"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-...

10349 reads
Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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.

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Bert Perry's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

<snip>

 

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.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Just because that entailed talking about certain discussions does not mean that other points about those discussions should be taken up in this thread.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

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.

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.

 

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

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.

 

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.

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.

Joeb's picture

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.  

Joeb's picture

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.  
 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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.

 

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.

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.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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.

 

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.

 

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.

No it is not. I will answer your claim further when I have more time this evening, D.V.

RajeshG's picture

Joeb wrote:

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.  

Hmm. I am not seeing how this comment to Jim connects to what precedes it.

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."

RajeshG's picture

Joeb wrote:

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.  

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.

Bert Perry's picture

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.

RajeshG's picture

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):
 

Not that I can fathom, really

Larry - Thu, 11/29/2018 - 4:39am

Not that I can fathom, really.

There's an ongoing pattern here with many that is essentially this: If doesn't get something or can't fathom it or can't understand it, it is wrong. It appears that some don't even consider that it might be his own deficliency that is causing the problem. There are numerous statements to this effect, and this is only the latest. We have had one person explicitly reject anything outside of his own understanding. Why do we do this?

Bert likes to condemn guilt by association (in spite of the fact that the Bible clearly uses it) but one of his primary arguments against Mike's writing is that it is just Frank Garlock redux. In other words, no need to address what Mike actually says. Just associate him with Garlock and call it a day. He's guilty. Of course, Mike's argument and Garlock's aren't the same and no one who has thoughtfully interacted with either would consider them so. He also used GBA by name dropping BJU into a condemnation of percussion, which, again was a just bizarre and virtually unintelligible attempt at an argument. It's hard to know what Bert was trying to get at with that because he didn't bother to explain it. 

Bert has engaged in the fallacy of begging the question, that is asserting that music is neutral while failing to prove (or even argue much for) such a position. In another bizarre moment, Bert declared that Psalm 149 and 150 mean that modern music is okay and Mike must disagree with it. Yet Bert has made no effort to tell us what part of Psalm 149 or 150 Mike or other conservatives disagree with. He hasn't even been able to play Psalm 149 or 150 for us so we can know what it sounded like. After all, that is the only way to judge, is it not? Are we really expected to make aesthetic judgments about sound without ever hearing the sound? 

In the end, regardless of where one falls on this matter, there is a lot of sloppy thinking going on, if thinking it could even be called.

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.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Bert Perry wrote:

[...] 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

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

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.

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:
 

Repent of your false assertions

RajeshG - Wed, 08/21/2019 - 9:59pm

Bert Perry wrote:

Regarding guilt by association, the term has a definition, and your argument--that rock & roll is wrong because it's tainted with idolatry--fits that definition to a T.  Hence, your argument is always false.  It's really that simple.

Regarding demon possession, this is your argument:

When demons control humans in a worship context, they are going to direct the humans to use things in the worship that are things that are not acceptable to God. They are not going to control the humans to use things that are acceptable to God.

The very definition of demon possession involves the concept of demons controlling people.  That's what "possession" means.  You have a degree in New Testament Interpretation, and you did not know this about one of the most prominent features of Jesus' ministry?  Seriously?  Yes, you did in fact argue that believers are demon-possessed if they listen to rock music.  

[My response to Bert Perry:]

You must repent of all your false assertions about me. I have never argued that rock music is wrong because it is "tainted with idolatry." Your failure to provide statements by me about rock music being "tainted with idolatry" proves that your assertion about my argument is categorically false. God has strong words for those who bear false witness.

You must repent also of your false assertion that I have argued that believers are demonically possessed if they listen to rock music. This is utter nonsense. You are utterly unable to produce any proof of my arguing that because I have never said any such thing.

Millions of unbelievers listen to rock music regularly and have never been possessed by demons. I have known many unbelievers personally and have known them very well and they listened to rock music and they were not possessed.

As an unbeliever myself for many years who listened to lots of rock music, I knew even when I was as an unbeliever that I was never possessed by demons. I have friends and family who listen to rock music and they have never been possessed. Some are even believers and they have never been possessed.

Knowing from my own personal experience of listening to lots of rock music myself as well as knowing firsthand of the experiences of many other people who have listened to rock music, I have never made such a preposterous and categorically false assertion that believers are demonically possessed if they listen to rock music.

I have not ever said anything about such a nonsense statement. You must repent of this categorically false assertion about me. 

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.

Bert Perry's picture

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.

RajeshG's picture

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.

RajeshG's picture

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.

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

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.

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."

RajeshG's picture

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":

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.

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:

Regarding your claim that you're starting from Scripture, spare me.  You're the guy who's capable of trying to connect unknown music at the Golden Calf incident with rock & roll while ignoring the clear implications of the last two Psalms.  What you're doing is starting with your conclusion, and nary a bit of evidence that contradicts it will be allowed in.  Again, I commend to you the purchase of a primer on informal logic and a dictionary.

Of course, I called him out again about this repeated false claim:

As for your GBA (guilt-by-association) mantra that you repeatedly spout, you have made many false claims about what I have said. I have called you out in previous threads and in this thread about your false claims, yet you still have not repented of your unethical behavior.

