"Assailment-by-Entailment"
Do you know what this fallacy is? If not, I encourage you to learn what it is so that you will not engage in it and will be able to confront it when it might be used against you.
Arguments that use this fallacy have been used more than once against me in discussions about worship music (here on SI and elsewhere). I recognized what was argued against me as faulty but now I should be able to confront it more skillfully. I also intend to be even more careful that I do not engage is this faulty practice myself.
Disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with everything that this article or its author, etc. says.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2018/12/a-new-name-for-an-old…
- 67 views
[Ron Bean]I hereby claim that Rajesh has failed to provide one specific example of sinful music and support such a claim with Scripture.
We don’t even know if the GCI music was sinful, only that it was used sinfully. Given Aaron declared a feast to the Lord, it’s entirely possible that the music that was used was music they would have originally used to worship God, and instead blasphemously used to worship falsely. The only fact that can be shown from scripture about the music from this incident is that WE DON’T KNOW what music was actually used, and therefore we don’t know if the music itself was sinful, even when its misuse was.
Dave Barnhart
In another thread, Bert Perry recently wrote the following about me:
Consider that he could have just said about me alone, “And like it or not, the musical traits to which guys like you object all have roots in spirituals and black Gospel.”
Notice, however, that he claims that someone is my “source” but provides no evidence to back up his claim. A comprehensive search on both SI and on my blog shows that I have never cited the person he names as my source in any comments that I have ever made about music on SI or any posts that I have ever written about music on my blog where I set forth my views about music.
Similarly, a search for the other name on both sites will show absolutely zero connection between me and that person.
Why then would Bert Perry name these people and thereby link me to them in this comment? Why would he make the false claim that one of them is my “source”?
Is it not because he wants to associate me falsely with them so that the negative regard that people have for them will contribute to people’s further having a negative regard for me?
Is this not use of guilt-by-association?
Rajesh, in the context of that comment and those preceding it, it’s clear that the source I’m referring to is Mr. Brennan’s blog. Your responses nearby make it very clear that you knew very well what I was responding to.
Regarding the connections of blues, jazz, and rock & roll to spirituals and black gospel, yes, that does happen to be a fact, and yes, it does mean (to introduce my whole quote)
And like it or not, the musical traits to which guys like you, your source, Frank Garlock, and Bill Gothard object all have roots in spirituals and black Gospel. Rock & roll is derived significantly from blues and jazz, which are in turn derived from spirituals and Black Gospel, which are in turn derived from (among other things) the native music of peoples in Africa. Insult one, you’ve more or less insulted them all.
I think it’s fair to point this out. If Yoruba musical patterns of 300-400 years ago are sufficient reason to censure rock & roll, jazz, and blues today, they are simultaneously sufficient to censure black gospel and spirituals. That is, whether you like it or not, the fight that you and Mr. Brennan are picking.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[RajeshG]Oh Rajesh, you can quit with the fake surprise at my comment. Of course I’ve heard of the Trinity. Actual verses about God are used to support the Trinity and the concept that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all referenced as God. Yet when I ask you for actual verses about the GCI to show that the music of the CGI was different from regular worship music, you basically tell me you are just making inferences. Well, even inferences have to be derived from specific verses, and none of the verses in the GCI passage give me reason to make the same inferences you do, that the music was different from their normal worship music. That’s why I call your position more of an opinion than an inference.Are you kidding me? Have you really never heard of the doctrine of the Trinity? Have you really never had any exposure to systematic theology? Have you really never heard of making legitimate and necessary inferences from what Scripture does reveal?
[Bert Perry]You mentioned those two names intentionally because you wanted to associate me with them. Otherwise, you could just as well have made the statement about me and my source, who you now claim was a reference to Tom Brennan.Rajesh, in the context of that comment and those preceding it, it’s clear that the source I’m referring to is Mr. Brennan’s blog. Your responses nearby make it very clear that you knew very well what I was responding to.
…
And like it or not, the musical traits to which guys like you, your source, Frank Garlock, and Bill Gothard object all have roots in spirituals and black Gospel. Rock & roll is derived significantly from blues and jazz, which are in turn derived from spirituals and Black Gospel, which are in turn derived from (among other things) the native music of peoples in Africa. Insult one, you’ve more or less insulted them all.
Later in that thread, you even say the following:
And like it or not, yes, your thesis is the direct descendant of Garlock’s and those of the late 19th/early 20th century made to support Jim Crow. Yes, you put your little spin on it, but by endorsing those works of Mr. Brennan, you’re admitting, implicitly, that the heritage of your thought is there.
So it is very clear who you were associating me with and using guilt-by-association in doing so.
[Bert Perry]No, my response makes it clear that I took what you said to mean that you were saying that Frank Garlock was my source. Here is what I said concerning that point:Rajesh, in the context of that comment and those preceding it, it’s clear that the source I’m referring to is Mr. Brennan’s blog. Your responses nearby make it very clear that you knew very well what I was responding to.
You are also very wrong about your claim about who is my source. I did not get my approach from the source that you claim; I have intensely studied the subject on my own for around a decade or maybe longer.
I only recently found out about Brennan’s site and it is clear from what I said here that I had in mind that you were asserting that Frank Garlock was my source. In any case, you certainly did use guilt by association in that comment by naming those two people and linking me to them.
[Kevin Miller]You have stated that your inferences about that subject are different from mine. That does not prove that I was not making a biblical argument; it just means that you do not agree with my biblical argument, just as I reject what you do with the passage.Oh Rajesh, you can quit with the fake surprise at my comment. Of course I’ve heard of the Trinity. Actual verses about God are used to support the Trinity and the concept that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all referenced as God. Yet when I ask you for actual verses about the GCI to show that the music of the CGI was different from regular worship music, you basically tell me you are just making inferences. Well, even inferences have to be derived from specific verses, and none of the verses in the GCI passage give me reason to make the same inferences you do, that the music was different from their normal worship music. That’s why I call your position more of an opinion than an inference.
