre. As Aristotle would have told you, “some” is not “all”, and any argument that misses that little fact is dead from the get-go.

Moreover, you have the question of whether the alleged demon possession of rock & roll stars looks at all like demon possession in the Bible. The answer; not by a long shot. When demons possess people in the Bible, they don’t get super-rich, create music loved by millions, and have a harem of beauties at their disposal. Rather, they go insane, lose everything they have, go around naked or in rags, and injure themselves and others. See Saul, Nebuchadnezzar, those healed by Christ, and the like.

What we have with many rock & roll stars is that they, to varying degrees, succumb to the temptations of the flesh. Perhaps a few do indeed become demon possessed, but again, the trials of a few do not impugn a genre created by many. What Simmons’ comments are, really, is marketing so he can keep the money he needs to keep Shannon Tweed happy.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

In addition to the testimonies that I have previously provided in this thread (which were not comments by Gene Simmons), believers seeking credible testimonies against rock music’s occult character should consult the numerous additional credible testimonies against its occult character that are provided in the 28-page chapter, “Strange Fire,” in Can We Rock the Gospel: Rock music’s impact on worship and evangelism by John Blanchard and Dan Lucarini.
Other sources beyond that chapter also exist and firmly establish that credible testimonies against the occult character of rock music abound and support believers’ complete and permanent rejection of all such music.

Comments by a small subset of rock & roll artists, none of whom appear to have suffered the fates of those actually afflicted by demons in the Scriptures, tell us precisely nothing about how the vast majority of musicians in the genre operate. Come on, Rajesh, if you’re going to argue “demonic influence”, you can’t say “some equals all” or “the experience of some impugns the work of all”. It’s basic Aristotelian logic and the principle that doing so is called “hasty generalization.” And in the same way, if you’re going to argue “demonic influence”, then the experience of those so influenced ought to parallel what those so influenced in the Scripture experienced—Saul, Job, Nebuchadnezzar, etc..

Job is particularly important because he clearly not possessed per se, but when demons/Satan are allowed to attack him, they make his life a living Hell. We might infer from the Scriptures that where demons are allowed to attack, they are allowed to cause harm, but not good—and that argues strongly against the idea that rock & roll suffers uniformly from demonic influence. If it were so, you’d expect them, again, to be in rags, scratching their boils with a rock, etc..

It’s time to let your “dance track length guilt by association fallacy” go, Rajesh. Or really, long past time.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[RajeshG]

There was and is plenty of historical data to show the validity of their comments. Taking music that uses musical elements from practitioners of the occult and using it in music for divine worship is direct disobedience to divine mandates (Eph. 5:11, etc.).

So, which “musical element” is a “work of darkness”? I know that occult practices would be a work of darkness. Using tea leaves, for example, to read the future is an occult practice, but we don’t consider tea leaves themselves to be a “work of darkness” simply because they are used by practitioners of the occult. So how in the world do you get the idea that some “musical element” becomes a work of darkness?

You’ve made a declarative assertion here. Are you going to support it, or just run from the conversation?

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

There was and is plenty of historical data to show the validity of their comments. Taking music that uses musical elements from practitioners of the occult and using it in music for divine worship is direct disobedience to divine mandates (Eph. 5:11, etc.).

So, which “musical element” is a “work of darkness”? I know that occult practices would be a work of darkness. Using tea leaves, for example, to read the future is an occult practice, but we don’t consider tea leaves themselves to be a “work of darkness” simply because they are used by practitioners of the occult. So how in the world do you get the idea that some “musical element” becomes a work of darkness?

You’ve made a declarative assertion here. Are you going to support it, or just run from the conversation?

I am not going to rehash ground that I have already covered in this thread. You are welcome to go back in this thread and find the testimonies cited and refresh yourself with that knowledge.
Believers who choose to follow divine revelation and reject completely music that is connected to the occult do not have any obligations to discuss further any specifics or answer any further specific questions about how, why, etc. such music should be rejected.

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

So, which “musical element” is a “work of darkness”? I know that occult practices would be a work of darkness. Using tea leaves, for example, to read the future is an occult practice, but we don’t consider tea leaves themselves to be a “work of darkness” simply because they are used by practitioners of the occult. So how in the world do you get the idea that some “musical element” becomes a work of darkness?

You’ve made a declarative assertion here. Are you going to support it, or just run from the conversation?

I am not going to rehash ground that I have already covered in this thread. You are welcome to go back in this thread and find the testimonies cited and refresh yourself with that knowledge.

