PDA

View Full Version : IMPORTANT Judging others



poochie
Aug 31st 2008, 12:22 AM
Brethren.

The Bible is very clear that we need to judge and expose false doctrine (Gal 1:8-9). Liberal Christianity, Post-Modernists, Word of Faith, and many others can be false teachers.

In this regard me and the Fundamentalists agree 100%. I have noticed that a great majority of my disagreement with them is not over theological disagreements, but over issues like worship, bible translations, clothing prefs,etc..

What is wrong brethren is when we judge others self-righteously based on man made rules.

For example if we see a brother/sister that listens to CCM or reads from the NIV, we must not judge him/her. I love the NIV and its wrong to judge others because they use it.

But judging others on doctrine issues is not wrong.

2 Thes 3:6

Rufus_1611
Aug 31st 2008, 12:51 AM
Brethren.

The Bible is very clear that we need to judge and expose false doctrine (Gal 1:8-9). Liberal Christianity, Post-Modernists, Word of Faith, and many others can be false teachers.

In this regard me and the Fundamentalists agree 100%. I have noticed that a great majority of my disagreement with them is not over theological disagreements, but over issues like worship, bible translations, clothing prefs,etc..

What is wrong brethren is when we judge others self-righteously based on man made rules.

For example if we see a brother/sister that listens to CCM or reads from the NIV, we must not judge him/her. I love the NIV and its wrong to judge others because they use it.

But judging others on doctrine issues is not wrong.

2 Thes 3:6

Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment.

Mograce2U
Aug 31st 2008, 12:55 AM
Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment.See poochie, you can't win! :P

Truth is you must learn to do this for yourself.

(1 Cor 2:15 KJV) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

Discernment takes practice because there are no hard and fast rules:

(Heb 5:14 KJV) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

A false prophet or teacher can only beguile those whose souls are not yet established in the faith. The one who has thru trial and error proved the word of the Lord is trustworthy, will not find themselves easily led astray by those who do not take this same view of scripture. It is not that CCM or the NIV is good or bad per se, since all the works of men will have both these elements in them; rather it is whether or not you can discern which is which.

When a bad song comes on the radio can you discern what is wrong? The same goes with the NIV or the KJV when you come across an error in the translation. It would be great if we could make blanket statements and find our safety there, but that is not what is required of us. Rather we are called to test the spirits. Which means we must grow in our knowledge of Christ until we have His mind on every issue. And that takes practice and diligence - and a lifetime to achieve!

stillforgiven
Aug 31st 2008, 12:59 AM
Brethren.

The Bible is very clear that we need to judge and expose false doctrine (Gal 1:8-9). Liberal Christianity, Post-Modernists, Word of Faith, and many others can be false teachers.

In this regard me and the Fundamentalists agree 100%. I have noticed that a great majority of my disagreement with them is not over theological disagreements, but over issues like worship, bible translations, clothing prefs,etc..

What is wrong brethren is when we judge others self-righteously based on man made rules.

For example if we see a brother/sister that listens to CCM or reads from the NIV, we must not judge him/her. I love the NIV and its wrong to judge others because they use it.

But judging others on doctrine issues is not wrong.

2 Thes 3:6

You're forgetting that many make things like CCM (Christian lyrics to a modern beat) and Bible translations part of their doctrine, and they will judge us for it. And then they wonder why many of us want nothing to do with organized religion. :rolleyes:

OrdainedLady
Aug 31st 2008, 02:44 AM
Discernment takes practice because there are no hard and fast rules:


That is AWESOME!!! I totally already understood the principle, but the way you said it really blessed my spirit! Thanks, Mo. :thumbsup:

OrdainedLady
Aug 31st 2008, 02:51 AM
Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment.

Yeah, well...that's basically what the Pharisees said when Jesus started bucking tradition, too. :thumbsdn:

Dontcha think that it would be better to allow others in here to have and express doctrinal and dogmatic views that differ from yours rather than trying to rain judgement down on them? :pray: Besides, from what I've read of the rules, your "worthy of judgement" statement is kind of a no-no in here, ya know?

crossnote
Aug 31st 2008, 05:29 AM
Yeah, well...that's basically what the Pharisees said when Jesus started bucking tradition, too. :thumbsdn:

Dontcha think that it would be better to allow others in here to have and express doctrinal and dogmatic views that differ from yours rather than trying to rain judgement down on them? :pray: Besides, from what I've read of the rules, your "worthy of judgement" statement is kind of a no-no in here, ya know?

Even though I do not agree with Rufus's assertion of "Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment." I believe he is simply stating his understanding of biblical teaching and is warning others based on that understanding.
Again it's a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' type of situation. If the post modern types take offense at someone's dogmatic stance then they need to measure their own dogmatic-ness in their being offended and their ensuing counterattack.

Rufus_1611
Aug 31st 2008, 02:49 PM
Even though I do not agree with Rufus's assertion of "Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment." I believe he is simply stating his understanding of biblical teaching and is warning others based on that understanding.
Again it's a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' type of situation. If the post modern types take offense at someone's dogmatic stance then they need to measure their own dogmatic-ness in their being offended and their ensuing counterattack.Very well said...thank you for your discernment.

OrdainedLady
Aug 31st 2008, 03:24 PM
Even though I do not agree with Rufus's assertion of "Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment." I believe he is simply stating his understanding of biblical teaching and is warning others based on that understanding.
Again it's a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' type of situation. If the post modern types take offense at someone's dogmatic stance then they need to measure their own dogmatic-ness in their being offended and their ensuing counterattack.

Not trying to be argumentative, however...

-- Your statement above indicates to me that you are labeling me a "post-modernist" - which I most definitely am not.

-- Your statement above indicates to me that if you *are* labeling me a post modernist, you are also accusing me of being dogmatic - which I most definitely am not.

-- Your statement above indicates to me that I am attempting to attack Rufus by "ensuing counterattack" - which I most definitely was not.

My intent here is just to understand what you meant by your above statement. I'm just trying to figure out where the discernment in that statement *is* if it doesn't appear to apply. Now, if you weren't directing your comments to me, I apologize beforehand for taking them personally - but re-reading what the others wrote, your comments don't seem to be applicable to them, either.

I sure would appreciate you being a little more clear in which direction your are aiming the statements I addressed above. :help: I agree that it's within fair parameters for Rufus to state his beliefs from his understanding of biblical teaching. I'm not so sure that you should have included what you wrote next, as it just kind of seemed to me to be an unneccesary dig.

But, I'd love for you to change my mind about my impressions...:)

crossnote
Sep 1st 2008, 06:34 AM
Not trying to be argumentative, however...

-- Your statement above indicates to me that you are labeling me a "post-modernist" - which I most definitely am not.

-- Your statement above indicates to me that if you *are* labeling me a post modernist, you are also accusing me of being dogmatic - which I most definitely am not.

-- Your statement above indicates to me that I am attempting to attack Rufus by "ensuing counterattack" - which I most definitely was not.

My intent here is just to understand what you meant by your above statement. I'm just trying to figure out where the discernment in that statement *is* if it doesn't appear to apply. Now, if you weren't directing your comments to me, I apologize beforehand for taking them personally - but re-reading what the others wrote, your comments don't seem to be applicable to them, either.

I sure would appreciate you being a little more clear in which direction your are aiming the statements I addressed above. :help: I agree that it's within fair parameters for Rufus to state his beliefs from his understanding of biblical teaching. I'm not so sure that you should have included what you wrote next, as it just kind of seemed to me to be an unneccesary dig.

But, I'd love for you to change my mind about my impressions...:)

I just clicked on the 'quote' button on the last post and your quote was recorded in the message box. My post was a comment simply disagreeing with Rufus' assertion but defending his right to say it. I was not directly responding to your comment for I found it a little ambiguous. So instead I made my comment to a general audience. Obviously you found my post ambiguous as well, not being sure if it was a direct salvo. Nope, unless you take it as such.