Here’s your post right after mine. You understood very well who I was referring to, and it wasn’t Mr. Garlock. it was the sources you linked in your blog.
Besides, you’re going to tell me that you’re a BJU PhD making the same kind of arguments that Mr. Garlock makes with the same kind of evidence that Garlock uses, and your work has nothing to do with his? You expect us to believe this?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Here’s your post right after mine. You understood very well who I was referring to, and it wasn’t Mr. Garlock. it was the sources you linked in your blog.
Besides, you’re going to tell me that you’re a BJU PhD making the same kind of arguments that Mr. Garlock makes with the same kind of evidence that Garlock uses, and your work has nothing to do with his? You expect us to believe this?
False. Had I thought that by “your source” you meant Brennan, I would not have said what I said.
In any case, the more important point is your mentioning those two names and listing me with them. That is clearly guilt-by-association and you know it.
Furthermore, I am not making the same kind of arguments that they are making with the same kind of evidence. To my knowledge, I am not aware of any other sources that connect Exodus 32 with 1 Cor. 10 specifically about coming into fellowship with demons because of their having consuming meat offered to idols in a worship context, etc.
Maybe the two people that you name do try to make that argument specifically in that way; if so, it should be easy for you to show that because you apparently know very well what they believe and teach.
Finally, I challenge you and anyone else who wants to make the claim to provide evidence from SI, my site, or anywhere else where I have ever used works from those two people to make such arguments concerning my music positions.
[RajeshG]If anything, I’d say Bert’s misrepresentation was an exaggeration rather than something done with “an agenda.” Besides, the Romans 8 thread was not the only thread in which I’ve brought up bird songs, and there’s at least one thread in which you’ve talked about bird songs with someone other than me. So maybe 200 isn’t that far off when considering the scope of the entire forum and not just the Romans 8 thread.Bert Perry claims that I argued with “over 200 comments over whether bird songs are displeasing to God.” Is this an honest and factually correct representation of what I did in that thread?
https://sharperiron.org/forum/poll-does-romans-819-22-apply-to-music-wit…
1. Notice that the title of the thread is not whether bird songs are displeasing to God. I am not the one who decided that we need a thread to talk about bird songs. My intent was to discuss what I consider to be an important Bible subject concerning music—the bondage of corruption that the whole creation was subjected to and its relevance to our understanding of music without words.
2. Notice that I am not even the one who brought up the subject of bird songs. Kevin Miller is the one who directed the thread that way in the 2nd comment on the thread. I then proceeded to discuss with him what he said and claimed about that matter.
3. Notice that the thread has 138 comments. Bert Perry said that I argued with “over 200 comments.” Is saying that there were more than 200 comments an accurate representation of a thread that had 138 comments? Absolutely not. Bert Perry is proven to be a person who cannot be trusted to represent a matter accurately and fairly.
4. Notice that by comment #42 or so on the first page of the thread (an approximate number because I did not take the time to check multiple times exactly what number this comment is in that thread) and after that, the discussion is no longer directly just about bird songs but about a broader matter and also about another scriptural revelation (about a fig tree that Jesus cursed). There are other references to bird songs in the thread at times but the thread was not just about discussing bird songs.
Later in the thread, I also proceeded to discuss several other Scripture passages that do not have to do with bird songs.
This further shows the misrepresentation by Bert Perry in his statement. Bert Perry cannot be trusted to present factual information accurately and represent things properly.
5. The thread has 3 pages. As an approximation (I did not go back and check the content of every single comment), therefore, because there are 138 comments in the thread, more than 2/3 of the thread has little or nothing to do with arguing over whether bird songs are pleasing to God.
Conclusion: This is not the first time that Bert Perry has intellectually misrepresented me. He cannot be trusted to engage in fair, honest discourse that represents opposing views accurately. He has an agenda and has engaged in intellectual misrepresentation (whether intentional or not) to accomplish his agenda.
[RajeshG]No, what it means is that I don’t even think that your inferences are Biblical. You take a verse and imagine it inferring something that the verse doesn’t support. Like the verse about Moses thinking he might be hearing the sound of war. You infer from that verse that the music would have been heard as normal worship music if it had been normal worship music. Yet that inference fails because we have no idea if their normal worship music sounded like war from a distance and that that’s why Moses got confused. He may have been worried about having been on the mountain for so long and whether the people were safe from enemies, so when he heard the music, he thought of war right away rather than singing. Inferring that the music was different because of the “sound of war” verse is not a Biblical inference. It’s just an opinion.You have stated that your inferences about that subject are different from mine. That does not prove that I was not making a biblical argument; it just means that you do not agree with my biblical argument, just as I reject what you do with the passage.
Rajesh, here’s your comment. You are clearly referring to your own post which referenced Mr. Brennan’s work. To quote:
As a result of someone else’s directing attention in this thread to a post on my blog that otherwise had gotten very little previous attention, I may now already have had 28 additional views of that post just today that I very likely would not have ever gotten had that link not been placed in a comment here on SI.
God has a way of turning upside down the ways and efforts of people who continually misrepresent what others say.
Besides, “your source” is in a list “you, your source, Frank Garlock, and Bill Gothard.” You should be able to read the English language well enough to understand that “your source” would be distinct from the other three people named. If you can’t, maybe it’s time for you to stop pretending to be an expert exegete of the Scriptures.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Kevin Miller]No, what it means is that I don’t even think that your inferences are Biblical. You take a verse and imagine it inferring something that the verse doesn’t support. Like the verse about Moses thinking he might be hearing the sound of war. You infer from that verse that the music would have been heard as normal worship music if it had been normal worship music. Yet that inference fails because we have no idea if their normal worship music sounded like war from a distance and that that’s why Moses got confused. He may have been worried about having been on the mountain for so long and whether the people were safe from enemies, so when he heard the music, he thought of war right away rather than singing. Inferring that the music was different because of the “sound of war” verse is not a Biblical inference. It’s just an opinion.
