General Music Chat

The band still has some problems which pretty much stem from the worship leader being a bit of a prima donna. He seems to be using his position as a stepping stone and would really like to make it big in the worship music business. He's an alright guy, but you can see right through him on this.

Perhaps this one reason why we were not told to play instruments. maybe another reason would be the envy and attitudes about bigger nicer organs, instruments etc.

He's not saying, "I'm right and you're wrong." That's what YOU are saying. He's saying, "You worship your way and we'll worship our way, as long as we're worshipping God." That's NOT what you're saying. To me (and probably most Christians on here) Paul comes across as the most righteous, and you come along as the most self-righteous.

Thanks for that Ratsass. It's hard to be truly meek when trying to debate religion or politics for that matter.

All I'm really saying is that the bible, the inspired word of God, has all the answers. It's not my opinion I voice. If you notice all of my points are backed by scripture. Some of my responses are only scripture.

It is the idea that God would be displeased by INSTRUMENTS that is stupid.

Was he displeased by Cains offering?

gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

How about Nadab and Abihu?

Leviticus 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.

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Why doesnt everybody just make up their own little rule-books, ..?

Because God makes the rules. In God's book.

[url]<object><param></param><param></param><param></param><embed></embed></object>[/url]

point 1. Craig undercut his own argument.
If brain A is disfunctional, and therefore cannot be trusted in reading, why should we think the disfunction doesn't also affect our ability to reason through the scientific method?

Chris,

Everything involving a human being contains the possibility for error. You haven't undercut MY argument. You undercut your own, because YOU are the one who cannot affford to admit this. Not me. Not any other rational human being. It is YOU who has a vested interest that writing in a book, and the millions of COPIES of it printed, can never be in error.

Craig, I didn't say I undercut your argument. I said Craig undercut Craig's argument.

point 2. If truth is understood as "certainly" true, then science as a method cannot yield it. It can give you usefulness, but not truth in the sense Craig is trying to pass it off as.

This whole line of reasoning is ridiculous. The scientific method CAN ascertain truth, to the degree that ANYTHING can be known to be true. When mathematical calculations are used, for example, to determine the thrust and force necessary to go to the Moon, the amount of oxygen needed, what kind of protective clothing is necessary, etc... and this is found to be true, how can you claim that it is a THEORY?

It was a THEORY what the Moon's atmosphere consisted of BEFORE actually going to the Moon. Calculations were made, hypothesis developed, and these were shown to be accurate when the Moon landing was successful.

Chris, there are so many branches of science, and these tend to overlap into one another, that discoveries in one field end up impacting another. It occurs on a regular basis that discoveries in one field of science, will end up verifying previous hypothesis in another field.

You seem completely ignorant of any of it.

Is that the case?

Aren't we talking about history here Craig? It's one thing to theorize about atmosphere, and be able to go and check to see if that's the case. You can't do that with history, Craig, unless you have a time machine. So you're left with a theory, that you have to dig up evidence to support. But you cannot know if you dug up ALL the evidence. If you don't know if you have all of the evidence, then you can't make a truth claim. You can make a belief claim, but that's not what you're doing, and that's what I take issue with.

All I am saying is that previously held myths of Creation and the Flood, were widely known and accepted throughout the world. These were passed down in each respective culture, throughout centuries. It was shared by oral traditions, as the ancients did before writing, and so they had no reason to question them. There was nothing at the time to dispute them. These got included as a part... just a PART of the Bible.

Why should that mean I cannot trust the testimony of the disciples, thousands of years afterward, in regards to what they lived and witnessed?

Why do you insist on throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

See what you're doing Craig? Your very first claim is that Creation is a myth, and you do it as if it were an indisputable fact. That is a historical question that cannot be replicated and tested in the same way you can test whether there's atmosphere on another planet.

I wouldn't have an issue if all you were doing was saying 'I believe that Creation is myth'. That at least is an honest way of saying it. But you're not giving an opinion. You're going much further by making a positive claim that you know for a fact that Creation is myth (i.e. false).