Longsufferer
Sep 1st 2008, 01:21 PM
“Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother´s way.”
(Romans.14:13)

Cynthia
Sep 2nd 2008, 06:51 PM
Brethren.

The Bible is very clear that we need to judge and expose false doctrine (Gal 1:8-9). Liberal Christianity, Post-Modernists, Word of Faith, and many others can be false teachers.

In this regard me and the Fundamentalists agree 100%. I have noticed that a great majority of my disagreement with them is not over theological disagreements, but over issues like worship, bible translations, clothing prefs,etc..

What is wrong brethren is when we judge others self-righteously based on man made rules.

For example if we see a brother/sister that listens to CCM or reads from the NIV, we must not judge him/her. I love the NIV and its wrong to judge others because they use it.

But judging others on doctrine issues is not wrong.

2 Thes 3:6

I don't get it. What's wrong with Christain music and NIV?

Rufus_1611
Sep 2nd 2008, 07:12 PM
I don't get it. What's wrong with Christain music and NIV?There's nothing wrong with Christian music, it is a matter of defining what Christian music is. So long as one is teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...no problem. Once one starts to mix a little bit of Belial with a little bit of Christ and begins to rock out then...problem.

A similar issue applies to the Bible version matter. There is nothing wrong with the Word of God, it is a matter of defining what the Word of God is. If one lives by every Word of God, then one can not abide with a book that removes words from verses like Romans 8:1, 1 John 5:7, and that overall has 64,000 fewer words than the Holy Bible.

Emanate
Sep 3rd 2008, 02:04 PM
There's nothing wrong with Christian music, it is a matter of defining what Christian music is. So long as one is teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...no problem. Once one starts to mix a little bit of Belial with a little bit of Christ and begins to rock out then...problem.

A similar issue applies to the Bible version matter. There is nothing wrong with the Word of God, it is a matter of defining what the Word of God is. If one lives by every Word of God, then one can not abide with a book that removes words from verses like Romans 8:1, 1 John 5:7, and that overall has 64,000 fewer words than the Holy Bible.


What about a bible version that changes the name of the brother of Jesus to fit the name of a king? What about a translation that changes Passover to Easter? What about a translation that originally included the Apocrypha? What about a translation that changes Instruction/teaching to law? What about a translation that deletes the name of Yahweh and inserts Lord?

Rufus_1611
Sep 3rd 2008, 02:45 PM
What about a bible version that changes the name of the brother of Jesus to fit the name of a king? To what are you referring?


What about a translation that changes Passover to Easter?The word is Easter in Acts 12:4 and the AV did not change the word.

Acts 12:4
"And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people." - (Tyndale's New Testament - 1526)

"Now whan he had taken him, he put him in preson, and delyuered him vnto foure quaternions of soudyers, to kepe him: and thought after Easter to bringe him forth to the people." - (Miles Coverdale - 1535)

"And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people." - (Bishop's Bible - 1568)

"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." - (Authorized Version - 1611)


What about a translation that originally included the Apocrypha? It was not considered canon, had no frontispiece, there is nothing evil contained within the works and was included for historical purposes and it was removed from later editions so it wouldn't be a stumbling block to folks.


What about a translation that changes Instruction/teaching to law? I am uncertain what you mean by this.


What about a translation that deletes the name of Yahweh and inserts Lord? Yahweh was not deleted for it was never included. There isn't a single English Bible prior to the AV that used Yahweh for the name of the Lord. His name is Jehovah, or Lord, or Jesus, or Almighty God, or many, many other names. What He is not called is "Yahweh".

seamus414
Sep 3rd 2008, 02:59 PM
Rufus_1611

I am not going to comment on your views regarding the Authorized Bible as there have been hundreds of posts on the matter in other threads and the one thing that is glaringly apparent is the weak position of the KJVO folks.

That being said, you said:

There's nothing wrong with Christian music, it is a matter of defining what Christian music is. So long as one is teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...no problem. Once one starts to mix a little bit of Belial with a little bit of Christ and begins to rock out then...problem.

Tell me, where in the Bible does it address popular music? Specifically, where in the Bible does it say music cannot: (1) have a back beat? (2) electric instruments and distortion? (3) a catchy tune?

seamus414
Sep 3rd 2008, 03:02 PM
Brethren.

The Bible is very clear that we need to judge and expose false doctrine (Gal 1:8-9). Liberal Christianity, Post-Modernists, Word of Faith, and many others can be false teachers.

In this regard me and the Fundamentalists agree 100%. I have noticed that a great majority of my disagreement with them is not over theological disagreements, but over issues like worship, bible translations, clothing prefs,etc..

What is wrong brethren is when we judge others self-righteously based on man made rules.

For example if we see a brother/sister that listens to CCM or reads from the NIV, we must not judge him/her. I love the NIV and its wrong to judge others because they use it.

But judging others on doctrine issues is not wrong.

2 Thes 3:6

I am not trying to be flip here: virtually all of your posts address fundamentalists. What's your obession with them about?

Rufus_1611
Sep 3rd 2008, 03:19 PM
Rufus_1611

I am not going to comment on your views regarding the Authorized Bible as there have been hundreds of posts on the matter in other threads and the one thing that is glaringly apparent is the weak position of the KJVO folks. I will not comment about your non-comment.


That being said, you said:

There's nothing wrong with Christian music, it is a matter of defining what Christian music is. So long as one is teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...no problem. Once one starts to mix a little bit of Belial with a little bit of Christ and begins to rock out then...problem.

Tell me, where in the Bible does it address popular music? Specifically, where in the Bible does it say music cannot: (1) have a back beat? (2) electric instruments and distortion? (3) a catchy tune? The Holy Bible does not speak about back beats, electric instruments, distortion etc. To believe only Rock music has catchy tunes causes me to suspect you don't many hymns as they are quite catchy. What it commands for us is, to sing hymns, psalms and spiritual songs. What one then needs to determine is whether or not the "Christian Rock & Roll" of today fits into any of these three categories. Further, if you understand what "Rock and Roll" means, then you may understand the blasphemy inherit in combining the name of Christ with the phrase "Rock and roll".

Emanate
Sep 3rd 2008, 03:22 PM
To what are you referring?

The word is Easter in Acts 12:4 and the AV did not change the word.

Acts 12:4

"And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people." - (Tyndale's New Testament - 1526)

"Now whan he had taken him, he put him in preson, and delyuered him vnto foure quaternions of soudyers, to kepe him: and thought after Easter to bringe him forth to the people." - (Miles Coverdale - 1535)

"And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people." - (Bishop's Bible - 1568)

"And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." - (Authorized Version - 1611)

It was not considered canon, had no frontispiece, there is nothing evil contained within the works and was included for historical purposes and it was removed from later editions so it wouldn't be a stumbling block to folks.

I am uncertain what you mean by this.

Yahweh was not deleted for it was never included. There isn't a single English Bible prior to the AV that used Yahweh for the name of the Lord. His name is Jehovah, or Lord, or Jesus, or Almighty God, or many, many other names. What He is not called is "Yahweh".


Jeremiah 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

1. The Greek Iakov from the Hebrew Ya'akov which translates it English as Jacob. Curiously translated as James in the KJV.

2. The Greek Pascha which is the Hebrew equivalent of Pesach or Passover. Despite how previous English versions translated it, it is still Passover.

3. Not canon, but it was there and now it is not. Not evil, the Apocrypha is great history and explains some of the customs that Jesus followed.

4. The Hebrew Torah which translates into English as Instruction or Teaching. Translated as Law in the KJV, as in other English versions.

5. YHWH - Yehovah or Yahweh (depending on which schloarly treatise you adhere to) is omitted 6,000+ times and the KJV and replaced with Lord (both taking from and adding to).