You say that you think that my view is not “a Biblical inference. It’s just an opinion.” So what? I can just as easily say that I think that your position is just your opinion and not biblical.
This is not the first time that people who interpret the Bible have differed intensely and it will not be the last.
[Bert Perry]Bert, The first time I read this comment, I also thought you were claiming that Frank Garlock was “the source” you were wanting to reference. I see now you were just making a list, but I think Rajesh does have a point that, without any statement by him claiming association with Frank or Bill, your lumping them all in a list is an attempt to associate them all together.Besides, “your source” is in a list “you, your source, Frank Garlock, and Bill Gothard.” You should be able to read the English language well enough to understand that “your source” would be distinct from the other three people named. If you can’t, maybe it’s time for you to stop pretending to be an expert exegete of the Scriptures.
[RajeshG]Well, I happen to ADMIT that my position about that passage is just an opinion, whereas you make claims that you’re making a Biblical argument. That’s a big difference.You say that you think that my view is not “a Biblical inference. It’s just an opinion.” So what? I can just as easily say that I think that your position is just your opinion and not biblical.
This is not the first time that people who interpret the Bible have differed intensely and it will not be the last.
[Kevin Miller]And? I believe that I have made a fully biblical case for what I believe. You disagree. Time to move on.Well, I happen to ADMIT that my position about that passage is just an opinion, whereas you make claims that you’re making a Biblical argument. That’s a big difference.
Here we go: here’s the post that kicked it off, and here’s the post that points out that the thesis is indeed “Garlockian”. Not “Garlock’s”, but definitely “Garlockian”. There is a difference. And again, Rajesh’s responses indicate very clearly that he understood full well what I was referring to.
And regarding Garlock’s inspiration of Rajesh, here’s Rajesh’s review of Garlock’s autobiography. It’s not like Garlock was no influence on Rajesh by any stretch of the imagination. So even if it was misunderstood, it’s really not unfair to Rajesh, or, for that matter, Mr. Brennan. It’s all really variations of the same hypothesis going back into the early 20th century, that modern African-American music and derivative genres wrong because of their origins and association with the previously pagan African people groups from which African-Americans came. The details vary, but that’s really the essence of the arguments.
If anyone wonders what’s going to be missing if one follows this illogic, here are “The Caravans” with the classic, bluesy, beautiful “Mary Don’t you Weep”. It’s this kind of music that carried our African-American brothers and sisters through the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow, brothers.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]You do realize that you are giving my blog lots of free publicity, don’t you?Here we go: here’s the post that kicked it off, and here’s the post that points out that the thesis is indeed “Garlockian”. Not “Garlock’s”, but definitely “Garlockian”. There is a difference. And again, Rajesh’s responses indicate very clearly that he understood full well what I was referring to.
And regarding Garlock’s inspiration of Rajesh, here’s Rajesh’s review of Garlock’s autobiography. It’s not like Garlock was no influence on Rajesh by any stretch of the imagination. So even if it was misunderstood, it’s really not unfair to Rajesh, or, for that matter, Mr. Brennan. It’s all really variations of the same hypothesis going back into the early 20th century, that modern African-American music and derivative genres wrong because of their origins and association with the previously pagan African people groups from which African-Americans came. The details vary, but that’s really the essence of the arguments.
If anyone wonders what’s going to be missing if one follows this illogic, here are “The Caravans” with the classic, bluesy, beautiful “Mary Don’t you Weep”. It’s this kind of music that carried our African-American brothers and sisters through the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow, brothers.
I was fully expecting that you would link to my review of his biography. That does not prove anything concerning my specific positions on music. In fact, anyone who does a search on my blog will find that in all the dozens of articles about music, his name is not mentioned as a source even once because my views are my own.
What is proven is that you used guilt-by-association to link my views with other named people of whom you have strong negative opinions. Naming him and Gothard and linking me to them is clearly guilt-by-association and you know it.
[RajeshG]I don’t see why I should move on. You asked me earlier if I had joined the ranks of those who are intellectually dishonest. All I did was accuse you of “making assertions and then refusing to back them up when questions are asked about them.” I don’t think that’s a dishonest assessment at all.And? I believe that I have made a fully biblical case for what I believe. You disagree. Time to move on.
To my mind, it’s intellectually dishonest to claim that you’ve made a Biblical case for what you believe. You’ve presented some verses, sure, but when I’ve asked you to elaborate on parts of your explanation I don’t find logical, you’ve often ignored my question. This is especially frustrating when I can’t see how you logically get an inference from a verse and it may simply be the slowness of my own mind. (But it may also be that the inference just isn’t there.)
[Kevin Miller]Go back and look at the OP and first comment of this thread. The purpose of this thread is not to rehash any discussions of specific passages, etc.I don’t see why I should move on. You asked me earlier if I had joined the ranks of those who are intellectually dishonest. All I did was accuse you of “making assertions and then refusing to back them up when questions are asked about them.” I don’t think that’s a dishonest assessment at all.
To my mind, it’s intellectually dishonest to claim that you’ve made a Biblical case for what you believe. You’ve presented some verses, sure, but when I’ve asked you to elaborate on parts of your explanation I don’t find logical, you’ve often ignored my question. This is especially frustrating when I can’t see how you logically get an inference from a verse and it may simply be the slowness of my own mind. (But it may also be that the inference just isn’t there.)
It is to confront what I believe to be an unethical campaign against me that must stop. To that end, I will be going back through my threads and compiling evidence, and as God leads, presenting it in this thread.
