"Assailment-by-Entailment"

In your multitude of posts you have failed to provide a single SPECIFIC example of what you are warning us about. Because you deal in vague generalities, multitude examples of guilt by association, and fail to answer specific questions, you have placed yourself in the unenviable position of playing defense and trying to justify yourself. I wish you the best.

Advice to all - Ignore RAJESH

He’ll go away

First, I don’t agree with every argument used against your views on music. Of course, that doesn’t make your views necessarily correct, either.

I’ll agree that no one can assume and claim that you believe something (that is logically entailed by something you have said you do believe) when you explicitly deny it. However, that doesn’t really help your argument when those arguing with you can see that you hold two things that are, at least by all evidence you have presented, logically contradictory.

Since things that are logically contradictory cannot both be correct, most of us tend to assume that those arguing with us must believe something that makes logical sense, hence the above type of thinking that Olson labels a fallacy. Of course, being human, it’s entirely too easy for us to hold two things that cannot both be true at the same time, so we do need to use care to not assume that one belief held by someone implies that he holds another one. Again, though, that’s still not of any real help to the one making contradictory points, and while those arguing against him cannot say that he believes something he denies, they can still decide that the inconsistencies make his point invalid.

Look it up. You will not find “assailment by entailment” as a standard logical fallacy. Olson is using a paper out of Texas A&M to put a fancy academic sounding name on a much more mundane reality; some people are taking what he says to generate a false conclusion (non sequitur) and others have just made stuff up (lying). Reality is, contra Olson, that it’s entirely fair to point out the logical consequences of a person’s mode of thinking, even if they deny that.

So what he’s done is to dodge the hard work of demonstrating a non sequitur, dodge the uncomfortable work of pointing out lies, and in doing so is doing damage to the practice of logic in the process. Poorly done, Dr. Olson, and poorly recommended, Rajesh.

Regarding your writing, Rajesh, pretty much what Ron says. You make a lot of fallacious guilt by association arguments, and those fallacious arguments lend themselves well to pointing out the logical consequences. There is nothing unfair to you in the least here.

Rajesh, there is no false argument about you using guilt by association fallacies liberally. Your linking to Brennan’s pen contains a number of them, linking the unsuitability of rock & roll (in your view at least) to the Yoruba, voodoo, and the like. Here, you argue that a connection of music to pagans makes it unusable by believers. You do the same liberally in the forum discussions of the “Golden Calf incident”. Here, you make the argument that since Jubal was the son of Lamech, that his music was tainted—this violates not only guilt by association but also the clear meaning of Ezekiel 18 and other passages that clarify that the son is not guilty for the sins of his father. Here’s where you assailed rock & roll based on a throwaway line from Chaim Witz, and an association with the same. Here’s another collection of guilt by assocation fallacies by yourself.

Not that I anticipate the listing a fraction of your guilt by association fallacies will get through to you, but the ugly reality here is that you use this a lot, and these logical fallacies you use support false ideas which do indeed have logical consequences. You can deny them, and I know you have done so repeatedly, but that doesn’t change the fact that your arguments have logical consequences.

And engage with you long enough to persuade you of what you’re doing? My goodness, you’re the guy who argued over 200 comments over whether bird songs are displeasing to God with Kevin, and used a throwaway line from Gene Simmons on a “ordinary people with mediocre voices singing pop” show to assail rock & roll in general for several pages here. You’re as impervious to evidence as anyone I’ve ever met.

Rajesh, didn’t you use this same fallacy against Bert in the “Does God love all kinds of music . . ” thread? You responded to him in one post with the following paragraph:

“Because Scripture teaches us that there is instrumental music that God rejects, you have the burden of proving that in violation of divine prohibitions you can still righteously go to wicked people like occultists and take their wicked music and use it acceptably to worship God. Those of us who reject that wicked music do not have to prove that it is evil—you have to prove that it is acceptable to God.”

Where has Bert said that “you can still righteously go to wicked people like occultists and take their wicked music and use it acceptably to worship God.”? I don’t recall Bert ever saying that. You are using assailment by entailment when you say Bert has to prove that when he never even said that.

You’re more impervious to evidence than anyone else I’ve met, Rajesh. Regarding “do I get to be the final judge”, of course not, and that’s why I provided links to my examples. Like the application of the laws of formal and informal logic, it’s part and parcel of actual academic work.