I myself prefer the KJV. It seems to me that its language has more meaning than other translations. I do, however, recognize its flaws.

seamus414
Sep 3rd 2008, 03:39 PM
Rufus_1611

The Holy Bible does not speak about back beats, electric instruments, distortion etc.

Ok, so as nothing is said about it, the Christians ought to have liberty, no?

To believe only Rock music has catchy tunes causes me to suspect you don't many hymns as they are quite catchy.

I never said "only" did I? I also never said "rock" music. Why are you inserting words into my posts? I also rather enjoy the old hymns.

What it commands for us is, to sing hymns, psalms and spiritual songs.

This command is in the context of worship. Music in times of, say, recreation is different. Do you find yourself in discomfort or in an occasion to sin when you listen to musak in an elevator? A theme song to a TV show? Or a pick up band a a fair?

What one then needs to determine is whether or not the "Christian Rock & Roll" of today fits into any of these three categories.

Why? They generally do not play during a worship service. If they do, why cannot a hymn, psalm, or spiritual song have a catchy tune, a back beat, and electric instruments?

Further, if you understand what "Rock and Roll" means, then you may understand the blasphemy inherit in combining the name of Christ with the phrase "Rock and roll".

Etymology is not relevant when looking at matters of the heart. Indeed, most people do not even know the background of words, and nor should they need to, it is not relevant to anything.


Given your defense of the word "Easter" in the Authorized Bible, I am sure you have no problem using that word. I am sure when you say the word "Easter" (as oppsoed to "the Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord" - the actual name for the Holy Day) you do not associate Christ with the fertility goddess Estar and all of the pagan practices associated with it.

Rufus_1611
Sep 3rd 2008, 06:13 PM
Rufus_1611

The Holy Bible does not speak about back beats, electric instruments, distortion etc.

Ok, so as nothing is said about it, the Christians ought to have liberty, no? Not when he gave a command for what music we should have in our hearts.


To believe only Rock music has catchy tunes causes me to suspect you don't many hymns as they are quite catchy.

I never said "only" did I? I also never said "rock" music. Why are you inserting words into my posts? I also rather enjoy the old hymns. I'm uncertain why you put it in your list then. I do apologize if you believe I have inserted words into your posts.


What it commands for us is, to sing hymns, psalms and spiritual songs.

This command is in the context of worship. Music in times of, say, recreation is different. Is not worshiping God recreational? Who or what do you desire to worship when you're not wroshipping God?



Do you find yourself in discomfort or in an occasion to sin when you listen to musak in an elevator? I can't say...it's been a long time since I've been in an elevator with musak.


A theme song to a TV show? I don't watch television.



Or a pick up band a a fair? We went to a fair recently, and the sound and the lyrics were quite obscene. We won't be going to fairs anymore.


What one then needs to determine is whether or not the "Christian Rock & Roll" of today fits into any of these three categories.

Why? They generally do not play during a worship service. If they do, why cannot a hymn, psalm, or spiritual song have a catchy tune, a back beat, and electric instruments? Hymns, psalms and spiritual songs do have catchy tunes.

Rock and roll is fleshly music so it can not be spiritual music and thus, does not meet the criteria commanded by God.


Further, if you understand what "Rock and Roll" means, then you may understand the blasphemy inherit in combining the name of Christ with the phrase "Rock and roll".

Etymology is not relevant when looking at matters of the heart. Indeed, most people do not even know the background of words, and nor should they need to, it is not relevant to anything. I'm not talking about a matter of the heart. With their mouths people say "Christian Rock and Roll", this is equivalent to saying "Christian fornication". Just words?



Given your defense of the word "Easter" in the Authorized Bible, I am sure you have no problem using that word. I am sure when you say the word "Easter" (as oppsoed to "the Feast of the Resurrection of Our Lord" - the actual name for the Holy Day) you do not associate Christ with the fertility goddess Estar and all of the pagan practices associated with it.
I don't have a problem using the term Easter when describing a pagan holiday.

SIG
Sep 4th 2008, 05:00 AM
For those of you who stumble on "Easter" being named after Estar, Ishtar, or whoever--I've read that the word derives from "Eastern," referring to the sunrise....

Not that words should stumble you anyway...

Shalom

seamus414
Sep 4th 2008, 11:48 AM
Rufus_1611
Not when he gave a command for what music we should have in our hearts.

God's command included specific modern genres of music? Or was the command conerning lyrics and attitude? Did his command say "music that better not include a bass and snare drum, no electric guitars, and certainly no catchy chorus and back beat?"

I'm uncertain why you put it in your list then. I do apologize if you believe I have inserted words into your posts.

I made no such list. Perhaps you have confused my posts with someone else's.

Is not worshiping God recreational? Who or what do you desire to worship when you're not wroshipping God?

Worshiping God is not recreation, it is serious business. There is no requirement that music must be "worship" music. Do you sing the national anthem? Have you sung a lulliby? Have you sung camp fire songs? None of these are "worship" music.

I can't say...it's been a long time since I've been in an elevator with musak.
I don't watch television.
We went to a fair recently, and the sound and the lyrics were quite obscene. We won't be going to fairs anymore.

So, essentially, what you are saying is that you have structured your life in such a way that you have insulated yourself from music of any kind from any source but for Sunday morning?

Rock and roll is fleshly music so it can not be spiritual music and thus, does not meet the criteria commanded by God.

You have yet to describe how a genre of music in general is fleshly? Certainly certain lyrics are fleshly but is an electric guitar fleshly? Is a back beat fleshly? Are certain musical sounds fleshly? Are certain notes or note patters more fleshly than others? Do you believe in the devil's tritone?

I'm not talking about a matter of the heart.

Why not? That is the central issue when listening and performing music.

With their mouths people say "Christian Rock and Roll", this is equivalent to saying "Christian fornication". Just words?

I think your points would be more well taken if you actually described what makes a musical form (not lyrics, of course) "fleshly". Just saying so does not make it so.

I don't have a problem using the term Easter when describing a pagan holiday.

What do you call the Holy Day that commemorates the Resurrection?

Firstfruits
Sep 4th 2008, 11:58 AM
Brethren.

The Bible is very clear that we need to judge and expose false doctrine (Gal 1:8-9). Liberal Christianity, Post-Modernists, Word of Faith, and many others can be false teachers.

In this regard me and the Fundamentalists agree 100%. I have noticed that a great majority of my disagreement with them is not over theological disagreements, but over issues like worship, bible translations, clothing prefs,etc..

What is wrong brethren is when we judge others self-righteously based on man made rules.

For example if we see a brother/sister that listens to CCM or reads from the NIV, we must not judge him/her. I love the NIV and its wrong to judge others because they use it.

But judging others on doctrine issues is not wrong.

2 Thes 3:6

The problem we have is that "we" all have a doctrine, "we" are not of one mind, "we" do not all speak the same thing, but there is only one Gospel/doctrine of Christ.

Rom 16:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Firstfruits

Rufus_1611
Sep 4th 2008, 01:27 PM
Rufus_1611
Not when he gave a command for what music we should have in our hearts.

God's command included specific modern genres of music? Or was the command conerning lyrics and attitude? Did his command say "music that better not include a bass and snare drum, no electric guitars, and certainly no catchy chorus and back beat?" God's commands regarding music:
"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;" - Ephesians 5:19

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." - Colossians 3:16


I'm uncertain why you put it in your list then. I do apologize if you believe I have inserted words into your posts.

I made no such list. Perhaps you have confused my posts with someone else's.

Tell me, where in the Bible does it address popular music? Specifically, where in the Bible does it say music cannot: (1) have a back beat? (2) electric instruments and distortion? (3) a catchy tune?


Is not worshiping God recreational? Who or what do you desire to worship when you're not wroshipping God?