It’s one thing to disagree with what someone says; it is an entirely different matter for multiple people to repeatedly use unethical tactics to sabotage discussions that either are not what they are interested in discussing or are not approached the way that they want to approach the subject.
When I say this, I am not referring to you. I appreciate that you have not engaged in such tactics and hope that you will continue not to do so.
[RajeshG]Well then, didn’t you yourself start to derail the thread in the 3rd and 8th post of this thread? Two people accused you of using guilt by association tactics. You then asked for specific instances of when you did that. Asking for those instances is going to automatically “rehash any discussions of specific passages” if one of the examples dealt with a passage. This is exactly how the Golden Calf Incident began to be discussed in this thread. Bert used that discussion as one of the examples you had asked him for.Go back and look at the OP and first comment of this thread. The purpose of this thread is not to rehash any discussions of specific passages, etc.
It is to confront what I believe to be an unethical campaign against me that must stop. To that end, I will be going back through my threads and compiling evidence, and as God leads, presenting it in this thread.I hate to say this, but it seems to me that you’ve presented a somewhat thin skin at times when it comes to disagreement. I’m sure you perceive an unethical campaign, but it’s the nature of forum discussions that sometimes motives can be misconstrued, or some word may be used in a situation where another word might be more appropriate.
It’s one thing to disagree with what someone says; it is an entirely different matter for multiple people to repeatedly use unethical tactics to sabotage discussions that either are not what they are interested in discussing or are not approached the way that they want to approach the subject.But what about the times I’ve experienced the last part of the sentence with you? I’ve started asking questions that go in directions that you don’t wish the discussion to go. You’ve then used tactics to change (sabotage) the discussion. You see. to you, the shift was just a change back to what you wanted to talk about, but to me, that same change would be sabotaging the point I would have been trying to make in the discussion. It’s all a matter of perspective, and I think you may be taking things a bit too personally if you think people have an “unethical campaign” against you.
When I say this, I am not referring to you. I appreciate that you have not engaged in such tactics and hope that you will continue not to do so.Thank you for saying this. I’ve always tried to keep on and keep on trying to discuss things even when answers aren’t given or when the topic goes in all different directions.
[RajeshG]You do realize that you are giving my blog lots of free publicity, don’t you?
I was fully expecting that you would link to my review of his biography. That does not prove anything concerning my specific positions on music. In fact, anyone who does a search on my blog will find that in all the dozens of articles about music, his name is not mentioned as a source even once because my views are my own.
What is proven is that you used guilt-by-association to link my views with other named people of whom you have strong negative opinions. Naming him and Gothard and linking me to them is clearly guilt-by-association and you know it.
No, it’s not just guilt by association. It’s rather that the argument you make is pretty much the same as that which Brennan makes, and the arguments Brennan makes are pretty much the same as those made by Garlock and Gothard. There are minor differences in which African tribe or tribes is blamed, but really, it’s the same story that’s been going around for well over a century, typically applied to whatever African-American music genre is popular at the time. It’s changed from ragtime to jazz to blues and then to rock & roll, but really the story is the same. Here goes.
Around the turn of the 20th century, ragtime was the “beneficiary” of this kind of thing, arguing (along with Gothard) that syncopation was a very real evil. In the 1920s, jazz was likewise denigrated as “the devil’s music”, and detractors of the time suggested (a la Garlock’s hilarious argument about plants) that jazz was dangerous to the preborn. Like Brennan, they pointed to voodoo, and having pushed blacks to less respectable venues, then proceeded to blame them for playing them. Fast forward to the 1960s, and you had Bob Larson and David Noebel’s talking about the “Devil’s Beat” and the “Jungle Beat” with regards to rock & roll, despite, again, the fact that rock & roll rhythm has little similarity to that of Africa. Really, Rajesh, you’re not adding much new to this. You’re just recycling.
If you’re proud of being connected with this tradition, be my guest, I guess, but given how it plays in African-American communities for obvious reasons, I’d be reluctant to brag too much about getting traffic to my website because I was echoing it.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Kevin Miller]Because false assertions of my using GBA is one of the chief unethical tactics that has been used against me, addressing it was and is necessary. Surprisingly, two of the chief offenders actually identified themselves as such by making that very claim in this thread.Well then, didn’t you yourself start to derail the thread in the 3rd and 8th post of this thread? Two people accused you of using guilt by association tactics. You then asked for specific instances of when you did that. Asking for those instances is going to automatically “rehash any discussions of specific passages” if one of the examples dealt with a passage. This is exactly how the Golden Calf Incident began to be discussed in this thread. Bert used that discussion as one of the examples you had asked him for.
Just because that entailed talking about certain discussions does not mean that other points about those discussions should be taken up in this thread.
[RajeshG]Here is where the matter of perception plays a role. After all, even I think that some of the arguments you make are guilt by association arguments. However, I don’t simply accuse you of making such arguments even though you deny them. I take the two things you are associating and try to find out from you how you find guilt in a way other than just association. Since you deny guilt by association, I figure there must be some other way you assign guilt. That’s why I ask you “How” and “Why” questions in the various threads in which we’ve interacted. Your response to those questions has often been “I haven’t studied that out yet,” or “the Bible doesn’t go into that type of detail,” or “that question isn’t really the focus of this thread.” Since those responses seem like a dodge, then I don’t have much recourse in understanding you other than to think that you really are using guilt by association and then just denying it.Because false assertions of my using GBA is one of the chief unethical tactics that has been used against me, addressing it was and is necessary. Surprisingly, two of the chief offenders actually identified themselves as such by making that very claim in this thread.