I can just as easily theorize that those myths were created after the Genesis account of the flood, because the nature of man at that point was fallen and error prone. They rejected God, wanted to delude themselves so they wouldn't be confronted with the discomfort of the truth by making up a story - which by the way, is just as equally error prone as you claim the Bible is.

My point is given the fact that you believe the brain is too error prone to be trusted, and that you believe you can test historical facts the same way you can test the existence of air, shows your being arbitrary in what you want to believe.

regards,
Chris

try again ZXYZ

Yeh.. that didnt work..
OK..
I didn't know where to put this, it's worth sharing, and this looks like as good as place as any..
The OP wrote "I liked how this video makes a lot of people feel...
"
(has nothing to do with religion tho)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cbk980jV7Ao
Smile!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32841449/ns ... lebrities/

1. Faith is required in science, Craig. Don't fool yourself.

Not in the way of religion.
Faith is basically belief in something WITHOUT evidence.
Science requires evidence to prove hypothesis that are proposed.
It's really unfair to compare having a hypothesis, to religious faith.

This would be unprofessional and also not in keeping with scientific principles.

.

I'm not comparing having a hypothesis to religous faith Besides, but even so, why not? After all, what is religion except a belief system?

The simple act of formulating a hypothesis IS an act of faith, religous or not. Do you think that a person who presupposed that the world is a magical place where car keys mysteriously disappeared for no reason, would bother formulating a hypotheses that there is a non-magical explanation for your car keys disappearing?

Faith committments are those presuppositions or starting points at which you consider something worth investigating, and they limit what you include or exclude as possible hypotheses and evidence.

There are many instances of old testament worship that are no longer used. Sacrificing Animals is one.

That may have something to do with the fact that Jesus, the sinless son of God was the sacrifice to end all blood sacrifices. Ya think?

Yes I do think.

You are ADDING to the scriptures by Prohibiting them.

So.. I am adding by.... preventing adding? Doesn't add up does it?

If the New Testament does not specifically, require something in worship, then it would be left open to the judgement of the elders of the church, NOT PROHIBITED OUTRIGHT, merely because of ommission.

well now we see our impasse. It is not up to the elders. It is up to the bible. If you think that people are the authority then we have no further need to argue. That then is the crux.

acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

There is no example or requirement of using a microphone and PA in church, and your church has DECIDED that this is appropriate, regardless of the lack of precedent or example. Musical instruments should be the same. If you are going to use microphones, you should allow musical instruments.

There are examples of using available equipment - a boat and the water , to amplify Jesus voice. The building is big enough, and some people old enough, that it is necessary to amplify. It is necessary for clarity and order.

1 Cor 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

The verses about singing are mentioned in LETTERS.

They were inspired letters.

john 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

You claim to be freed from the law, and yet all you do is re-establish the law. Why are their even arguments, when everything is "God brethed"? Was God arguing with Himself?

I am free from the old law as Christ has died. All are under the new law. There aren't arguments. It was all settled.

It is about THE HEART.

The heart Paul.

It is about the heart AND obeying Gods will.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The right attitude and the in the right ways God prescribed.

Your point seems to be that following the laws is not right just having the right heart is. The fact is following the laws with a heart of submission is the whole picture.

How could instruments played in love for God possibly offend God?

Matt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

There are instruments used by God's people in the Old Testament. There are instruments being played in Heaven.

But you believe that just "in between" God wanted a space of silence where instruments were concerned, but not vocals.

How STUPID is that?

He tolerated many things in the old that he doesn't tolerate in the new.

acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

But you don't mind microphones. You don't mind stained glass windows. Where is the example for those? You don't mind PA systems. You don't mind suits. Where is the example for that either? No examples for shoes either. No example for a person leading the music in service either. No example for air-conditioning. No example for PEWS. No examples for BUILDINGS used only for services. No examples for TOO MANY THINGS that you do without problem.

None of the things you mention are items of worship.

Microphones are necessary so everyone can hear. Examples of amplification with equipment - a boat and water - are given. We don't have stained glass or any images. Suits are giving your best yet not required. The church met in buildings. Someone has to start the songs so it will be "decent and in order".