Worshiping God is not recreation, it is serious business. There is no requirement that music must be "worship" music. Do you sing the national anthem? Have you sung a lulliby? Have you sung camp fire songs? None of these are "worship" music.The Star-Spangled Banner is a beautiful hymn. I just wish the other verses got as much play as the first verse:


O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their lov'd homes and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


I can't say...it's been a long time since I've been in an elevator with musak.
I don't watch television.
We went to a fair recently, and the sound and the lyrics were quite obscene. We won't be going to fairs anymore.

So, essentially, what you are saying is that you have structured your life in such a way that you have insulated yourself from music of any kind from any source but for Sunday morning? I'm doing what I can to separate from the world though it is immensely challenging. I was into progressive rock and heavy metal during my secular and rock and roll church days. One of my favorite bands was a band called Rush. I owned every one of their CDs save for one or two live albums, I went to see them live 8-9 times. Once I got convicted about sin I gave that band up for Christ. Recently, I was in Albertson's and was pretty shocked to hear a song by them called "Spirit of Radio" in Albertson's. Once I got my groceries and left, I had to work hard to get back to where I was singing and making melody in my heart to the Lord and get the "Spirit of Radio" song out of my head and heart.


Rock and roll is fleshly music so it can not be spiritual music and thus, does not meet the criteria commanded by God.

You have yet to describe how a genre of music in general is fleshly? Certainly certain lyrics are fleshly but is an electric guitar fleshly? Is a back beat fleshly? Are certain musical sounds fleshly? Are certain notes or note patters more fleshly than others? Do you believe in the devil's tritone? Rock and roll is fleshly, it appeals to the flesh, it causes folks to behave in a licentious fashion. No one rocks and rolls in the backseats of cars or elsewhere to Bach or Beethoven. However, if one wants to get his date to loosen up a bit, Nine Inch Nails or the like will do the trick.



I'm not talking about a matter of the heart.

Why not? That is the central issue when listening and performing music. No it isn't. The central issue is what it does God command and what does it do to or for a person? Hymns, psalms and spiritual songs get people focused on the things that are spiritual. Rock and roll gets folks focused on the things of the flesh and of the world.


With their mouths people say "Christian Rock and Roll", this is equivalent to saying "Christian fornication". Just words?

I think your points would be more well taken if you actually described what makes a musical form (not lyrics, of course) "fleshly". Just saying so does not make it so. Are you conceding that "Christian Rock and Roll" = "Christian Fornication"?


I don't have a problem using the term Easter when describing a pagan holiday.

What do you call the Holy Day that commemorates the Resurrection? There is a Roman Catholic/Babylonian holy day called Easter. For me to apply a name to the holy day that commemorates the resurrection, I would ask you where in the Holy Bible would I find it?

seamus414
Sep 4th 2008, 02:14 PM
Rufus_1611

God's commands regarding music:"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;" - Ephesians 5:19 "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." - Colossians 3:16

Ok, based on these verses, you conceed that there is nothing here describing what genre the psalms, hymns and songs take correct? And you also conceed that these verses do not exclude music that is "secular", correct? Not everything "secular" = "evil" - you understand that right?

The Star-Spangled Banner is a beautiful hymn. I just wish the other verses got as much play as the first verse:

The first verse has nothing to do with God, so do you not sing that verse?

I'm doing what I can to separate from the world though it is immensely challenging.

God gave us music of all genres and his beauty shines through jazz as much as classical.

I was into progressive rock and heavy metal during my secular and rock and roll church days.

I am not such a fan of heavy metal, but progressive rock is my favourite form of music. I own many records and CDs of the genre and probably have seen over 100 shows. I love prog rock and I am glad it is part of the beauty of the world God gave us.

One of my favorite bands was a band called Rush. I owned every one of their CDs save for one or two live albums, I went to see them live 8-9 times.

I like Rush. But my favourite group is Yes. Seem them 10 times and own all of their stuff. Nothing in music is more sublime to me than the soaring heights that their music goes. WOnderfully composed stuff.

Once I got convicted about sin I gave that band up for Christ. Recently, I was in Albertson's and was pretty shocked to hear a song by them called "Spirit of Radio" in Albertson's. Once I got my groceries and left, I had to work hard to get back to where I was singing and making melody in my heart to the Lord and get the "Spirit of Radio" song out of my head and heart.

That is an okay song. Not sure what you felt "convicted" about as the song is pretty innocuous. It is just a pop pleasent song with a catchy sythnesizer hook. What's wrong with it?

Rock and roll is fleshly, it appeals to the flesh, it causes folks to behave in a licentious fashion.

Why do you project your own responses to the music onto others? Music does not "cause" anything. The person's heart causes things.

In my own experience, listening to Yes, King Criminson, or Emerson/Lake/Palmer has never "caused" me to do anything but enjoy the melodies and admire musicianship. None of my friends have been "caused" to do anything by music.

Just because you have had a "licentious" response does not mean others have not. Many people thought Mozart's music was licentious. Not anymore!

No one rocks and rolls in the backseats of cars or elsewhere to Bach or Beethoven.

How do you know? Some people "get in the mood" from the sublime melodies of Beethoven.

Indeed, based upon what you have been saying, you ought not to listen to Bach or Beethoven because they do not write "hymns, pslams, or spiritual songs" according to your definition.

However, if one wants to get his date to loosen up a bit, Nine Inch Nails or the like will do the trick.

I personally do not like NIN and neither does my wife. Again, if you have that response to NIN then by all means stop listening to them, for me NIN does nothing for me.

No it isn't. The central issue is what it does God command and what does it do to or for a person?

God wants us to enjoy his creation. A series of sounds is neither moral or immoral. You ignored my question from my previous posts.

Tell me, where in the Bible does it address popular music? Specifically, where in the Bible does it say music cannot: (1) have a back beat? (2) electric instruments and distortion? (3) a catchy tune? You have yet to describe how a genre of music in general is fleshly? Certainly certain lyrics are fleshly but is an electric guitar fleshly? Is a back beat fleshly? Are certain musical sounds fleshly? Are certain notes or note patters more fleshly than others? Do you believe in the devil's tritone?

Hymns, psalms and spiritual songs get people focused on the things that are spiritual. Rock and roll gets folks focused on the things of the flesh and of the world.

Maybe for you. When I listen to Close to the Edge I realize how wonderful God is in his creation of so many sounds and giving people the gift of composition and musicianship. DO not project your personal response to music on me or anyone else.

Are you conceding that "Christian Rock and Roll" = "Christian Fornication"?

Of course not, the suggestion is absurd.

There is a Roman Catholic/Babylonian holy day called Easter.

Ha! This is hilariously absurd as virtually all of Christendom celebrates a Holy Day that - in English - is known as Easter.

For me to apply a name to the holy day that commemorates the resurrection, I would ask you where in the Holy Bible would I find it?

Why would you need to find the name in the Bible in order to address it by a name? What do you call the day that commemorates the Resurrection?

Let me ask you what seems to be an irrelevant question: do you believe in photography? Do you take pictures and allow pictures to be taken of yourself?

Emanate
Sep 4th 2008, 02:22 PM
There is a Roman Catholic/Babylonian holy day called Easter.

Ha! This is hilariously absurd as virtually all of Christendom celebrates a Holy Day that - in English - is known as Easter.



Well, if all of Christendom does it, it must be right. Just like Judaism in the first century. Denying its Pagan origins does not negate them. Historical fact.

seamus414
Sep 4th 2008, 02:39 PM
Well, if all of Christendom does it, it must be right. Just like Judaism in the first century. Denying its Pagan origins does not negate them. Historical fact.

Dude, it's just a word of which virtually no one knows the meaning. Knowning or not knowing the origins matters little as the word has taken a on new meaning. Why get so wrapped up over something so meaningless?

Emanate
Sep 4th 2008, 03:04 PM
Dude, it's just a word of which virtually no one knows the meaning. Knowning or not knowing the origins matters little as the word has taken a on new meaning. Why get so wrapped up over something so meaningless?