[Kevin Miller]No, what you are talking about is not at all the same thing as what has been done to me. GBA has been verifiably, fallaciously used to associate me repeatedly with people who hold views and argue in ways that are not how I approach issues concerning acceptable versus unacceptable worship music.Here is where the matter of perception plays a role. After all, even I think that some of the arguments you make are guilt by association arguments. However, I don’t simply accuse you of making such arguments even though you deny them. I take the two things you are associating and try to find out from you how you find guilt in a way other than just association. Since you deny guilt by association, I figure there must be some other way you assign guilt. That’s why I ask you “How” and “Why” questions in the various threads in which we’ve interacted. Your response to those questions has often been “I haven’t studied that out yet,” or “the Bible doesn’t go into that type of detail,” or “that question isn’t really the focus of this thread.” Since those responses seem like a dodge, then I don’t have much recourse in understanding you other than to think that you really are using guilt by association and then just denying it.
In addition, blatantly false statements have been made about my views to claim that I have used GBA when I have not done any such thing. This unethical campaign against me must end.
[RajeshG]You say you haven’t used GBA, but what about those testimonies by unbelievers that you’ve often used? Here’s one post in which you linked to some of them.No, what you are talking about is not at all the same thing as what has been done to me. GBA has been verifiably, fallaciously used to associate me repeatedly with people who hold views and argue in ways that are not how I approach issues concerning acceptable versus unacceptable worship music.
In addition, blatantly false statements have been made about my views to claim that I have used GBA when I have not done any such thing. This unethical campaign against me must end.
https://sharperiron.org/comment/118620#comment-118620
In that post you said, “Consequently, no believer can legitimately deny a priori the authenticity, reliability, or validity of all testimonies from unbelievers about their interactions with demons in their music making activities.” I highlighted the word “their’ to show that these testimonies are from particular musicians who have used music in particular ways in their own personal experiences.
By using these testimonies in discussions of Christian worship music that is acceptable or unacceptable to God, you are associating the music composed by contemporary Christian composers with music composed by people who have interacted with demons. That’s guilt by association.
[Kevin Miller]No it is not. I will answer your claim further when I have more time this evening, D.V.You say you haven’t used GBA, but what about those testimonies by unbelievers that you’ve often used? Here’s one post in which you linked to some of them.
https://sharperiron.org/comment/118620#comment-118620
In that post you said, “Consequently, no believer can legitimately deny a priori the authenticity, reliability, or validity of all testimonies from unbelievers about their interactions with demons in their music making activities.” I highlighted the word “their’ to show that these testimonies are from particular musicians who have used music in particular ways in their own personal experiences.
By using these testimonies in discussions of Christian worship music that is acceptable or unacceptable to God, you are associating the music composed by contemporary Christian composers with music composed by people who have interacted with demons. That’s guilt by association.
[Joeb]Hmm. I am not seeing how this comment to Jim connects to what precedes it.I didn’t Jim. I’m still here. I find all the guys on SI overall very fair. Over course I do recognize that some have higher intellect than me and I recognize that ie Bert Jim and Aaron. You to Wally. I have gained a great appreciation that we all come on different flavors as Brothers in Christ. In fact SI gives me hope that all Evangelicals are not brained washed Christian Righties. Anyway Jim I’m still here much to your frustrations and hopes.
It’s also unclear from this comment whether you are indirectly asserting or suggesting that I am one of those “brained [sic] washed Christian Righties.”
[Joeb]Regardless of how smart he may be, he is not justified in doing anything that is unethical. which he has repeatedly done on SI against me.Crossing swords ⚔️ with Bert is a waste of time. The Dude is just to smart. You will only get frustrated. Like Bert says he strives to be a stick in the mud. Bert holds no ill will but Bert will bury you in an intellectual debate. Don’t take it personally. Just recognize as I did the Dude is just to SMART along with Jim Aaron and Wally and others. Laugh. These guys are all very caring guys.
Means a true claim that he doesn’t like, and doesn’t have the ability to actually refute. Take a close look at what he does; he doesn’t actually refute anything about my points (or Kevin’s, or anyone else’s) about him using guilt by association fallacies, but he says “it’s not so”, and more or less expects the rest of us to accept it.
As my brother would have noted in debates, that’s something you just can’t “fiat”, Rajesh. You’ve got to actually make an argument to differentiate your claims from genetic fallacies, and you’ve not even tried.
And the reality is that when you endorse nonsense like “the roots of rock and roll like deep in the soil of voodoo”, that’s about as textbook guilt by association/genetic fallacy as you can get. You can deny it until you’re blue in the face, but these things have definitions that you can’t change by your will.
To be fair, though, Rajesh’s arguments are not just based on logical fallacies, but also on factual problems. When push comes to shove, the actual things that differentiate rock & roll, blues, and jazz from other genre—use of the backbeat in percussion, blues rhythms and the like—are inventions of the early 20th century and have nothing to do with the Yoruba or any other African tribe.
Another point of reference is that even if I were to ignore the factual and logical problems with Rajesh’s thesis, we can test out the hypothesis he gives—that the use of the music invites demonic activity—with the question of whether we see a huge rise in demonic activity with the rise of rock & roll. When I compare today with the days of Druids, Aztecs, and the like doing human sacrifice and the like, we’re actually rather benign in comparison. So his thesis fails the “consequences” test as well.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert Perry has a history of using GBA fallacies to assert that others have used GBA. Notice how he was confronted in 2018 by another SI user (bold added to original):
Larry - Thu, 11/29/2018 - 4:39am
Notice how Bert Perry here was confronted for using GBA to speak against another person by linking that person to Dr. Garlock (the same tactic that he has used against me), etc. Of course, Bert Perry then responded by claiming that his linking those two people is justified because Bert Perry thinks that it is justified.
In the end, vital differences between people’s positions and approaches do not matter; what matters is that Bert Perry sees points of similarity and therefore believes that he is justified in using GBA to attack the person.
