"my Savior Is Tougher Than Nails"

[rhinomelon]

And I think you hit it on the head. Considering their paradigm void of Vivaldi, Mozart, etc., it was probably most peaceful to them. Considering the broad sources that we have to lengthen our experiences of music, Heavy Metal is in no way peacefulâ?¦but likely its antithesis.

So their music can be culturally conditioned and sound alien to our ears, and that's fine, but heavy metal is still inherently irreverent, no matter what the people who listen to it think? Isn't that something of a double standard?

Certainly there is some subjectivity of the times, and I canâ??t fathom finding a reasonable person that would disagree with my general analysis of Heavy Metal.

There is a great deal of subjectivity. And I could find many people who would disagree with your analysis (including my best friend's former roommate who would actually fall asleep listening to really heavy metal every night). So is there an objective, external-to-you-and-me reason why your analysis and conviction should trump theirs?

Then I disagree. The most gracious of people have fallen into casualness at sometimes in their life, likely not thinking of it. Where there is monotonous repetition, casualness grows and vanity follows. Weâ??ll have to disagree on this.

I don't think we actually disagree here. We can all fall into casualness, even when doing the same things we've always done. This means that the line of casualness does indeed depend on our hearts, and not on what we are doing. An LDS person may become casual about the sacrament; this does not reflect a problem with the sacrament, but with the person's heart. Do you still disagree?

Disagree as youâ??d like, but I cannot see for an instance how some songs that Iâ??ve heard use the name of the Lord in any substantive way through monotonous repetition.

Do you believe that there is no one who does see substance in that repetition, who uses it to focus upon and worship God? If you do, then how do you know? And if you don't believe that, then how can such a song be written off as automatically blasphemous? I would really like an answer to these last three questions, if nothing else.

Take care, everyone

[PacMan]

Rhino,

Strongly disagree. Music is a culturally conditioned phenomenon that varies from person to person and culture to culture. As such, personal taste plays more of a part than any kind of objective standard. As far as I can recall, you have been unable to provide an objective standard by which to judge, so this I would say is your personal opinion.

Certainly itâ??s my opinionâ?¦but letâ??s take it one step further. Within modern western culture, would you agree that certain types of music are inherently irreverent? Letâ??s cut out the extenuating time, culture, and dimension variables.

I believe that this criteria depends more on the heart of the individual than on anything else (recall my comparison between a person worshiping and a person hammering their own thumb).

OK. Letâ??s say that the person was honestly crying to God for reliefâ?¦and that for all intents and purposes has a â??goodâ? heart. Do you still have a right to be offended by it and call it blasphemy?

I would agree with this, although I would go on to say that reverence is not the only "mood" in which one can worship God.

And again, Iâ??ve never said that. I think that we should never breach â??irreverence.â? For example, playing a game of Monopoly isnâ??t particularly reverent (nothing wrong with it), while itâ??d like turn irreverent only when tempers flair and synonyms for the Laberdoodle are poignantly used at other players. We neednâ??t need to affirm the consequent.

There is a time for solemnity, and there is a time for ecstatic joy and wonder, a celebratory atmosphere.

I agreeâ?¦and such worship is fine as long as it isnâ??t irreverent.

While these emotions would be out of place at a typical western funeral, they are entirely appropriate for worshiping God, in addition to solemnity and reflection.

Again, youâ??re confounding terms. I agree theyâ??re appropriate for worshiping God, but I only use the funerals example as an illustration of how we revere our loved ones. Considering Jesus is greater than them, shouldnâ??t such reverence be all the more solemn? Disagree if youâ??d likeâ?¦but please donâ??t confound the terms.

But I would point out that earlier quotations from Pacman could lead to that conclusion, despite later clarifications.

â?¦which I have clarified now on at least three occasions.