Can't you understand that one or two hillbillies, got a bug up their butts because of the advent of the Organ, and with their holier than thou attitude, they FOUND FAULT with it, because Organs were "worldly" at the time.

No I can't follow that logic. But for the 50th time I can follow the logic that God asked us to sing and that adding to it is not scripturally sound.

but the tight-assed religionists, who love their self-righteouness more than they love their FATHER in Heaven

Because I love God and fear him I will worship him as HE sees fit. And again stop cussing especially in this thread.

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

but the tight-assed religionists, who love their self-righteouness more than they love their FATHER in Heaven

When we condem another for being "self richeous" does that not make us self richeous?
Funny that.

while God has to hear a bunch of local-yokels singing off key, en masse,
.

Not only does God listen to our HEART as we sing but God found burning hair to be a sweet savour. Lev 3 12 - 16 Who are you then to say what pleases God? Only God can Craig. And he did in his inspired word.

If this keeps up, before long, Christianity in large groups, will only be found among mountain people in West Virginia.

"Hey elrod, spray that sprinkler in the air again! Look Ma, We're sprayin' the sprinkler, and God is settin' his rainbow in it ever' time, so God will remember his promise not to flood us! He does it ever' single time ma!!! Call the papers ma!!! This is it!!! Proof of God ma!!! Ever' time I spray the sprinkler God promises me not to flood us again!!!"

"Elrod, your floodin' the damn house! Now put that sprinkler up!"

.

Now what is that prejudiced garbage you are spewing now?

I have had all the proof I need.
I felt the Spirit move in my heart. It was like nothing I had ever felt before or since. I bathed in the light, and it seeks me still, no matter how far into the shadow I stray, either by folly or intent. He finds me, and lightens my pathway out.
I will not hide my candle beneath a bowl.
No, I'm going to burn the freakin house down !

Craig, I didn't say I undercut your argument. I said Craig undercut Craig's argument.

Chris,

How do I undercut my own argument when I agree that human involvement can lead to error in anything? I agree that this is always a possibliity whether in religion or science or any other field?

This won't get anywhere.

You are duty bound to follow a cultural protocol. You know what it would cost you if you rejected it. Just like Jesus was hung on a cross, because He broke rules, drank alcohol and enjoyed good food at parties. He loved people, and enjoyed their company.

Whenever anyone, loves a rule more than God, loves a book more than God's children, loves laws more than the messiah. It is clear what will happen. We saw it previously in God's people the Jews. We are seeing it now in Jesus' people, the Christians.

But accepting TRUTH is always preferrable to clinging to TRADITION.

A book cannot exist without the possiblity of error. You would have to argue that the bibles printed in China can never have an error in the typesetting or translation, not ever, to support your argument. Because if there is ANY possibility of error ANYWHERE in the line, then there is a possibility for error, at any earlier stage. Where did God back off otherwise? At the original instpiration? The inscribing into the original written languages? Translation into German? Translation down the line into English? And which English version then? KJV, ASV, NIV, NASB, NKJV. And did He back off then?

You cannot accept this, because you belong to a culture which makes this a moral issue. Someone's faith is weak if they do not believe in a book without any possiblity of errors.

God somehow BREATHED each word, and I guess, must have BREATHED the cannonization process as well. Although no one can explain why it took HUNDREDS of YEARS for the New Testament to be cannonized, when God was controlling every detail.

It takes 6 days for God to create the Cosmos, and hundreds of years just to assemble a small collection of writings in a single book, and decide which ones should be included or not?

6 DAYS for Billions of galaxies.

100's of YEARS for a Book?


Prevost,

Why does one need humility to point out how utterly ridiculous and impossible the above scenario is?

Does that really make sense to anyone?

6 DAYS for Billions of Galaxies.

HUNDREDS of YEARS to assemble a single book.

Think about it.

Tell me again I cannot KNOW how stupid that kind of accounting is.

.

"My outrage is not exclusively about you. It is the culture you are related to. It infuriates me. It is destroying the body of Christ and perverting the true message of God's heart and love.

...

It is a cancer running rampant throughout the body."