I wasnt referring to the word, I was referring to the celebration of which the word speaks. Words mean something. I am sure you have heard people fight about "true christianity" which is nothing more than fighting over a word. The again, words do mean something.

seamus414
Sep 4th 2008, 03:11 PM
I wasnt referring to the word, I was referring to the celebration of which the word speaks. Words mean something. I am sure you have heard people fight about "true christianity" which is nothing more than fighting over a word. The again, words do mean something.

To virtually all of Christendom who celebrate Easter, they are celebtating the day the Lord resurrected from the dead.

crawfish
Sep 4th 2008, 05:04 PM
Brethren.

The Bible is very clear that we need to judge and expose false doctrine (Gal 1:8-9). Liberal Christianity, Post-Modernists, Word of Faith, and many others can be false teachers.

In this regard me and the Fundamentalists agree 100%. I have noticed that a great majority of my disagreement with them is not over theological disagreements, but over issues like worship, bible translations, clothing prefs,etc..

What is wrong brethren is when we judge others self-righteously based on man made rules.

For example if we see a brother/sister that listens to CCM or reads from the NIV, we must not judge him/her. I love the NIV and its wrong to judge others because they use it.

But judging others on doctrine issues is not wrong.

2 Thes 3:6

I agree to a point. Look at Gal 1: 6-7:


I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.


The question we should ask here is; what is Paul referring to by the Gospel, and how was it being perverted? The answer to the former is given above (the gospel is the preaching of God's grace), and the latter in chapter 2:


14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


In other words, the Jews were trying to "add" to the gospel! Where Paul preached salvation through grace through faith, the Jewish Christians were adding adherence to the law as a requirement. THIS is what Galatians was written for - we are not bound by the strict observance of the law, but through God's grace through Christ.

We must take care to not add restrictions to God's law. We WILL have disagreements with our brothers and sisters over biblical interpretation; this is inevitable. However, scripture makes it pretty clear that it's an egregious error to try and elevate those differences on an equal par with grace. Correction is good and proper; division is unacceptable.

Rufus_1611
Sep 4th 2008, 05:36 PM
Rufus_1611

God's commands regarding music:"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;" - Ephesians 5:19 "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." - Colossians 3:16

Ok, based on these verses, you conceed that there is nothing here describing what genre the psalms, hymns and songs take correct? And you also conceed that these verses do not exclude music that is "secular", correct? Not everything "secular" = "evil" - you understand that right? Secular does = evil.

Secular - of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations
worldly: characteristic of or devoted to the temporal world as opposed to the spiritual world; "worldly goods and advancement"; "temporal possessions of the church"
profane: not concerned with or devoted to religion; "sacred and profane music"; "secular drama"; "secular architecture", "children being brought up in an entirely profane environment
(Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+secular&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord.



The Star-Spangled Banner is a beautiful hymn. I just wish the other verses got as much play as the first verse:

The first verse has nothing to do with God, so do you not sing that verse? The final verse is the conclusion of the three that preceded it. I am not opposed to the Star-Spangled Banner.


I'm doing what I can to separate from the world though it is immensely challenging.

God gave us music of all genres and his beauty shines through jazz as much as classical. I don't see it that way.


I was into progressive rock and heavy metal during my secular and rock and roll church days.

I am not such a fan of heavy metal, but progressive rock is my favourite form of music. I own many records and CDs of the genre and probably have seen over 100 shows. I love prog rock and I am glad it is part of the beauty of the world God gave us. My old man loves it.


One of my favorite bands was a band called Rush. I owned every one of their CDs save for one or two live albums, I went to see them live 8-9 times.

I like Rush. But my favourite group is Yes. Seem them 10 times and own all of their stuff. Nothing in music is more sublime to me than the soaring heights that their music goes. WOnderfully composed stuff. I saw Yes in concert once at the Greek theater in LA and was really into the Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman and Howe stuff.


Once I got convicted about sin I gave that band up for Christ. Recently, I was in Albertson's and was pretty shocked to hear a song by them called "Spirit of Radio" in Albertson's. Once I got my groceries and left, I had to work hard to get back to where I was singing and making melody in my heart to the Lord and get the "Spirit of Radio" song out of my head and heart.

That is an okay song. Not sure what you felt "convicted" about as the song is pretty innocuous. It is just a pop pleasent song with a catchy sythnesizer hook. What's wrong with it? While it is both the sound and the lyrics I would be opposed to, I would point out the lyrics of that song include...

"And the magic music makes your morning mood."
"There is magic at your fingers."
"For the spirit ever lingers."
I would ask, is magic a good thing in the Bible or a bad thing? The spirit they describe in that song, is it the Holy Spirit or some other spirit?



Rock and roll is fleshly, it appeals to the flesh, it causes folks to behave in a licentious fashion.

Why do you project your own responses to the music onto others? Music does not "cause" anything. The person's heart causes things.
If it doesn't cause anything why do military's have marching bands? When they play marching music doesn't it encourage soldiers to march? Have you ever seen someone try to waltz to a Brittney Spears song? Why is muzak played in elevators, rather than moshing music?



In my own experience, listening to Yes, King Criminson, or Emerson/Lake/Palmer has never "caused" me to do anything but enjoy the melodies and admire musicianship. None of my friends have been "caused" to do anything by music. No one sees the power of music while they're under the influence of it. I thought I was doing fine too, then I got off the stuff and wow, what amazing freedom!


Just because you have had a "licentious" response does not mean others have not. Many people thought Mozart's music was licentious. Not anymore! Not all classical is good either.


No one rocks and rolls in the backseats of cars or elsewhere to Bach or Beethoven.

How do you know? Some people "get in the mood" from the sublime melodies of Beethoven. Alright, maybe they do. I will encourage you to consider though, what genre of music brought in the sexual revolution?


Indeed, based upon what you have been saying, you ought not to listen to Bach or Beethoven because they do not write "hymns, pslams, or spiritual songs" according to your definition.

However, if one wants to get his date to loosen up a bit, Nine Inch Nails or the like will do the trick.

I personally do not like NIN and neither does my wife. Again, if you have that response to NIN then by all means stop listening to them, for me NIN does nothing for me. Satan doesn't make 'em much more anti-christ than Trent Rezner so it is definitely wise counsel not to listen to them.


No it isn't. The central issue is what it does God command and what does it do to or for a person?

God wants us to enjoy his creation. A series of sounds is neither moral or immoral. You ignored my question from my previous posts.A series of sounds can certainly be moral or immoral.

"And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp." - Exodus 32:17


Tell me, where in the Bible does it address popular music? Specifically, where in the Bible does it say music cannot: (1) have a back beat? (2) electric instruments and distortion? (3) a catchy tune?
You have yet to describe how a genre of music in general is fleshly? Certainly certain lyrics are fleshly but is an electric guitar fleshly? Is a back beat fleshly? Are certain musical sounds fleshly? Are certain notes or note patters more fleshly than others? Do you believe in the devil's tritone? The Bible addresses the things that are of his people and things that are of the world. Come out from among them be ye separate. As a son of God you are to sing hymns, psalms and spiritual songs. One who desires to be of the world, sings the world's music.


Hymns, psalms and spiritual songs get people focused on the things that are spiritual. Rock and roll gets folks focused on the things of the flesh and of the world.

Maybe for you. When I listen to Close to the Edge I realize how wonderful God is in his creation of so many sounds and giving people the gift of composition and musicianship. DO not project your personal response to music on me or anyone else.
I apologize for projecting.


Are you conceding that "Christian Rock and Roll" = "Christian Fornication"?

Of course not, the suggestion is absurd. Hmmm...