I disagree. There a principles and examples within Scripture that give us a basis from which to make reasoned conclusions regarding issues like heavy metal music (or drinking or smoking marijuana, etc.). I have laid out my biblical case, and have yet to see much to counter it from Scripture.

Your examples of cymbals as comparisons of electric guitars and amplifiers are farfetched. There are inherent qualities that make them tremendously different. I reject your â??biblical case.â? All the same, I have yet to hear a defense that Heavy Metal is gentle or peaceful. I cannot see how it fits as one of the fruits of the spirit, nor how it doesnâ??t hold the â??appearance of evil.â?

I agree, although who determines what is necessary?

Glad you agree. Who determines? To a great extent--common sense. For example, if the Lord came down and asked a song to be rewritten to avoid using His name so much, do you think a (Christian) artist could do so without losing meaning that he intended? I canâ??t speak on every case, but I think youâ??d agree that typically speaking, the answer would be yes. Would you generally agree with that? Again, Iâ??m not going to condemn anyone using â??common sense,â? but I think we can come to some generally acceptable notions.

Where is the line between worship and blasphemy?

When itâ??s casual. I have a friend that went to a EV youth conference years ago. He came back completely fired up, and told me all about it. In a sense he wanted to recruit me for another one (which I kindly turned down). In reality, he was genuinely into it. Once time past, we talked about it and I asked him why he did what he didâ?¦the arms in the air thing, etc., etc., when heâ??d never done it before. His answer wasâ?¦well, you do it or you look stupid for not. A lot of his participation was due to the lemming-syndrome and he even poked fun of himself for it later. Now, I donâ??t say that he did anything bad. While his heart meant well, his focus was contrived and casual. At least in a minor wayâ?¦Iâ??d consider some of that activity a bit blasphemous because he didnâ??t know better. And chances are, heâ??d admit it too (I'll need to ask him).

PacMan

[PacMan]

Rhino,

So their music can be culturally conditioned and sound alien to our ears, and that's fine, but heavy metal is still inherently irreverent, no matter what the people who listen to it think? Isn't that something of a double standard?

Huh? Do you think our culture would generally agree that Heavy Metal is not gentle, nor peaceful?

And I could find many people who would disagree with your analysis (including my best friend's former roommate who would actually fall asleep listening to really heavy metal every night).

Really? Heâ??d believe that it is actually most peaceful and gentle? Go ask him, then get back to meâ?¦ Moreover, Iâ??m not interested in the fringe minority. Common sense is created from the typical majority. If you want to get into â??biblically acceptable practices (marrying off 14 year olds),â? Iâ??m sure we could find some fringe people thatâ??d be great proponents of it.

This means that the line of casualness does indeed depend on our hearts, and not on what we are doing.

I disagree. You can have the best intentions in the world, but you loose focus. It doesnâ??t have that much to do with the heart (although the lack-there-of is certainly easy to define). When you do something monotonously and repetitiously, doesnâ??t your brain at times wander? Doesnâ??t your mind think of other things? Are you able to completely think of a single topic, and donâ??t slip one casual word in? If you can focus on a subject through monotonous repetitions and understand every word you say, I believe that you are not only unique but enviable. I believe the human experience is more typical of my characteristicsâ?¦a little ADHA sometimes.

Do you believe that there is no one who does see substance in that repetitionâ?¦

Again, I didnâ??t say that. But monotonous repetition breeds casualness, and the casual usage of the Lordâ??s name is a vain usage.

Think of it this way: The more times you light a match, the more likely you are to burn yourself. Now, Iâ??m not saying that you never need to say the name of Godâ??certainly not. But the more and more itâ??s used in monotonous repetition, the more and more youâ??re offering yourself to use it casually. Perhaps thatâ??s my real pointâ?¦certain sub-genres, elements, etc. of Christian Rock increase the possibilities for, at some time or another, using the name of the Lord casually.

And if you don't believe that, then how can such a song be written off as automatically blasphemous?