Bert Perry has a history of fallaciously using GBA to attack people whose views he disagrees with.
[Bert Perry][…] we can test out the hypothesis he gives—that the use of the music invites demonic activity—with the question of whether we see a huge rise in demonic activity with the rise of rock & roll. When I compare today with the days of Druids, Aztecs, and the like doing human sacrifice and the like, we’re actually rather benign in comparison. So his thesis fails the “consequences” test as well.
I’m not sure this would be definitive. While I don’t buy everything said about rock & roll being always associated with demonic activity, I think we have to remember what the ultimate goal of demons is — it’s to have people despise God and Jesus Christ, and join them in eternity. Demonic beings are not stupid, and they are going to use what is going on in humanity at the time. I’m sure there are still some scattered places where there is open demonic activity and human sacrifice, as well as others who openly worship Satan even in modern society. However, in much of “civilized” society, where people think themselves too sophisticated to believe in angels or demons, I’d guess that it serves Satan’s purposes in many cases to be invisible, to let people go on disbelieving in him, and to tempt people away from Christ in other ways (since in their mind, there is no devil they need worry about).
Since the ultimate destination of the soul is of far more importance than what happens to people here on earth, while open demonic activity is bad, if the soul ends up going to hell, what difference does it make how it got there? Satan’s work on earth today in our society may appear to be more benign, but I’d argue he’s just as active today when he appears invisible in our culture as he is when he reveals himself among people that worship him openly. Having said that, while Satan and his minions can use rock music (as they can other types as well) as part of their purposes, that doesn’t make music used for evil purposes wrong of itself.
For my personal evaluation, since music is hard (or perhaps even impossible) to judge intrinsically as to its moral value, I do use “association” as probably my biggest discriminator. If I see music as inappropriate for my listening or use due to it reminding me of my past or sinful culture, especially music with sinful lyrics, I avoid it. What I don’t do is declare my views on that music as determinative for everyone. Their associations may be entirely different. Just one brief example — I love a cappella choral music from the medieval and renaissance eras. However, I know someone who came out of Catholicism who avoids any such music like the plague, as it reminds them of their former false worship. I think that’s entirely reasonable and a good decision for them to make. Even knowing what they think of it, I still enjoy it personally.
Dave Barnhart
[Bert Perry]Bert Perry claims that I never refute his claims of my using GBA. I have confronted him more than once, including a particularly pointed pushback in a previous thread:Means a true claim that he doesn’t like, and doesn’t have the ability to actually refute. Take a close look at what he does; he doesn’t actually refute anything about my points (or Kevin’s, or anyone else’s) about him using guilt by association fallacies, but he says “it’s not so”, and more or less expects the rest of us to accept it.
…
Another point of reference is that even if I were to ignore the factual and logical problems with Rajesh’s thesis, we can test out the hypothesis he gives—that the use of the music invites demonic activity—with the question of whether we see a huge rise in demonic activity with the rise of rock & roll. When I compare today with the days of Druids, Aztecs, and the like doing human sacrifice and the like, we’re actually rather benign in comparison. So his thesis fails the “consequences” test as well.
Repent of your false assertions
RajeshG - Wed, 08/21/2019 - 9:59pm
Regarding demon possession, this is your argument:
[My response to Bert Perry:]
Note carefully that I vigorously pushed back against him about this false claim. He never provided any evidence to back up his claim that I have ever said that listening to rock music leads to demon possession. He just made up that false claim and then attacked me for holding that false position that I had never held to begin with.
Bert Perry has a history of making up claims about what I have supposedly said, taught, argued, etc or what I supposedly believe and then attacking me with the false claims that he himself actually made up. This unethical campaign against me must end.
Well, since Rajesh can’t be bothered to actually quote what I said about Mr. Garlock, I’ll help him out.
And like it or not, the musical traits to which guys like you, your source, Frank Garlock, and Bill Gothard object all have roots in spirituals and black Gospel. Rock & roll is derived significantly from blues and jazz, which are in turn derived from spirituals and Black Gospel, which are in turn derived from (among other things) the native music of peoples in Africa. Insult one, you’ve more or less insulted them all.
Notice that I didn’t say that Rajesh is wrong because he recycles Garlock’s work. Rather, I’m saying that if he’s doing a guilt by association fallacy (and he is) to insinuate that any problems with rock & roll are the fault of the Yoruba (he endorsed this, mind you), he’s simultaneously insinuated that black Gospel and spirituals are unacceptable. As I’ve noted before, this is going to rightly be interpreted as “white peoples’ music prior to Elvis Presley is OK, black peoples’ music, not so much.” I don’t care to make, or be associated with, such an argument for obvious reasons.
Note also that this is the music which sustained our African-American brothers and sisters through the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow. So unless one is ready to pretty much implicate most/all African-American churches as involved in the occult, this line of “thinking” is a non-starter.
Or, as they say in baseball, “swing and a miss”, Rajesh. Pro tip for you; if you’re going to try to attack what I say, start by quoting me.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Instead of acknowledging that he made up an entirely false claim and then attacked me using that false claim, Bert Perry responds by diverting to an entirely different matter—about which he has also made false claims.
It’s also noteworthy that he does not link the comment that he cites above to its source document so that people who want to can check what preceded it and followed it, etc. Here are the same statements and the link so that the reader can examine the exchanges before and after this comment.
And like it or not, the musical traits to which guys like you, your source, Frank Garlock, and Bill Gothard object all have roots in spirituals and black Gospel. Rock & roll is derived significantly from blues and jazz, which are in turn derived from spirituals and Black Gospel, which are in turn derived from (among other things) the native music of peoples in Africa. Insult one, you’ve more or less insulted them all.
Understanding the flow of thought is important to put this statement in its proper context.
