"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-...

10395 reads
RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

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."

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's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

<snip>

 

 

 

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.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

<snip>

 

 

 

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.

Sure, Bert, whatever you say. Because we all know that the Bible itself clearly, explicitly, indisputably, and repeatedly teaches that having evidence about "what genre, instrumentation, or other musical properties [are] in play" is the one and only way to know whether music is acceptable to God or not, right?

Prove that claim--you do not just get to assert that as if asserting it makes it so. Prove that the Bible teaches that having such musicological knowledge is essential to knowing whether music is acceptable to God or not.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

<snip>

 

 

 

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.

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? 

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

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.

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.

Dave White's picture

RajeshG wrote:
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

 

 

Bert Perry's picture

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.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Bert Perry's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:

<snip>

 

 

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.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Ron Bean's picture

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

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

Dave White's picture

Ron Bean wrote:

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

Ditto

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Ron Bean wrote:

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

RajeshG's picture

In another thread, Bert Perry recently wrote the following about me:

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. 

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?

Bert Perry's picture

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.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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."

 

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? 

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.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

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.

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.

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.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

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.

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:
 

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.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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."

 

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? 

 

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.

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.

Bert Perry's picture

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.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

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.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:

 

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.

 

 

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.

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.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

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.

 

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.

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.

Bert Perry's picture

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.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Kevin Miller's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

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.

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.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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.

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.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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.

 

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.

And? I believe that I have made a fully biblical case for what I believe. You disagree. Time to move on.

Bert Perry's picture

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.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

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.

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.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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.

 

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.

 

 

And? I believe that I have made a fully biblical case for what I believe. You disagree. Time to move on.

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.)

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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.

 

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.

 

 

And? I believe that I have made a fully biblical case for what I believe. You disagree. Time to move on.

 

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.)

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.

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.

Pages