Believers who choose to follow divine revelation and reject completely music that is connected to the occult do not have any obligations to discuss further any specifics or answer any further specific questions about how, why, etc. such music should be rejected.

Yeah, I figured you’d run from the conversation. Going back through the thread doesn’t help, since you’ve never really provided the information needed to support your assertions. There simply is no biblical support for the idea that a “musical element” is a “work of darkness” spoken of in Eph 5:11.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

So, which “musical element” is a “work of darkness”? I know that occult practices would be a work of darkness. Using tea leaves, for example, to read the future is an occult practice, but we don’t consider tea leaves themselves to be a “work of darkness” simply because they are used by practitioners of the occult. So how in the world do you get the idea that some “musical element” becomes a work of darkness?

You’ve made a declarative assertion here. Are you going to support it, or just run from the conversation?

I am not going to rehash ground that I have already covered in this thread. You are welcome to go back in this thread and find the testimonies cited and refresh yourself with that knowledge.

Believers who choose to follow divine revelation and reject completely music that is connected to the occult do not have any obligations to discuss further any specifics or answer any further specific questions about how, why, etc. such music should be rejected.

Yeah, I figured you’d run from the conversation. Going back through the thread doesn’t help, since you’ve never really provided the information needed to support your assertions. There simply is no biblical support for the idea that a “musical element” is a “work of darkness” spoken of in Eph 5:11.

Believers who have carefully researched and examined the numerous testimonies about the occult character of rock music have abundant evidence for rejecting it in its totality as a work of darkness (Eph. 5:11) without having to have specific biblical statements that specifically talk about rock music in specific terms of musical elements.
The Bible never teaches that musicology is the divinely declared standard for knowing what music is acceptable to God and what music is not. Providing biblical statements about unacceptable musical elements is not necessary for knowing what music believers are to reject.
In His perfect wisdom, God has declared that rejecting the works of darkness does not require extensive investigation and analysis of those works; in fact, God forbids such investigation and analysis. With multiple witnesses about the occult character of rock music, careful believers have more than sufficient evidence (2 Cor. 13:1; etc.) to reject it completely and permanently.

[RajeshG]

Believers who have carefully researched and examined the numerous testimonies about the occult character of rock music have abundant evidence for rejecting it in its totality as a work of darkness (Eph. 5:11) without having to have specific biblical statements that specifically talk about rock music in specific terms of musical elements.

The Bible never teaches that musicology is the divinely declared standard for knowing what music is acceptable to God and what music is not. Providing biblical statements about unacceptable musical elements is not necessary for knowing what music believers are to reject.

In His perfect wisdom, God has declared that rejecting the works of darkness does not require extensive investigation and analysis of those works; in fact, God forbids such investigation and analysis. With multiple witnesses about the occult character of rock music, careful believers have more than sufficient evidence (2 Cor. 13:1; etc.) to reject it completely and permanently.

Your post here is a prime example of you playing with semantics to make a point that can’t actually be applied to CCM in any logical way. You say that rock music “in it’s totality” is a work of darkness. What does that even mean? The totality of rock music would include the notes and the harmonies and the key signatures and the rhythms and the bridges and the lyrics and even the particular uses in various situations. If you think “totality” means something different, then please explain what totality means. How would rejecting the “totality” of rock music help me make a decision about church music. I know that what you mean is that a rock beat should be rejected, but since you have no biblical support for saying that a particular beat is a “work of darkness,” you use the glib, semantically-squishy phrase “in it’s totality” to tap dance around having to support your position. Of course you don’t think an “extensive investigation and analysis” is necessary, since such investigation would reveal that NO biblical evidence exists to condemn a particular beat. You’re just playing with words and you can expect to be called out every time you do so.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Believers who have carefully researched and examined the numerous testimonies about the occult character of rock music have abundant evidence for rejecting it in its totality as a work of darkness (Eph. 5:11) without having to have specific biblical statements that specifically talk about rock music in specific terms of musical elements.

The Bible never teaches that musicology is the divinely declared standard for knowing what music is acceptable to God and what music is not. Providing biblical statements about unacceptable musical elements is not necessary for knowing what music believers are to reject.

In His perfect wisdom, God has declared that rejecting the works of darkness does not require extensive investigation and analysis of those works; in fact, God forbids such investigation and analysis. With multiple witnesses about the occult character of rock music, careful believers have more than sufficient evidence (2 Cor. 13:1; etc.) to reject it completely and permanently.