And no, no false claims about Brennan’s work. If you don’t differentiate between rock, classical, jazz, country, and other percussive styles, and neither of you try, Brennan’s reckless comment connecting percussion to the occult becomes a broad condemnation.

Again, just because you don’t like where your arguments lead doesn’t mean they don’t go there.

[RajeshG]

So Bert Perry now thinks that he has provided numerous examples of guilt-by-association argumentation that I have made. Is his pronouncement that it is so the final word? Who made him the final judge?

You are going to have to do a lot more than just make claims.

Let’s be honest here; if we are going to argue that a particular kind of music is or is not acceptable to use by Christians, especially in congregational praise, there are a limited number of arguments that can be made.

First would be clear, unequivocal statements from Scripture telling us that we should, or should not, use particular keys, time signatures, vocal techniques, instruments, crescendos & descrescendos, cadences, melodies, harmonies, and the like. The fact of the matter is that apart from the final two Psalms, which tell us that God commanded at least some music to be percussive and danceable, we really do not have this. The best we can say is that if the music is loud and percussive enough for thousands of worshippers to dance to at the Temple, it probably had a lot more in common with rock & roll than musical conservatives would like to admit.

Failing this, we have either an argument from general revelation like Frank Garlock’s infamous plant experiment, or we have guilt by association. Rajesh really doesn’t attempt the former, and hence what is left?

Guilt by association, and that’s what Rajesh’s “Biblical analysis” of places like Exodus 32 boils down to. There’s no real analysis of the musical style and how it might or might not have differed from what should have been offered to God, just the assumption that because an idol was involved, something must have been very different about the music they danced to as well. In other words, the music was associated with the golden calf, hence we must avoid it. Although we have no clue what it was.

If that’s what you call Biblical proof, Rajesh, may I suggest a refresher course like this? Honestly, you break so many rules of basic logic and exegesis in your writing, it’s not even funny.

[RajeshG]

Bert Perry wrote:

Guilt by association, and that’s what Rajesh’s “Biblical analysis” of places like Exodus 32 boils down to. There’s no real analysis of the musical style and how it might or might not have differed from what should have been offered to God, just the assumption that because an idol was involved, something must have been very different about the music they danced to as well. In other words, the music was associated with the golden calf, hence we must avoid it. Although we have no clue what it was.

Such a blatant glossing over and wrong assessment of the wealth of inspired information provided about that account that provides detailed information about the demonic and intensely perverse character of that event.

How is this a wrong assessment? Are you saying there IS an analysis of the musical style in the passage? Are you saying we DO have a clue as to what the music was?

Bert did not deny, in his statement, the demonic character of the event. He mentioned that an idol was involved, so he’s not denying the idolatry, which carries with it a demonic character. He simply states that YOU assume that, since an idol was involved, the music must have been different from what the Israelites normally used. That IS your position, after all, isn’t it, that the music was somehow different? So that statement isn’t even a wrong assessment.

[RajeshG]

Kevin Miller wrote:

RajeshG wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Guilt by association, and that’s what Rajesh’s “Biblical analysis” of places like Exodus 32 boils down to. There’s no real analysis of the musical style and how it might or might not have differed from what should have been offered to God, just the assumption that because an idol was involved, something must have been very different about the music they danced to as well. In other words, the music was associated with the golden calf, hence we must avoid it. Although we have no clue what it was.

Such a blatant glossing over and wrong assessment of the wealth of inspired information provided about that account that provides detailed information about the demonic and intensely perverse character of that event.

How is this a wrong assessment? Are you saying there IS an analysis of the musical style in the passage? Are you saying we DO have a clue as to what the music was?

Bert did not deny, in his statement, the demonic character of the event. He mentioned that an idol was involved, so he’s not denying the idolatry, which carries with it a demonic character. He simply states that YOU assume that, since an idol was involved, the music must have been different from what the Israelites normally used. That IS your position, after all, isn’t it, that the music was somehow different? So that statement isn’t even a wrong assessment.

No, I did not assume anything; I argued for it biblically. There is a huge difference in what I did and what he claims that I did. You argued Biblically that the music was different? Where in the passage does it say the music was different? Where does any other passage say the music was different? There are no such passages, so whatever arguments you were making back then, they weren’t taken from Bible passages.

Furthermore, he claims that the music was merely “associated” with the calf, which he does, of course, because he needs to depict my handling of it as displaying guilt-by-association. It was not merely associated with the calf; it was the direct result of idolatrous worship of the calf and partaking in a worship context of things offered to it in a worship context by sinful people who thereby were in fellowship with demons after they had consumed those things.