The following is taken from my most recent post on my blog. Instead of linking to my blog, I am reproducing the article here in this comment (with a modified intro). This post shows how Scripture supports speaking against and rejecting things of the occult without having to do many of the things that various defenders of CCM routinely assert have to be done.
[Some defenders of CCM make the following claims about what I must do concerning my speaking and writing against various occult musics:]1. Show how and why it is demonic
2. Define the terms that I use to speak of it
3. Provide specific examples of it
4. Give detailed, specific information about it
Are these legitimate claims or are they very mistaken and dangerous claims? To address this matter, we need to look carefully at how the glorified Christ handled issues concerning the occult in a church late in the first century AD.
The Glorified Christ’s Confrontation of Issues about the Occult in a Church
The glorified Christ fiercely confronted believers in the church in Thyatira concerning issues about the occult in their midst:
Rev 2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak [bold in original]; I will put upon you none other burden.
In this passage, Christ reproached sinful people in a church who had allowed a false teacher in the church named Jezebel to have very perverse influence in the church (Rev. 2:20-23).
By striking contrast, Christ later spoke of people in the church about whom He said that they had not come to know “the depths of Satan,” as others in the church spoke of (Rev. 2:24).
Saying these things, Christ implicitly revealed that there were both people in the church who had come to know “the depths of Satan” and those who had not.
This key revelation about what some people in the church had come to know requires very careful treatment to address whom we should follow in our day concerning issues about occult music—various CCM defenders or the glorified Christ.
Notice carefully all the things that the glorified Christ did not do [underlining here = italics in the original] concerning what He implicitly revealed about certain people in the church having known “the depths of Satan.”
1. Having accepted at face value their characterization of whatever that knowledge was as being demonic, He did not argue for why it was demonic or explain how it was demonic.
2. He used their term for describing that knowledge and did not define in any way their term that He used to speak out implicitly against people’s knowing what these demonic depths were! [underlining here = italics in the original]
3. He did not provide any examples—specific or otherwise—about what these demonic depths were!
4. He did not give any detailed, specific information about what these demonic depths were!
5. He did not place any burden on those who had not known these demonic depths to do research and learn more information about what these demonic depths were!
Discussion
Applying directly how we see the glorified Christ Himself dealt with people in a church about coming to know about things of the occult, devoted believers do not have to show how or why music of the occult is demonic—they must accept as valid that characterization of it by those who use that music. They do not have to and must not seek to show how or why it is demonic.
Devoted believers are fully justified in using the terms that occultists use to speak of their music and in not defining those terms in any way. They must not seek to define for themselves what those terms mean.
Devoted believers must not provide specific examples or give specific, detailed information about music of the occult! It is fully biblical to reject music of the occult without doing any of these things.1
Conclusion
Devoted believers must not follow what some CCM defenders claim must be done concerning addressing issues about music of the occult; rather, we must follow the glorified Christ in addressing such things by holding as valid designations from occultists that their music is occult music.
Furthermore, we must speak only generically about it using their terms, not seek to define those terms, not provide any examples, and not provide any specific, detailed information!
Finally, we must not seek any in-depth knowledge about music of the occult. Rather, we must reject all of it categorically!
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—
1 Concerning understanding Jesus’ example as establishing these prohibitions, I believe that this approach applies specifically to things concerning the occult; I am not arguing that is necessarily the case concerning addressing other matters for which Jesus did not provide specific information, etc.
Furthermore, what Jesus did here is in keeping with the divine mandate not to even inquire how certain evil people worship their gods (Deut. 12:30-31) and the command to be simple concerning evil (Rom. 16:19) as well as the teaching of Ephesians 5:11.
[RajeshG]I think this logic would apply just as much to occult transportation as it would to occult music. Now, you might ask, “What is occult transportation?” Well, to that I would say, “Devoted believers must not provide specific examples or give specific, detailed information about transportation of the occult! It is fully biblical to reject transportation of the occult without doing any of these things.”The following is taken from my most recent post on my blog. Instead of linking to my blog, I am reproducing the article here in this comment (with a modified intro). This post shows how Scripture supports speaking against and rejecting things of the occult without having to do many of the things that various defenders of CCM routinely assert have to be done.
[Some defenders of CCM make the following claims about what I must do concerning my speaking and writing against various occult musics:]
1. Show how and why it is demonic
2. Define the terms that I use to speak of it
3. Provide specific examples of it
4. Give detailed, specific information about it
Are these legitimate claims or are they very mistaken and dangerous claims? To address this matter, we need to look carefully at how the glorified Christ handled issues concerning the occult in a church late in the first century AD.
The Glorified Christ’s Confrontation of Issues about the Occult in a Church
The glorified Christ fiercely confronted believers in the church in Thyatira concerning issues about the occult in their midst:
Rev 2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak [bold in original]; I will put upon you none other burden.
In this passage, Christ reproached sinful people in a church who had allowed a false teacher in the church named Jezebel to have very perverse influence in the church (Rev. 2:20-23).
By striking contrast, Christ later spoke of people in the church about whom He said that they had not come to know “the depths of Satan,” as others in the church spoke of (Rev. 2:24).
Saying these things, Christ implicitly revealed that there were both people in the church who had come to know “the depths of Satan” and those who had not.
This key revelation about what some people in the church had come to know requires very careful treatment to address whom we should follow in our day concerning issues about occult music—various CCM defenders or the glorified Christ.
Notice carefully all the things that the glorified Christ did not do [underlining here = italics in the original] concerning what He implicitly revealed about certain people in the church having known “the depths of Satan.”
1. Having accepted at face value their characterization of whatever that knowledge was as being demonic, He did not argue for why it was demonic or explain how it was demonic.