Your post here is a prime example of you playing with semantics to make a point that can’t actually be applied to CCM in any logical way. You say that rock music “in it’s totality” is a work of darkness. What does that even mean? The totality of rock music would include the notes and the harmonies and the key signatures and the rhythms and the bridges and the lyrics and even the particular uses in various situations. If you think “totality” means something different, then please explain what totality means. How would rejecting the “totality” of rock music help me make a decision about church music. I know that what you mean is that a rock beat should be rejected, but since you have no biblical support for saying that a particular beat is a “work of darkness,” you use the glib, semantically-squishy phrase “in it’s totality” to tap dance around having to support your position. Of course you don’t think an “extensive investigation and analysis” is necessary, since such investigation would reveal that NO biblical evidence exists to condemn a particular beat. You’re just playing with words and you can expect to be called out every time you do so.

I do not need any biblical support for saying that a particular beat is a work of darkness. Rock musicians themselves have testified that they have taken such elements from practitioners of the occult.
In spite of such testimonies, if you want to claim that those elements are not ungodly even though they were taken from practitioners of the occult, you have the burden of proving that they are not ungodly.
You do not have any Bible to support saying that God accepts the use of all types of beats in music, especially not in worship music. When, therefore, rock musicians testify that they have taken that element from music of the occult, you do not have any biblical basis for asserting that element is fit for any Christian use.

[RajeshG]

I do not need any biblical support for saying that a particular beat is a work of darkness. Rock musicians themselves have testified that they have taken such elements from practitioners of the occult.

In spite of such testimonies, if you want to claim that those elements are not ungodly even though they were taken from practitioners of the occult, you have the burden of proving that they are not ungodly.

Why don’t you need biblical support? Do unsaved rock musicians have more authority than the Bible, in that we take their direction rather than the Bible when making spiritual decisions? The Bible declares a lot of activities as being instigated by the devil, and therefore a work of darkness Lying, for example, is directly condemned by God and even has a direct satanic connection in that the devil is the father of lies.

If I was to claim that jogging is a work of darkness, wouldn’t you expect me to have biblical support to show that it is? Would testimonies from joggers saying that some of them jog for Satan be enough to condemn all jogging as a work of darkness? I wouldn’t think so, but according to your logic, it would. Here’s another example with a more direct connection. Sewing. Do you believe the occult connection makes sewing of limits for believers? After all, needles are used in occult voodoo doll ceremonies where practitioners of the occult jab needles into dolls to injure people. Needles are therefore an element taken from the occult, and therefore, according to your logic, they would be ungodly and should not be used by believers in any activity, such as sewing. I mentioned a few other examples back in May in this thread. I mentioned tea leaves used in fortune telling; I mentioned water, fruit, and flowers that are offered in Hindu worship; and I mentioned the occult connections of playing cards. You dismissed those examples at that time by saying “None of these things that you talk about are talked about in the Bible as being produced by demons or by humans influenced by demons.” And you even italicized “in the Bible.” Yet NOW you claim the Bible isn’t needed to support your view. After all, a particular beat isn’t shown in the Bible to be a work of darkness. It honestly seems like you pick and choose which “demonic connections” you oppose and which you don’t oppose, without any true biblical support to go by. And then you tell me you “do not need any biblical support.” It absolutely boggles me.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

I do not need any biblical support for saying that a particular beat is a work of darkness. Rock musicians themselves have testified that they have taken such elements from practitioners of the occult.

In spite of such testimonies, if you want to claim that those elements are not ungodly even though they were taken from practitioners of the occult, you have the burden of proving that they are not ungodly.

Why don’t you need biblical support? Do unsaved rock musicians have more authority than the Bible, in that we take their direction rather than the Bible when making spiritual decisions? The Bible declares a lot of activities as being instigated by the devil, and therefore a work of darkness Lying, for example, is directly condemned by God and even has a direct satanic connection in that the devil is the father of lies.