I’m not seeing as how music was the “direct result” of their worship. It seems to me to be one of the elements of their worship, but how do you come to the conclusion Biblically that it was the result?

[RajeshG]

Bert Perry wrote:

And no, no false claims about Brennan’s work.

You most certainly made a false claim about Brennan to the effect that he holds/argues that “all drums are out of line.” You also made statements that at least implied that I hold that same false position.

I proved from both his statements and my own that neither of us holds that false position that you falsely claimed we hold.

Alrighty then, you reject the logical conclusion, as does the source you endorse, of the very comment “rock music is a door to the occult world via percussion”. Now, I’d argue that if you don’t differentiate rock & roll percussion from other percussion, you’ve effectively proscribed all percussion.

To illustrate why, let’s imagine the statement is “auto mechanics is a door to the occult through screwdrivers.” If I believed that, I’d stop using my screwdrivers until I figured out, with high confidence, why use of a screwdriver for auto mechanics is different from repairing doorknobs, attaching computer cables, bicycle repairs, and the like. I would have, after all, linked screwdrivers with demon possession, and I don’t want that.

So given that neither you nor your source have attempted to differentiate rock & roll from other genre (and keep in mind Brennan proscribes jazz and ragtime in the same article), you have, whether you like it or not, proscribed all percussion until such time as you actually figure out what’s different. Since you won’t be actually, say, listening to any rock & roll to figure it out—or not even to ragtime to figure out most of it doesn’t use drums at all—I won’t be holding my breath on that one.

Rajesh, I’m going back into that source you endorsed, and I’m going to hold you to the fire a bit more. This quote from the drummer for the Grateful Dead:

To all those who feel the power of the drum and don’t know why.
-The most distinctive damarus are made from human skulls.
-“I hope you have been most careful, Mickey Hart. This is a drum of great, great power. It wakes the dead you know.”
-It takes commitment and apprenticeship to learn how to find a drum’s sweet spot. But once you do, the potential arises for contacting the drum’s second voice – one I have come to think of as the spirit side of the drum. Exploring the spirit side of the drum has been the major adventure of my adulthood, if not my whole life.

-I would disappear into the studio for hours, for days, burning deeper and deeper into those perceptual states where the magical can happen.
-For almost as long as I can remember, playing the drum has stimulated certain changes in my consciousness.
-These instruments are capable of releasing certain energies that you contact only when you play.

Now, reading this, note that Brennan is taking Mickey Hart at his word, and Hart clearly speaks of mystic, occult properties of the drums he owns.

Now if I truly believe that—and Brennan is certainly taking him seriously—would I allow drums at all? The article goes on to describe not just drums in the land of the Yoruba, but also in Morocco, South Africa (the kraal reference), India, among the American Indians…this would implicate musical forms well beyond rock & roll, and it really comes darned close to saying all drums are bad.

Well, at least if one listens to the evidence Brennan presents. You can deny that you reject percussion altogether all you want, but that is clearly where the evidence Brennan presents points.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cf/4f/53/cf4f535e586c9e28b32dfbbb3632ab4…

Somehow the tag won’t work.

[RajeshG]

Kevin Miller wrote:

You argued Biblically that the music was different? Where in the passage does it say the music was different? Where does any other passage say the music was different? There are no such passages, so whatever arguments you were making back then, they weren’t taken from Bible passages.

Quote:
Furthermore, he claims that the music was merely “associated” with the calf, which he does, of course, because he needs to depict my handling of it as displaying guilt-by-association. It was not merely associated with the calf; it was the direct result of idolatrous worship of the calf and partaking in a worship context of things offered to it in a worship context by sinful people who thereby were in fellowship with demons after they had consumed those things.

I’m not seeing as how music was the “direct result” of their worship. It seems to me to be one of the elements of their worship, but how do you come to the conclusion Biblically that it was the result?

No, thanks. I am not interested in any further discussion of that incident along those lines. If you wish, you can go back to the threads to learn more about what I did or did not do.

It’s too bad there’s not a logical fallacy name for making assertions and then refusing to back them up when questions are asked about them.

[RajeshG]

Kevin Miller wrote:

RajeshG wrote:

Kevin Miller wrote:

You argued Biblically that the music was different? Where in the passage does it say the music was different? Where does any other passage say the music was different? There are no such passages, so whatever arguments you were making back then, they weren’t taken from Bible passages.