You continually falsely claim that I have associated things that I have never associated, such as the music in the GCI and rock music. No matter how many times you utter your false claims about my using such guilt-by-association argumentation, what you claim will not become true.

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.

Bert Perry's picture

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.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

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". 

I have already fully refuted you about this very point:

In an earlier comment, the following was asserted about me:

Bert Perry wrote:

And yes, I include your sad excuse for exegesis in this category, too.  Fact of the matter is the word for "play" in Exodus 32:6 that you make so much of, Strong's 6711(link is external), means to laugh or make sport and has nothing whatsoever to do with playing music per se.  You are reading your personal bias into the text.  The root word means "to laugh" and is the same root for the name Isaac.

In other words, it's a fact that your "exegesis" is completely lacking here.  Shame on you for not even looking up the Hebrew word before starting this nonsense. [underlining added to the original]

The one making this comment seemingly claims that his looking up one Hebrew word in Strong's concordance is definitive proof of the meaning of that word and its usage in Exodus 32:6. This is a false claim that is not supported by how this Hebrew verb is used elsewhere in the OT.

The writer of this comment further asserted that I should be ashamed for "not even looking up the Hebrew word." How anyone could think that I would have not done so is unfathomable to me.

Not only did I extensively study the Hebrew use of this word in the OT, but I also in considerable detail studied how the LXX renders this verb in each passage.

Furthermore, as definitive proof that I did look up this Hebrew word and study it previously, here is a comment that I made back in December 2018 in an earlier thread:
 

Moreover, here is the entry for the Hebrew verb rendered "to play" in Exod. 32:6:

Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT (HOL)
Hol7153   
צחק: qal: pf. צָֽחֲקָה, צָחָֽקְתְּ; impf. יִֽצְחַק־ Gn 216, וַיִּצְחַק, וַתִּצְחַק: laugh Gn 1717 1812f•15, w. l® at 216.

piel: impf. וַיְצַחֵק; inf. לְצַחֵק, לְצַ֫חֶק; pt. מְצַחֵק: — 1. abs. joke Gn 914, play 219, amuse onesf. Ex 326; — 2. w. °¢t fondle (a woman) Gn 268; w. b® play around with 3914•17; w. lifnê amuse onesf. before Ju 1625. † (pg 305)

I wonder why the standard Hebrew lexicon doesn't render it as fornication and sexual immorality in Exodus 32:6? 

Furthermore, the verb in Ex. 32:6 does not occur in Num. 25:2.

As this earlier comment plainly shows, I have studied the meaning of the Hebrew verb carefully in a standard Hebrew lexicon that is far superior to Strong's Concordance and in the rest of the OT as well.

In conclusion, the person who made this claim that asserts that I engaged in "sad excuse for exegesis" and should be ashamed "for not even looking up the Hebrew word" has made false and baseless claims about me. Because this person has made such false and baseless claims about me, readers of this thread should exercise great care in assessing the validity of what this writer asserts about me before accepting anything that he says about me.

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.

Bert Perry's picture

Rajesh, here are the actual uses of the word.  The only places where possible fornication is referred to is in Genesis 39, and in verses 14 and 17, the word is translated in terms of "sport", "mockery", "make fools of", and the like.  In other words, it's being used in its central meaning "to laugh", and the sexual nature of the mockery alleged by Potiphar's wife is inferred not from the word, but the context.  

So the reason that "fornication" is not used as a central meaning of the word, let alone an appropriate translation for Exodus 32:6, is because it's simply not what the word means in that context.  

In other words, your so-called "refutation" is merely you reading something into the text which clearly is not there.  You do this a lot, and then when people like me (and a bunch of others on this forum) call you on it, you start with ludicrous personal attacks.  You want to see someone who is intellectually dishonest?  Look at the guy who started this thread by endorsing a made-up logical "fallacy" that would tend to contradict the principle of logical conclusions.  Shave.  He'll be there.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

Rajesh, here are the actual uses of the word.  The only places where possible fornication is referred to is in Genesis 39, and in verses 14 and 17, the word is translated in terms of "sport", "mockery", "make fools of", and the like.  In other words, it's being used in its central meaning "to laugh", and the sexual nature of the mockery alleged by Potiphar's wife is inferred not from the word, but the context.  

So the reason that "fornication" is not used as a central meaning of the word, let alone an appropriate translation for Exodus 32:6, is because it's simply not what the word means in that context.  

In other words, your so-called "refutation" is merely you reading something into the text which clearly is not there.  You do this a lot, and then when people like me (and a bunch of others on this forum) call you on it, you start with ludicrous personal attacks.  You want to see someone who is intellectually dishonest?  Look at the guy who started this thread by endorsing a made-up logical "fallacy" that would tend to contradict the principle of logical conclusions.  Shave.  He'll be there.

You missed the point. The refutation that I made in that previous thread on 8/15/2019 was of your nonsense claim in that thread that I had engaged in "sad excuse for exegesis" and should be ashamed "for not even looking up the Hebrew word." In that previous thread, I proved with a direct quote from 12/6/2018 (with a link) that shows that I did look up the Hebrew word in a much better Hebrew lexical source than the one that you used.