Rock and Roll - 2. a euphemism for sexual intercourse. (http://www.allwords.com/word-rock%20and%20roll.html)

Rock-and-Roll (räk'n roll') n. first so used (1951) by Alan Freed, Cleveland disc jockey, taken from the song "My Baby Rocks Me with a Steady Roll". The use of rock, roll, rock and roll, etc., with reference to sexual intercourse, is traditional in blues, a form of popular music that evolved in the 1950's from rhythm and blues, characterized by the use of electric guitars, a strong rhythm with an accent on the offbeat, and youth-oriented lyrics. (http://www.history-of-rock.com/)



There is a Roman Catholic/Babylonian holy day called Easter.

Ha! This is hilariously absurd as virtually all of Christendom celebrates a Holy Day that - in English - is known as Easter. So? That doesn't make it right.


For me to apply a name to the holy day that commemorates the resurrection, I would ask you where in the Holy Bible would I find it?

Why would you need to find the name in the Bible in order to address it by a name? What do you call the day that commemorates the Resurrection?

I would need that for how would I know what and how to celebrate a holy day unto the Lord if I didn't listen to His instruction? There are many holy days described in the Bible but Easter is not one of them. Easter is a pagan holiday and was an attempt to merge the pagans with Christians in an effort to increase the size and power of the Roman Catholic Church/State so I would think it would be important not to learn the way of the heathen and engage in such practices.

What do I call the day that commemorates the resurrection? There isn't one in the Bible to call it that. However, the Babylonians do celebrate this merging of fertility godesses with the God of the Bible, I avoid this commemoration and instead remember the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ when I partake the Lord's Supper.



Let me ask you what seems to be an irrelevant question: do you believe in photography? Do you take pictures and allow pictures to be taken of yourself?
I do not get too big into picture taking but I do have pictures of my family on my walls, in my wallet etc.

Emanate
Sep 4th 2008, 05:41 PM
To virtually all of Christendom who celebrate Easter, they are celebtating the day the Lord resurrected from the dead.


Yes, using the same festivals and customs used previously to honor pagan gods.

SIG
Sep 5th 2008, 01:42 AM
Tts 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

Rufus_1611
Sep 5th 2008, 02:07 AM
Tts 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

The Parson
Sep 5th 2008, 02:10 AM
Yes, using the same festivals and customs used previously to honor pagan gods.Gee, I wonder what this means?

Collosians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Rufus_1611
Sep 5th 2008, 02:32 AM
Gee, I wonder what this means?

Collosians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

If you knew of someone that was honoring St. Eichatadt, Beltane, the Sabbat festival or, God forbid, All Hallow's Eve, would you use Colossians 2:16 to endorse this person's choice of "holy days"? Or would you realize that none of these days are holy days for they are not described in the Holy Bible as being such? If believers want to observe a feast day, sabbath day etc. surely there is to be no judgment. However, days that are not described by a Holy God in the Holy Bible as being Holy, do not qualify as a Holy Day/holiday nor are they shadows of things to come.

The Parson
Sep 5th 2008, 02:37 AM
Rufus, I worship on Sunday which is the Lords Day. I celibrate the ressurection on the day called Easter, not because of any Roman or Greek Goddess that it was intended for, but because it was the specific day the Lord arose on. I certainly don't celibrate All Hallows Eve as it is a devilish festival. But sometimes my friend if we aren't careful we will strain hard to swallow an ant even though we just devoured a camel.

Rufus_1611
Sep 5th 2008, 02:54 AM
Rufus, I worship on Sunday which is the Lords Day. Amen, me too.


I celibrate the ressurection on the day called Easter, not because of any Roman or Greek Goddess that it was intended for,Ishtar - the fertility goddess of Babylon.


but because it was the specific day the Lord arose on. Easter is not on the same day each year. What do you mean by the specific day the Lord arose on?


I certainly don't celibrate All Hallows Eve as it is a devilish festival. Praise God! Now, some Christians do. Do you warn them against this practice or do you cite Colossians 2:16-17 and bid them God speed?


But sometimes my friend if we aren't careful we will strain hard to swallow an ant even though we just devoured a camel. Serious question here...Did you write "ant" in error or do you have a Bible version that translates "gnat" in Matthew 23:24 as "ant"?

Emanate
Sep 5th 2008, 01:02 PM
Gee, I wonder what this means?

Collosians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


You are suggesting this means that God considers pagan practices "holy days, new moons or sabbath days?" Is it pagan institued worship that is "a shadow of things to come?" Does this scripture truly mean that worship of God is open to any interpretation as long as it was not in the OT?

threebigrocks
Sep 5th 2008, 02:35 PM
Serious question here...Did you write "ant" in error or do you have a Bible version that translates "gnat" in Matthew 23:24 as "ant"?

Goodness, they are both a small bug! Tiny bug vs. a camel - you get the same meaning.


You are suggesting this means that God considers pagan practices "holy days, new moons or sabbath days?" Is it pagan institued worship that is "a shadow of things to come?" Does this scripture truly mean that worship of God is open to any interpretation as long as it was not in the OT?

Goodness again! The Parson came out and said that "All Halloweds Eve" was not to be celebrated in faith as of God.

Rufus_1611
Sep 5th 2008, 02:57 PM
Goodness, they are both a small bug! Tiny bug vs. a camel - you get the same meaning. Right, but they are not the same bugs. One is a flying, biting insect. The other is an industrious crawling insect. Regardless, I keep seeing these new Bibles changing words all the time and if there's a Bible that changes "gnat" to "ant", I would be curious to know which Bible that is.



Goodness again! The Parson came out and said that "All Halloweds Eve" was not to be celebrated in faith as of God. That's nice and we are in agreement on that however, it did not answer my question.

threebigrocks
Sep 5th 2008, 03:03 PM
Right, but they are not the same bugs. One is a flying, biting insect. The other is an industrious crawling insect. Regardless, I keep seeing these new Bibles changing words all the time and if there's a Bible that changes "gnat" to "ant", I would be curious to know which Bible that is.

It's the taking in and straining out that is the emphasis. Not the creepy crawlie thing. It's the hypocrisy that is being relayed here, not the bug. Ant or gnat - doesn't matter. The context is the same.

Rufus_1611
Sep 5th 2008, 03:16 PM
It's the taking in and straining out that is the emphasis. Not the creepy crawlie thing. It's the hypocrisy that is being relayed here, not the bug. Ant or gnat - doesn't matter. The context is the same. So be it. I remain curious as to what Bible translates it this way.

Emanate
Sep 5th 2008, 04:55 PM
Goodness again! The Parson came out and said that "All Halloweds Eve" was not to be celebrated in faith as of God.

I was referring, in this case, to easter

The Parson
Sep 5th 2008, 05:20 PM
I refuse to use anything in the English but the King James my friend. And it says that Jesus said: Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

So aren't we to avoid doing that?

Rufus_1611
Sep 5th 2008, 07:48 PM
I refuse to use anything in the English but the King James my friend. And it says that Jesus said: Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

So aren't we to avoid doing that?
If you believe this is a gnat issue than I respect your decision to leave it alone. However, I don't believe the determination of holy days and the celebration of those days to be gnats.

We have one side of this argument that says the celebration of Easter is a Babylonian custom and there is no Biblical argument for honoring this day, for God did not set it apart as holy. The other side says we ought not judge one another regarding holy days.

Yet, you've rightly stated that we ought not celebrate "All Hallow's Eve" as, I think we agree, this is not a holy day. Yet, there are professed Christians that celebrate and engage in the customs of this day. Now, we have this Easter "holiday" of which I believe is unBiblical and that it is directly associated to the pagan celebration and it was the Roman Catholic Church/Empire that seduced Christians into yolking up with the pagans in merging Christ with this pagan holiday. Thus, why would you cite Colossians 2:16-17 regarding Easter, but not regarding All Hallow's Eve? If Colossians 2:16-17 applies to Easter, then it certainly applies to All Hallow's Eve. However, if we are to judge All Hallow's Eve to be wicked, then we can certainly judge other unBiblical pagan days to be so as well.