I still can't believe you said that to someone in here, Craig.

"To me, what is in common among all of them (religions), is the denial of physical urges. The control of the body with the mind (or spirit). As Paul mentions in the New Testament, we have sometimes two desires that occur simultaneously. As Paul states "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin"

Just stop, then, Craig. It seems you're getting that urge to be verbose & to "share" your great wisdom, again. How many of us will it take to get the message through to you? Between this thread & your "America's Collapsing" thread, how many different individuals have tried to get you to shut up, Craig? How many times do you need to hear that you're coming off like a bigot, or an ego-maniac, or just a jerk?

"You are always welcome to stay with George Carlin as the "safe" and somehow "less offensive" option, than an actual INTELLIGENT, INFORMED and MEANINGFUL conversation, of the type I engage in"

"But let me restrain myself.

Logic is anathema here. We're only allowed shallow discussions or outright vitriol in the form of humor.

Learning could occur otherwise."

Please do restrain yourself. Sometimes you gotta let ppl learn on their own, Craig. You don't really know as much as you think you know, & even if you did, no one wants to hear it all from you.

"Coming back was a mistake."

I quite agree.

"My wife is no different. She doesn't want to think about problems. Particularly the ones she can't do much about."

Neither do we. But here you are.

"It's when I open my mouth, that somehow lines get drawn."

You noticed that, too, did you?

"And I realize that it has dampened the otherwise light mood here. You are right, that this is not the ideal place for my particular brand of discussions."

Then why do you continue? You clearly see that you've become borish, so why are you so intent on dragging it on & on?

"You don't like my opinions. Fine. What's wrong with that? We disagree."

Is it really fine? If so, then why are you still talking about it?

"The experiences I have shared here, for the most part, have included other people. Do you want their phone numbers? Emails? You won't want them, because you DON'T CARE whether these things are true. In fact, you have a more vested interest in DELUDING YOURSELF that these things DO NOT EXIST. Because if they did, it would mean you may have to change the way you approach life.

And that... you are unwilling to do."

Sure, Craig. Gimme their phone #'s & e-mails. Go ahead & prove yourself to me. I'm willing to check 'em out.

"You don't know my heart, so this is all hot air to you, but God DOES KNOW MY HEART. He trusts me. And I have proven to Him, over decades of time, that the trust is justified."

All I know is what you show. God may very well trust you, but to me, you have a huge personal agenda in everything you say & do. Hard to trust a guy that does nothing unless it contributes to the glorification of himself. Why else would you be on here daily, either beating about someone's head for their beliefs, or telling us about things like your visions & "YOUR Juvenile Advocacy Group?" It all continually comes back to how great you are, as far as I can tell. And yes, I consider it to be just about all hot air. I wouldn't trust you to feed your own dog, Craig.

"Why does one need humility...?"

Ending it there fits you much better. You obviously feel no need for it in any interaction whatsoever.

I agree that human involvement can lead to error in anything? I agree that this is always a possibliity whether in religion or science or any other field?

So, are you saying that ANY human can be in error? Or, any human except you? Don't answer, it was rhetorical. You've already shown what kind of person you are. You remind me of my ex wife. She was NEVER wrong. Oh, sometimes she would say that she was wrong, only if it helped her cause. I've seen her admit to a friend that she pissed off that she had been wrong, and then later she would be talking to me telling me how she was really right, but said she was wrong to "heal" the friendship. Other times, when we would have a big spat to the point of me leaving, she would admit to me that she was wrong and wanted me back, but how could I believe her after seeing her do the same thing to a friend? I couldn't. So don't bother with the old, "Hey, I've been wrong before" thing. Just like her, in your own mind, you're never wrong. And just like divorcing her, I've deleted you from my myspace and facebook. I have lots of "friends" on there that I don't really know and will keep them. But, now that I know you, I don't want any more to do with you, and it takes a lot to have that effect on me. So sorry you can't see yourself having that effect on so many others. You have cost yourself credibility with lots of people that could have been good friends, and pushed them away and you don't even know it. That's sad. Do you have any close friends at all, or just people that will just agree with you, just to shut you up?