2. He used their term for describing that knowledge and did not define in any way their term that He used to speak out implicitly against people’s knowing what these demonic depths were! [underlining here = italics in the original]
3. He did not provide any examples—specific or otherwise—about what these demonic depths were!
4. He did not give any detailed, specific information about what these demonic depths were!
5. He did not place any burden on those who had not known these demonic depths to do research and learn more information about what these demonic depths were!
Discussion
Applying directly how we see the glorified Christ Himself dealt with people in a church about coming to know about things of the occult, devoted believers do not have to show how or why music of the occult is demonic—they must accept as valid that characterization of it by those who use that music. They do not have to and must not seek to show how or why it is demonic.
Devoted believers are fully justified in using the terms that occultists use to speak of their music and in not defining those terms in any way. They must not seek to define for themselves what those terms mean.
Devoted believers must not provide specific examples or give specific, detailed information about music of the occult! It is fully biblical to reject music of the occult without doing any of these things.1
Conclusion
Devoted believers must not follow what some CCM defenders claim must be done concerning addressing issues about music of the occult; rather, we must follow the glorified Christ in addressing such things by holding as valid designations from occultists that their music is occult music.
Furthermore, we must speak only generically about it using their terms, not seek to define those terms, not provide any examples, and not provide any specific, detailed information!
Finally, we must not seek any in-depth knowledge about music of the occult. Rather, we must reject all of it categorically!
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––—
1 Concerning understanding Jesus’ example as establishing these prohibitions, I believe that this approach applies specifically to things concerning the occult; I am not arguing that is necessarily the case concerning addressing other matters for which Jesus did not provide specific information, etc.
Furthermore, what Jesus did here is in keeping with the divine mandate not to even inquire how certain evil people worship their gods (Deut. 12:30-31) and the command to be simple concerning evil (Rom. 16:19) as well as the teaching of Ephesians 5:11.
In a previous thread nearly two years ago, Bert Perry set forth a false claim by implying that I had connected Exodus 32 and certain music “32 centuries later”:
Of course, I pointedly confronted him about this totally false claim that I have never made:
Through carefully skimming all 23 pages of this thread, it has become clear to me that at least one person has been attacking me based on the fallacious use of a straw man. Note what I have highlighted in bold in the comment below:
Bert Perry wrote: Step #2 in proving you understand basic rules of exegesis is to compare what I wrote with your source, and realize they’re saying the same thing, and that neither source lends itself to the notion that the “play” was about music, and that even if it did, it certainly doesn’t refer to music that was invented in African-American churches 32 centuries later.
(never mind that your “it’s associated with idolatry” argument is a standard guilt by association fallacy that could be used to impugn any genre)
[My further response about this false claim:]
In this fallacious comment, the straw man is implicitly set up that I supposedly have asserted that because the meaning of the word “play” refers to the music in Exodus 32, it also “refer[s] to the music that was invented in African-American churches 32 centuries later.”
Having carefully skimmed today everything that I have said in this thread in all 23 pages, I have verified that I have not made a single comment that asserts anything of this sort.
What I have said is that a careful analysis of the GCI proves the reality of demonically influenced music. I have also provided evidence that supports rejecting rock music as demonically influenced music.
I have not, however, asserted that the meaning of the word “play” in Exodus 32 refers to rock music or any other music of today.
This is therefore a blatant instance of misrepresenting me by implicitly erecting a straw man by implying that I have associated what occurred in the GCI directly with music 32 centuries later through my supposedly claiming that the word “play” in Exodus 32 somehow connects to or applies to not just the music in Exodus 32 but also to music that was 32 centuries later.
Anyone who resorts to this kind of fallacious assertion by attacking a straw man that implicitly asserts something that I have not said will give an account to Christ someday for doing so.
Shockingly, Bert Perry has recently made a similar false claim again, even after I had plainly repudiated in essence that claim in the earlier thread:
Of course, I called him out again about this repeated false claim:
How many times is Bert Perry going to be allowed to make this false claim about me?
I have never connected or tried to connect the music of Exodus 32 to modern music or vice versa in the ways that Bert Perry has falsely claimed. This is another false claim that he totally made up and has repeated.
This unethical campaign against me must end.
Rajesh, I’m not going to go through your insinuations line by line, as it’s a waste of time, but I do think it’s appropriate that the Hebrew word for “indulge in revelry” or “play” in Exodus 32:6 is “tsachaq”, or “to laugh”. Since you’re clearly reading into the text, yes, your entire argument regarding Exodus 32 is indeed “reading into the text” followed by “guilt by association”. And yes, repeatedly you do make the connection between this passage and modern music styles, most memorably for me when you connected it directly with the evil practice of kids goofing off and “beatboxing.”
And really, if you weren’t trying to connect passages like this with modern music, you also would not be calling me an enemy and a “supporter of CCM”. Please, your agenda is pretty obvious, so just admit it and take your lumps when the rest of us point out that your evidence doesn’t support your hypothesis. This kind of behavior on your part is not worthy of a high school graduate, let alone someone claiming multiple graduate degrees.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]I have already fully refuted you about this very point:Rajesh, I’m not going to go through your insinuations line by line, as it’s a waste of time, but I do think it’s appropriate that the Hebrew word for “indulge in revelry” or “play” in Exodus 32:6 is “tsachaq”, or “to laugh”. Since you’re clearly reading into the text, yes, your entire argument regarding Exodus 32 is indeed “reading into the text” followed by “guilt by association”.
In an earlier comment, the following was asserted about me:Moreover, here is the entry for the Hebrew verb rendered “to play” in Exod. 32:6:
Furthermore, the verb in Ex. 32:6 does not occur in Num. 25:2.
It’s your choice, Bert. If you keep making false claims, I will keep on calling you out and refuting you with actual quotes and links and evidence, etc.
It’s way past time that you admit that you have made false claims about me and completely stop your entire unethical campaign against me so we can move on.
Discussion