Just like you donâ??t know the â??heartâ? of the guy that hit his thumb, you condemn that action. Thatâ??s how I can do it.

PacMan

[rhinomelon]

Within modern western culture, would you agree that certain types of music are inherently irreverent? Letâ??s cut out the extenuating time, culture, and dimension variables.

No, I would not agree.

OK. Letâ??s say that the person was honestly crying to God for reliefâ?¦and that for all intents and purposes has a â??goodâ? heart. Do you still have a right to be offended by it and call it blasphemy?

Yes, but that doesn't mean I'm right If you're referring to the hammer guy, I should ask if that's what he meant, if I really wanted to be sure. You know, try to understand something before condemning it.

And again, Iâ??ve never said that. I think that we should never breach â??irreverence.â?

Wait, so reverence isn't the only "mood", but we should never be irreverent? Isn't that a contradiction?

Considering Jesus is greater than them, shouldnâ??t such reverence be all the more solemn? Disagree if youâ??d likeâ?¦but please donâ??t confound the terms.

I guess I'm confused then. What's the point of reverencing God if not in worship? And why does reverence (as in deep respect) always mean "solemnity"? I don't see those two as synonymous.

All the same, I have yet to hear a defense that Heavy Metal is gentle or peaceful. I cannot see how it fits as one of the fruits of the spirit, nor how it doesnâ??t hold the â??appearance of evil.â?

What other case can I provide than the same kind of case you have also presented for your case? I.e. my personal opinion on the matter, the opinions of others, and saying the Bible doesn't address the subject? It's a standoff, based on our respective opinions and nothing objective.

Where is the line between worship and blasphemy?

When itâ??s casual.

And what determines if it's casual, if not the heart of the person? Again, if a person treats the sacrament casually, is the problem with them or the sacrament?

Huh? Do you think our culture would generally agree that Heavy Metal is not gentle, nor peaceful?

So you agree that it is the culture that largely defines our perceptions of music and the like. That's good, now we're agreeing on something! What happens when the culture does generally find heavy metal to be gentle and peaceful (I remember the culture having problems with jazz as well, and now that's just fine)? Is that the point where heavy metal ceases to be inherently irreverent and becomes an acceptable means of worship for you?

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Really? Heâ??d believe that it is actually most peaceful and gentle? Go ask him, then get back to meâ?¦

I don't recall being most peaceful and gentle being the criteria. If that were the case there would be many people clamoring to get rid of the organ! But in any case, this young man finds it relaxing and peaceful. Is he wrong?

If you want to get into â??biblically acceptable practices (marrying off 14 year olds),â? Iâ??m sure we could find some fringe people thatâ??d be great proponents of it.

I find it fascinating that if I were to come up with a similar argument, you would likely get quite offended and start calling me names. I won't, but I just thought you'd be interested in seeing it through someone else's eyes

I disagree. You can have the best intentions in the world, but you loose focus. It doesnâ??t have that much to do with the heart (although the lack-there-of is certainly easy to define). When you do something monotonously and repetitiously, doesnâ??t your brain at times wander? Doesnâ??t your mind think of other things? Are you able to completely think of a single topic, and donâ??t slip one casual word in? If you can focus on a subject through monotonous repetitions and understand every word you say, I believe that you are not only unique but enviable.

Worship is a discipline, that's true. But still, the fact remains that the mind can wander off from anything, whether it is a song that some find monotonous, or a sacrament at an LDS meeting hall. The problem is not with the external action, but with the internal heart and motives.

Just like you donâ??t know the â??heartâ? of the guy that hit his thumb, you condemn that action. Thatâ??s how I can do it.

In both cases, we are judging without evidence, based on external concerns, and assuming that we know what God sees when He looks at the heart of the person. In this case, I would be wrong to judge the hammer guy, and I believe you are wrong to judge certain forms of worship. It is a judgment based on externals, which are not as important to God as the internal concerns. Psalm 51 has a great deal to say on this subject. God does not desire sacrifices or burnt offerings, but a broken and contrite heart and spirit. In short, the internal matter of the heart.