The Parson
Sep 5th 2008, 08:49 PM
OK Rufus, I didn't mean that it was a non issue solely on the basis that I believe it is. Actually I never use the term Easter but "resurrection day". Just a personal preference.

seamus414
Sep 7th 2008, 03:49 AM
Rufus_1611
Secular does = evil. Secular - of or relating to the doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations worldly: characteristic of or devoted to the temporal world as opposed to the spiritual world; "worldly goods and advancement"; "temporal possessions of the church" profane: not concerned with or devoted to religion; "sacred and profane music"; "secular drama"; "secular architecture", "children being brought up in an entirely profane environment (Source: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+secular&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord.

I was using the term "secular" to mean "not concerned with or devoted to religion" and not the other definitions provided above. Also, the word "profaine" does not necessarily mean something bad or evil, profaine in this context merely means something not religious in nature or set aside for religious purposes.

I don't see it that way.

Ok, so this begs the question: biblically speaking, what genres of music have been declared sinful?

I saw Yes in concert once at the Greek theater in LA and was really into the Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman and Howe stuff.

Awesome. I wish I saw those shows. I have seen the other three guys but have yet to see Bruford in concert. I would love to as he is my favourite drummer. Amazing talent.

While it is both the sound and the lyrics I would be opposed to,

What is wrong with the sound?

I would point out the lyrics of that song include..."And the magic music makes your morning mood.""There is magic at your fingers." "For the spirit ever lingers." I would ask, is magic a good thing in the Bible or a bad thing? The spirit they describe in that song, is it the Holy Spirit or some other spirit?

I don't know and who cares? It's a dopey pop song. More seriously, I think you take these things way too literally and seriously. I do not think Neil Peart was talking about actual magic or some supernatural spirit. He uses these terms in a very anecdotal and colloquial way. I mean, if my wife said the night we got engaged was "a magical night" I would not stop her in her tracks and ask her what magic she is referring to and wonder if she is some sort of witch. David Copperfield says he uses magic too, but we all know he is an illusionist. When I was in college, I had "school spirit" but never felt that that spirit was something competing with the Holy Spirit or an idol. I get into the Christimas spirit ever December but I do not think I am worshipping an idol when I do! Words have different meanings in different contexts. Besides, has or does this song ever make you want to conduct black magic and conjure spirits? If not, I do not see what sin it tempts you to commit. In my opinion, I think you need to just relax a little.

If it doesn't cause anything why do military's have marching bands? When they play marching music doesn't it encourage soldiers to march?

Sure, music has an effect if you allow it to have an effect and the effect you allow it to have. For me, a marching band bores me when I see one at the local Labour Day parade. When in college they helped with the school spirit. Same music, different effect. If I were a spectator at a different college stadium, their marching band *would not* give me school spirit.

No music has an automatic effect nor does it have a certain effect guaranteed.

Have you ever seen someone try to waltz to a Brittney Spears song?

No but that is not because of some sort of effect of music. Spears' songs are not in a watlz meter or time signature, so you *can't* waltz to it.

Not all classical is good either.

What classical music is "sinful" to you?

Alright, maybe they do. I will encourage you to consider though, what genre of music brought in the sexual revolution?

No progressive rock that's for sure! Also, no music "brought in" anything. "Rock and Roll" was present in the 1940's and 1950's and blues music (which is what Rock and Roll is at its core) in the early 20th century. No illict sex followed these musical forms!

*Some* Rock and Roll merely got caught up with the counterculture merely because it was not the music of the "Hippies" parents. Just like nowadays, the "rock and roll" music you used to like (i.e.: Rush, Yes, prog rock, etc) is considered boring by teenagers of today. It's all about perpsective and generation.

What music underlied the so-called "Jesus Movement"? What music underlies the college campus ministries? What music underlies many congregations? It is blues based music.

Satan doesn't make 'em much more anti-christ than Trent Rezner so it is definitely wise counsel not to listen to them.

I would agree that Rezner's *lyrics* are certainly immoral. His music is neutral. UNfortunately, he overlays neutral music with immoral lyrics. I would agree that NIN is not appropriate.

A series of sounds can certainly be moral or immoral.

Tell me: what notes are moral and which immoral? What time signatures are moral and which immoral? What instruments are moral and which immoral?

Hmmm...


Rock and Roll - 2. a euphemism for sexual intercourse. (http://www.allwords.com/word-rock%20and%20roll.html)

Rock-and-Roll (räk'n roll') n. first so used (1951) by Alan Freed, Cleveland disc jockey, taken from the song "My Baby Rocks Me with a Steady Roll". The use of rock, roll, rock and roll, etc., with reference to sexual intercourse, is traditional in blues, a form of popular music that evolved in the 1950's from rhythm and blues, characterized by the use of electric guitars, a strong rhythm with an accent on the offbeat, and youth-oriented lyrics. (http://www.history-of-rock.com/)

Why are you so concerned with etymology? I can tell you that I never knew that this was the origin of the word. I am also quite certian that when someone says "I like rock and roll" or "I am into rock music" they are not thinking about sex. The origin of a word is not relevant when the word's usage long outlives its origin.

I would need that for how would I know what and how to celebrate a holy day unto the Lord if I didn't listen to His instruction? There are many holy days described in the Bible but Easter is not one of them. Easter is a pagan holiday and was an attempt to merge the pagans with Christians in an effort to increase the size and power of the Roman Catholic Church/State so I would think it would be important not to learn the way of the heathen and engage in such practices.

Easter *was* a pagan holiday. Now "Easter" is just an ancient word (used only in the English language) to refer to the day Jesus arose.

What do I call the day that commemorates the resurrection? There isn't one in the Bible to call it that. However, the Babylonians do celebrate this merging of fertility godesses with the God of the Bible, I avoid this commemoration and instead remember the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ when I partake the Lord's Supper.

Why would you avoid the commeoration of the single greatest even in history?


I do not get too big into picture taking but I do have pictures of my family on my walls, in my wallet etc.

I only asked this because you seemed concerned that just because something can be used in a sinful way it must be sinful. A camera and photographs can be used for pornography or something moral or virtuous. It's not the thing that is sinful, just its use. The same goes for music.

seamus414
Sep 7th 2008, 03:52 AM
Yes, using the same festivals and customs used previously to honor pagan gods.


So what? These things are now directed to the One True God. Why do you judge how someone elects to worship God if it is not restricted by the Bible?

If an 8 year old kid - who has no idea of about paganism or anything about its origin - grows up to think an Easter Egg symbolizes "new life in Christ" - how is this harmful and who are you to correct him? It's not harmful and he should be encouraged to continue to find Christ in everything.

seamus414
Sep 7th 2008, 03:56 AM
If you knew of someone that was honoring St. Eichatadt, Beltane, the Sabbat festival or, God forbid, All Hallow's Eve, would you use Colossians 2:16 to endorse this person's choice of "holy days"? Or would you realize that none of these days are holy days for they are not described in the Holy Bible as being such? If believers want to observe a feast day, sabbath day etc. surely there is to be no judgment. However, days that are not described by a Holy God in the Holy Bible as being Holy, do not qualify as a Holy Day/holiday nor are they shadows of things to come.


There is no requirement that the Bible outline every Christian holiday.

All Hallow's Eve is perfectly virtuous and millions of Christian celebrate it every year. Every important Christian holiday carries with it an "eve" (e.g.; Christmas Eve, Easter Vigil, and All Hallow's Eve). November 1 is the day when Christian remember all of the great Christians that have gone before us and thank God for their life, witness, ministry, and service to God. All Hallow's Eve is merely the lead up to that day. It is a perfectly Christian thing to celebrate!

seamus414
Sep 7th 2008, 03:57 AM
Rufus_1611

Easter is not on the same day each year. What do you mean by the specific day the Lord arose on?