And, for the record, I am not the one who was arguing in the quote from 12/6/2018 that I provided in that previous thread (8/15/2019) that it means fornication. I was answering someone else who was making that claim. I should have indented that in the quote in this thread to make that clearer, but anyone who is interested in checking can go back and check it out.

As for actually discussing now with you the meaning of that word in that verse, etc., you have proven yourself to be dishonest and one who frequently misrepresents what I say. There is zero chance that I am going to give you another opportunity to do more of the same by trying to discuss with you further a disputed point about the lexical meaning of a Hebrew verb.

Bert Perry's picture

So when confronted with the fact that he'd tortured the definitions of Hebrew words and, in doing so, completely misrepresented Exodus 32, Rajesh points out that he had indeed looked up the Hebrew.  So he did, sort of.

Now what the base meaning is is, as I noted, "to laugh" or "mock", and Rajesh sort of points to his source's sub-definition of "fondle" or "play around with".  Note, however, that his definition does not include what he wonders; to fornicate.  So in his "expert Hebrew analysis", he actually injects his own concept in place of what his own source states.  That's precisely the point many on this forum have been making about his thoughts ever since he joined this forum.

And he has the chutzpah to call other people dishonest.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

RajeshG's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

So when confronted with the fact that he'd tortured the definitions of Hebrew words and, in doing so, completely misrepresented Exodus 32, Rajesh points out that he had indeed looked up the Hebrew.  So he did, sort of.

Now what the base meaning is is, as I noted, "to laugh" or "mock", and Rajesh sort of points to his source's sub-definition of "fondle" or "play around with".  Note, however, that his definition does not include what he wonders; to fornicate.  So in his "expert Hebrew analysis", he actually injects his own concept in place of what his own source states.  That's precisely the point many on this forum have been making about his thoughts ever since he joined this forum.

And he has the chutzpah to call other people dishonest.

Wrong again. The source (HOL) that I provided clearly says for Exodus 32:6 that they think that it means "amuse onesf." [meaning 'amuse oneself']:
 

Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the OT (HOL)
Hol7153   
צחק: qal: pf. צָֽחֲקָה, צָחָֽקְתְּ; impf. יִֽצְחַק־ Gn 216, וַיִּצְחַק, וַתִּצְחַק: laugh Gn 1717 1812f•15, w. l® at 216.

 

piel: impf. וַיְצַחֵק; inf. לְצַחֵק, לְצַ֫חֶק; pt. מְצַחֵק: — 1. abs. joke Gn 914, play 219, amuse onesf. Ex 326; — 2. w. °¢t fondle (a woman) Gn 268; w. b® play around with 3914•17; w. lifnê amuse onesf. before Ju 1625. † (pg 305) [bold added]

And your attempt in this thread to try to assert that I was trying to show that it means "to fornicate" does not work because in the original quote, my saying that "I wonder . . ." was directed to push back at the person who was trying to say it means "fornication" because he had wrongly argued from Numbers 25:2 that it means "fornication" in Exodus 32:6.

The fact stands that you falsely claimed earlier that I had not looked up the verb in Hebrew, but the truth is that I had then and have even more so now studied the verb in Hebrew and in the LXX rendering of it very carefully.

RajeshG's picture

All of the following statements are false statements that various people have claimed I hold, argue for, etc or are false assertions about me concerning my views about music and my writing and speaking about those views:

1. I very frequently use guilt-by-association fallacies to argue for my views about music.

2. My views about music are basically a rehash of the views of certain other people with a little added "spin" of my own.

3. I hold that "all drums are out of line" and am against the use of all percussion.

4. I downplay or reject or ignore, etc. the teaching of Psalms 149 and 150 concerning divinely commanded use of percussion instruments.

5. I hold that listening to rock music leads to demon possession.

6. I teach that we must reject all or almost all modern music because either it sounds like what the music of the GCI sounded like or the music of the GCI sounded like what all or almost all modern music sounds like.

7. I have especially targeted the music of one particular group of people from one particular part of the world.

In addition, I do not have "ulterior motives," I am not a "wolf," and I am not a racist.

In one manner or another, all of these false claims (and more) have either been made or suggested about me or to me by one or more people on SI. I am not interested in discussing these matters any further with anyone.

I hope that all such unethical tactics, claims, and statements against me will completely stop. Those who continue to use them will answer to God someday.

 

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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.

 

No it is not. I will answer your claim further when I have more time this evening, D.V.

So have you decided not to answer this post of mine from three days ago? It does seem to me that using the testimonies of rock musicians about their use of rock music is guilt by association when using these testimonies to condemn the music of contemporary Christian musicians.

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

 

Kevin Miller wrote:

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.

 

No it is not. I will answer your claim further when I have more time this evening, D.V.

 

So have you decided not to answer this post of mine from three days ago? It does seem to me that using the testimonies of rock musicians about their use of rock music is guilt by association when using these testimonies to condemn the music of contemporary Christian musicians.

Yes, I have decided that I am not going to discuss anything related to these matters any further in this thread.

Pages