Quote:
Furthermore, he claims that the music was merely “associated” with the calf, which he does, of course, because he needs to depict my handling of it as displaying guilt-by-association. It was not merely associated with the calf; it was the direct result of idolatrous worship of the calf and partaking in a worship context of things offered to it in a worship context by sinful people who thereby were in fellowship with demons after they had consumed those things.

I’m not seeing as how music was the “direct result” of their worship. It seems to me to be one of the elements of their worship, but how do you come to the conclusion Biblically that it was the result?

No, thanks. I am not interested in any further discussion of that incident along those lines. If you wish, you can go back to the threads to learn more about what I did or did not do.

It’s too bad there’s not a logical fallacy name for making assertions and then refusing to back them up when questions are asked about them.

Have you now joined the ranks of those who are intellectually dishonest? You know very well that there are fully legitimate ways that people can argue biblically without having to have direct statements that explicitly say what they are arguing for. Please elaborate. What are these “many ways” that people can argue Biblically without providing Bible verses that say what they assert?

You mentioned that you have argued Biblically that the music of the GCI must have been different from the Israelites normal worship music to God, but i remember those conversations and how frustrated I got by your lack of support for that assertion. It’s your opinion, and I can understand why you would hold that opinion, but it’s not something you have actually “argued Biblically.”

[Kevin Miller]

RajeshG wrote:

No, thanks. I am not interested in any further discussion of that incident along those lines. If you wish, you can go back to the threads to learn more about what I did or did not do.

It’s too bad there’s not a logical fallacy name for making assertions and then refusing to back them up when questions are asked about them.

Actually, there is. It’s called “burden of proof”, and it’s a fallacy that Rajesh commits a LOT. He’s repeatedly claimed that those who want freedom in musical styles have the burden of proving that it’s OK, instead of, per Galatians 5, him being on the hook to demonstrate that something is not OK.

I like his argument about “inference” as well. Apparently in his mind, inference doesn’t require a number of actual facts to hang that inference on, but rather (to use Exodus 32 as an example) one can “infer” from precisely no evidence about what genre, instrumentation, or other musical properties were in play that there must be something wrong with that unknown style of music that we must shun for all time.

Rajesh, that’s not “inference”, but rather “making stuff up.” If you want to see someone who’s intellectually dishonest, shave.

[RajeshG] He has an agenda and has engaged in intellectual misrepresentation (whether intentional or not) to accomplish his agenda.

What’s your agenda? You:

• Obfuscate
• Whine
• Blather
• Accuse

Rajesh, I think you’ve made the point admirably that you’ll keep arguing meaningless points pretty much until that horse resembles nothing so much as steak tartare. Thank you for making my point; that it’s a fool’s errand to try to convince you of anything, no matter how strong the evidence. Regrettably, I must confess I’ve gone on that errand a time or two.

While I’m at it, I’m noticing you’re indulging the ad hominem fallacy quite a bit in your interactions with others on this forum with casual mockery and the like.

Regarding the question of how one would discern what kind of music is acceptable to God, notice here that I did indeed lay out three ways one could demonstrate that music was, or was not, acceptable before God. One is definitely valid, one is far more difficult to prove, and the third—yours—is logically invalid. If you’d like to come up with something new, be my guest, but again, let’s subject it to a test of basic logic.

[RajeshG]

Bert Perry wrote:

Actually, there is. It’s called “burden of proof”, and it’s a fallacy that Rajesh commits a LOT. He’s repeatedly claimed that those who want freedom in musical styles have the burden of proving that it’s OK, instead of, per Galatians 5, him being on the hook to demonstrate that something is not OK.

While we are at it, I missed the part of Galatians 5 that talks about musical styles. What were those verses again and which original manuscripts have those verses in them in the Greek because I seem to have missed those verses?

This is a good example of Rajesh’s obfuscation. He should be well aware that my use of Galatians 5 is in regards to the reality that in Christianity, the default position of believers with regards to issues is liberty, not restraint. I have, after all, made it a number of times before, and he has responded to it. It’s not something with which he’s agreed for reasons I’ve detailed elsewhere, but it certainly is something he’s seen and responded to.

I hereby claim that Rajesh has failed to provide one specific example of sinful music and support such a claim with Scripture.

[Ron Bean]

I hereby claim that Rajesh has failed to provide one specific example of sinful music and support such a claim with Scripture.

Ditto