Neither is Passover if you use the Gregorian Calandar. When using the lunar calandar it always is on the same day.

Emanate
Sep 7th 2008, 03:59 AM
So what? These things are now directed to the One True God. Why do you judge how someone elects to worship God if it is not restricted by the Bible?

If an 8 year old kid - who has no idea of about paganism or anything about its origin - grows up to think an Easter Egg symbolizes "new life in Christ" - how is this harmful and who are you to correct him? It's not harmful and he should be encouraged to continue to find Christ in everything.


Yes, why not "learn the way of the heathen.?"

seamus414
Sep 7th 2008, 04:01 AM
Rufus_1611

We have one side of this argument that says the celebration of Easter is a Babylonian custom and there is no Biblical argument for honoring this day, for God did not set it apart as holy. The other side says we ought not judge one another regarding holy days. Now, we have this Easter "holiday" of which I believe is unBiblical and that it is directly associated to the pagan celebration and it was the Roman Catholic Church/Empire that seduced Christians into yolking up with the pagans in merging Christ with this pagan holiday.

I fail to see how commemorating and celebrating the day of Christs' Resurection to be a pagan practice or anything other than the epitome of biblical Christian worship.

seamus414
Sep 7th 2008, 04:03 AM
Yes, why not "learn the way of the heathen.?"

Believing in Christ and seeing Christ's new life in the symbol of the Easter Egg is not "the way of the heathen." Where is the heathen in this practice? Are you saying that heathans can take exclusive possession of a piece of God's creation and render it off limits to Christians to use? Also, a modern Christian child with no knowledge of paganism is not learning anything of heathenism. To argue otherwise would be to project your own feelings/thoughts onto someone who never had them to begin with.

Emanate
Sep 7th 2008, 04:17 AM
Believing in Christ and seeing Christ's new life in the symbol of the Easter Egg is not "the way of the heathen." Where is the heathen in this practice? Are you saying that heathans can take exclusive possession of a piece of God's creation and render it off limits to Christians to use? Also, a modern Christian child with no knowledge of paganism is not learning anything of heathenism. To argue otherwise would be to project your own feelings/thoughts onto someone who never had them to begin with.


I am sure that the Creator of the Universe would much more you prefer to use man made festivals created for other gods by sinful man than to Worship him with the festivals he said were His.

Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.

seamus414
Sep 7th 2008, 04:33 AM
I am sure that the Creator of the Universe would much more you prefer to use man made festivals created for other gods by sinful man than to Worship him with the festivals he said were His.

Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.


First, the celebration of Easter and understanding eggs to symbolize Christ's new life is not "contrary to His command'.

Second, as stated in this verse, this verse applies to an "unauthorized" fire being used "contrary to His command". Why do you try and apply the Torah to a Christian when the Christian has no such "authorized" or unauthorized fires or such commands? Do you wish to go back under the Law?

Emanate
Sep 7th 2008, 05:40 AM
First, the celebration of Easter and understanding eggs to symbolize Christ's new life is not "contrary to His command'.

Second, as stated in this verse, this verse applies to an "unauthorized" fire being used "contrary to His command". Why do you try and apply the Torah to a Christian when the Christian has no such "authorized" or unauthorized fires or such commands? Do you wish to go back under the Law?


I am under the law to Messiah, as Paul worded it when he wrote the KJV.

SIG
Sep 7th 2008, 09:30 AM
I am under the law to Messiah, as Paul worded it when he wrote the KJV.

I think you meant, "as the KJV translated Paul's words."

The Parson
Sep 7th 2008, 06:28 PM
Kewl, Paul wrote the King James??? :eek: Couldn't resist that Eminate... Sorry!

Mograce2U
Sep 7th 2008, 08:14 PM
Believing in Christ and seeing Christ's new life in the symbol of the Easter Egg is not "the way of the heathen." Where is the heathen in this practice? Are you saying that heathans can take exclusive possession of a piece of God's creation and render it off limits to Christians to use? Also, a modern Christian child with no knowledge of paganism is not learning anything of heathenism. To argue otherwise would be to project your own feelings/thoughts onto someone who never had them to begin with.While you are explaning why it is ok to color eggs; can you also explain why we hide them, the jellybeans & chocolate bunnies - and the Easter bunny?

seamus414
Sep 7th 2008, 10:24 PM
While you are explaning why it is ok to color eggs; can you also explain why we hide them, the jellybeans & chocolate bunnies - and the Easter bunny?

I think we both know the historicity of these things. But, honestly? Who cares? When kids eat a Chocolate Bunny, it does not impede their ability to relate to Christ. When they have fun looking for eggs, there is no harm done to their relationship to Christ.

These things are just fun customs that are morally neutral in nature. If a child were to confuse fun customs with Christ or were these customs to impede a child's ability to know Christ, we would have a problem. They, by and large, do not do any such thing any more or less than television, movies, video games, friends, games, or anything else in this life. Don't squelch the fun out of life because some peculiar folks millenia ago believed some peculiar beliefs that no one - except the very few people interested in such things - even remotely knows about.

Mograce2U
Sep 7th 2008, 10:48 PM
I think we both know the historicity of these things. But, honestly? Who cares? When kids eat a Chocolate Bunny, it does not impede their ability to relate to Christ. When they have fun looking for eggs, there is no harm done to their relationship to Christ.

These things are just fun customs that are morally neutral in nature. If a child were to confuse fun customs with Christ or were these customs to impede a child's ability to know Christ, we would have a problem. They, by and large, do not do any such thing any more or less than television, movies, video games, friends, games, or anything else in this life. Don't squelch the fun out of life because some peculiar folks millenia ago believed some peculiar beliefs that no one - except the very few people interested in such things - even remotely knows about.I don't have any problem with those "fun" things you mentioned - except when they are supposed to be something we use to teach our children about the Lord. Did you ever read Deut 6?

SIG
Sep 8th 2008, 03:58 AM
Using anything to teach children about the Lord is ok if it truly teaches them about the Lord. Same for adults.

If pre-Christians and pagans saw in eggs a symbol of fertility, does that make eggs as a symbol off-limits for Christians? Christians saw in eggs a symbol of the tomb and new life. It is not necessary to link the two traditions.

Not to mention--it would be useful to teach children the difference between the two traditions. Let them mature, knowing the difference between good and evil.

Emanate
Sep 8th 2008, 08:53 PM
Using anything to teach children about the Lord is ok if it truly teaches them about the Lord. Same for adults.

If pre-Christians and pagans saw in eggs a symbol of fertility, does that make eggs as a symbol off-limits for Christians? Christians saw in eggs a symbol of the tomb and new life. It is not necessary to link the two traditions.

Not to mention--it would be useful to teach children the difference between the two traditions. Let them mature, knowing the difference between good and evil.


Too bad people are not as worried about biblical symbollism and tradition as they are defending pagan influenced symbols and tradition.
Apparently "Not under the law" means "we will do it only if it were first an unbiblical pagan act first".

SIG
Sep 9th 2008, 04:19 AM
Our children are capable of learning Biblical symbolism and tradition, non-Biblical Christian symbolism and traditon, and pagan symbolism and tradition. And they are capable of learning the difference between the three--and better off for it.

Contrary to rumor, their brains are really not that small...

Marc2x
Sep 9th 2008, 10:00 PM
There's nothing wrong with Christian music, it is a matter of defining what Christian music is. So long as one is teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs...no problem. Once one starts to mix a little bit of Belial with a little bit of Christ and begins to rock out then...problem.

I listen to christian heavy metal and christian rock I don't see whats wrong with it.Why should we be judged for listening to ccm?Listening to any kind/genre of music is not a sin.So I don't see anything wrong with it.Just my opinion..........and I do respect yours.


Offering strange fire to the Lord (CCM) and reading from corruptible seed (NIV) is doctrine worthy of judgment.

Why and how?Do you have any proof?