If I was to claim that jogging is a work of darkness, wouldn’t you expect me to have biblical support to show that it is? Would testimonies from joggers saying that some of them jog for Satan be enough to condemn all jogging as a work of darkness? I wouldn’t think so, but according to your logic, it would. Here’s another example with a more direct connection. Sewing. Do you believe the occult connection makes sewing of limits for believers? After all, needles are used in occult voodoo doll ceremonies where practitioners of the occult jab needles into dolls to injure people. Needles are therefore an element taken from the occult, and therefore, according to your logic, they would be ungodly and should not be used by believers in any activity, such as sewing. I mentioned a few other examples back in May in this thread. I mentioned tea leaves used in fortune telling; I mentioned water, fruit, and flowers that are offered in Hindu worship; and I mentioned the occult connections of playing cards. You dismissed those examples at that time by saying “None of these things that you talk about are talked about in the Bible as being produced by demons or by humans influenced by demons.” And you even italicized “in the Bible.” Yet NOW you claim the Bible isn’t needed to support your view. After all, a particular beat isn’t shown in the Bible to be a work of darkness. It honestly seems like you pick and choose which “demonic connections” you oppose and which you don’t oppose, without any true biblical support to go by. And then you tell me you “do not need any biblical support.” It absolutely boggles me.

Are you kidding me? It’s really hard for me to fathom how it is possible that you are actually being serious in making these comments. Comparing music to water, tea leaves, fruit, flowers, needles, and jogging?
Do you really not understand from a biblical standpoint how music is different from all the rest of these things?

[RajeshG]

Are you kidding me? It’s really hard for me to fathom how it is possible that you are actually being serious in making these comments. Comparing music to water, tea leaves, fruit, flowers, needles, and jogging?

Do you really not understand from a biblical standpoint how music is different from all the rest of these things?

Of course I’m not kidding you. Accusing me of “kidding you” is just another way to deflect from providing biblical support for your position.. Our conversation had already narrowed to the topic of a particular beat, or musical pattern, that is used by a particular group of people. Whether we are talking about water, tea leaves, fruit, flowers, needles, or a particular musical pattern, do you have any biblical support to show that the use of any of them is condemned in Scripture just because they may also have been used at some point by a practitioner of the occult? Yes, there are differences between water and needles. Yes, there are differences between tea leaves and a musical pattern, What I am asking is whether you are consistent in the use of your principle, which you have made clear, that “elements” are ungodly if they have been taken from practitioners of the occult. Within that context, all of those things are “elements’ that are used by practitioners of the occult, whether or not there may be “differences” of some kind between them.

It doesn’t look like you are willing to be consistent, and that is okay if you are just talking about your own personal standards regarding a matter. If, however, you are presenting a principle as “something taught in the Bible,” then such a principle should be able to be consistently applied, or it is useless in regards to application.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Are you kidding me? It’s really hard for me to fathom how it is possible that you are actually being serious in making these comments. Comparing music to water, tea leaves, fruit, flowers, needles, and jogging?

Do you really not understand from a biblical standpoint how music is different from all the rest of these things?

Of course I’m not kidding you. Accusing me of “kidding you” is just another way to deflect from providing biblical support for your position.. Our conversation had already narrowed to the topic of a particular beat, or musical pattern, that is used by a particular group of people. Whether we are talking about water, tea leaves, fruit, flowers, needles, or a particular musical pattern, do you have any biblical support to show that the use of any of them is condemned in Scripture just because they may also have been used at some point by a practitioner of the occult? Yes, there are differences between water and needles. Yes, there are differences between tea leaves and a musical pattern, What I am asking is whether you are consistent in the use of your principle, which you have made clear, that “elements” are ungodly if they have been taken from practitioners of the occult. Within that context, all of those things are “elements’ that are used by practitioners of the occult, whether or not there may be “differences” of some kind between them.

It doesn’t look like you are willing to be consistent, and that is okay if you are just talking about your own personal standards regarding a matter. If, however, you are presenting a principle as “something taught in the Bible,” then such a principle should be able to be consistently applied, or it is useless in regards to application.

You tellingly chose to leave out my last paragraph that reads as follows:
You do not have any Bible to support saying that God accepts the use of all types of beats in music, especially not in worship music. When, therefore, rock musicians testify that they have taken that element from music of the occult, you do not have any biblical basis for asserting that element is fit for any Christian use.
My point has always been about taking things from practitioners of the occult and using them in worship. Making an issue out of water, tea leaves, fruits, flowers, needles, and jogging is a ridiculous assertion because God has not authorized any use of those things in our divine worship (except for water baptism, which obviously uses water). Music is different from all of those things, and you know it.
Furthermore, God created water, tea leaves, fruits, and flowers before there were any humans. Regardless of any misuse of those things by evil people, those things, therefore, do not become ungodly by such use and therefore unfit for any Christian use.
Moreover, human beings have been sewing long before the practitioners of the occult of our day came along and there is zero evidence that practitioners of the occult invented needles and everybody else borrowed them from them. Any misuse of needles by practitioners of the occult, therefore, is totally irrelevant for this discussion.

Your mentioning of jogging in this context is so outrageous that it hardly even merits comment. Nonetheless, so that you will not persist in talking about it, you are welcome to prove that practitioners of the occult created jogging and then everyone else borrowed it from them. Then you are welcome to show biblically how jogging is an issue concerning our worship.
Most importantly, you have zero Bible to support any assertion that all beats are acceptable to God for any use, especially for worship. Taking any music that uses such an element that is from practitioners of the occult and using it for Christian anything, therefore, has zero biblical basis to support it and explicit divine commands that apply to prohibit borrowing things from such wicked people and using it in Christian anything, especially in worship music (Eph. 5:11, etc).

Rajesh says:My point has always been about taking things from practitioners of the occult and using them in worship.

Could someone give me a modern day example of actual worship music that has taken things from practitioners of the occult? I’m desiring some specific examples, preferably reasonably popular and something I may have heard of. Thank you very much.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[RajeshG]

You tellingly chose to leave out my last paragraph that reads as follows:

You do not have any Bible to support saying that God accepts the use of all types of beats in music, especially not in worship music. When, therefore, rock musicians testify that they have taken that element from music of the occult, you do not have any biblical basis for asserting that element is fit for any Christian use.

My point has always been about taking things from practitioners of the occult and using them in worship. Making an issue out of water, tea leaves, fruits, flowers, needles, and jogging is a ridiculous assertion because God has not authorized any use of those things in our divine worship (except for water baptism, which obviously uses water). Music is different from all of those things, and you know it.

Adding the specification of “using them in worship” is just another deflection from having to provide biblical support for your position. You don’t hold the position that rock music is unacceptable only when it is used in worship. Your position is that rock music is not “fit for any Christian use.” Isn’t that your position? So what point is there in making the clarification that your position is only about using things in worship? Your applications go further than worship. You’ve specifically stated earlier that Christians should not use rock music at all. Besides, the Hindus offer water, fruits, and flowers in their worship, so those examples do meet the criteria you noted. If someone is worshipping a false god with water, fruit, and flowers, aren’t they worshipping a demon? Why would you defend those items, which are used by occult practitioners, as being fit for Christian use, but oppose a specific musical pattern. It’s patently inconsistent. We have no historical reference regarding when specific musical patterns were originated or created. Without that knowledge, one simply can’t make claims about their origin being occultic. You are trying to proclaim some “difference” between the musical pattern and those other worship elements, but you haven’t provided any biblical support that such a difference exists.

Most importantly, you have zero Bible to support any assertion that all beats are acceptable to God for any use, especially for worship.
I don’t have to support that assertion because I’ve never made it. You keep pretending I’m making this assertion in order to deflect from having to provide biblical support for your own assertions.

[Kevin Miller]

Besides, the Hindus offer water, fruits, and flowers in their worship, so those examples do meet the criteria you noted. If someone is worshipping a false god with water, fruit, and flowers, aren’t they worshipping a demon? Why would you defend those items, which are used by occult practitioners, as being fit for Christian use, but oppose a specific musical pattern. It’s patently inconsistent.

Those items have been created by God. We know that water, fruit, and flowers are good things because God created them. Regardless of anything that wicked humans might do with things that God has actually created, those things themselves do not thereby become ungodly things in and of themselves.

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

Besides, the Hindus offer water, fruits, and flowers in their worship, so those examples do meet the criteria you noted. If someone is worshipping a false god with water, fruit, and flowers, aren’t they worshipping a demon? Why would you defend those items, which are used by occult practitioners, as being fit for Christian use, but oppose a specific musical pattern. It’s patently inconsistent.

Those items have been created by God. We know that water, fruit, and flowers are good things because God created them. Regardless of anything that wicked humans might do with things that God has actually created, those things themselves do not thereby become ungodly things in and of themselves.

And we have no indication from Scripture regarding which musical patterns may or may not have been created by God or by angels before the fall. Some may not have been created before the fall, and those ones may very well be ungodly, but those could also be godly. Without specific biblical knowledge of which patterns are godly or ungodly, we can’t make present day judgments that a particular pattern has or has not been originally created in the same way that water. fruit, and flowers were. Regardless of how a wicked human may use a musical pattern, that use does not make the pattern become ungodly in and of itself.