Take care, everyone

[PacMan]

Rhino,

Yes, but that doesn't mean I'm right.

Right to what? Right to be offended?

Wait, so reverence isn't the only "mood", but we should never be irreverent? Isn't that a contradiction?

Nope. Go to the Monopoly example.

I guess I'm confused then. What's the point of reverencing God if not in worship? And why does reverence (as in deep respect) always mean "solemnity"? I don't see those two as synonymous.

Sureâ?¦you can reverence God through worship. Youâ??d agree that worship can be solemn, but neednâ??t be. But in the greatest attributions of reverence, solemnity seems to be a component. When Mary and the Apostles saw Him for the first time after the resurrection, I think they certainly reverenced him in solemnity. Iâ??m certain they knelt at his feet as Mary did when she washed His feet with her hair. The greatest examples of reverencing the Lord have always seemed to those solemn occasions. If the Lord were to appear to you, I daresay you get down on bended knee and keep a bowed head. But why? As I said before, I think we should treat His name as we would treat Him if He were here, and that treatment would (I am certain) be solemn. Thatâ??s the standard Iâ??m using, and if your standard is different then we certainly have drastically different standards of how weâ??d present ourselves.

It's a standoff, based on our respective opinions and nothing objective.

Again, the assumed actions of a Christian in the presence of their savior are telling. Thatâ??s how we should treat His name.

What happens when the culture does generally find heavy metal to be gentle and peacefulâ?¦

Thatâ??s absurd, and Iâ??m not going into such a ridiculous hypothetical. This isnâ??t the Addams family. Certainly, every individual is allowed his/her own opinion. And those with such opinions so varied from the mainstream get counseling and/or end up in the happy house.

Is that the point where heavy metal ceases to be inherently irreverent and becomes an acceptable means of worship for you?

Tell you what. Play it around a baby at its natural level, and heâ??ll let you know if he think its gentle and peaceful. Out of the mouths of babesâ?¦

PacMan

[PacMan]

Rhino,

I don't recall being most peaceful and gentle being the criteria. If that were the case there would be many people clamoring to get rid of the organ! But in any case, this young man finds it relaxing and peaceful. Is he wrong?

I didnâ??t mean it at â??the most,â? but as â??particularlyâ? peaceful and gentle. But I reject that he believes that it is peaceful. Go ask him.

I find it fascinating that if I were to come up with a similar argument, you would likely get quite offended and start calling me names. I won't, but I just thought you'd be interested in seeing it through someone else's eyesâ?¦

Except I didnâ??t say it was in any way, your held position. Youâ??ve determined that if itâ??s not condoned or damned via the Bible, then let and let live. On the other hand, there are immoral practices that are biblically up held. What makes these moral judgments? Societyâ??s common senseâ?¦and I think it has a definite judgment considering heavy metal music and whether it is, or is not peaceful or gentle.

Worship is a discipline, that's true. But still, the fact remains that the mind can wander off from anything, whether it is a song that some find monotonous, or a sacrament at an LDS meeting hall. The problem is not with the external action, but with the internal heart and motives.

You have already agreed that casualness leads to vanity, which is leads to blasphemy (sound like Yoda?). A good heart can get complacent or casual due to lack of focus, and it doesnâ??t make them any worse a person. But that is at least one way that a good heart is committing blasphemy.

It is a judgment based on externals, which are not as important to God as the internal concerns.

I agree! But again, it doesnâ??t change that a vain use of Godâ??s name is blasphemousâ?¦be it malicious or casually innocent.

Again, you light the matches, youâ??re more likely to get burned. Why mess with something so holy in monotonous repetition?

PacMan

[rhinomelon]

Right to what? Right to be offended?

"Right" as in "correct". As in, I am not necessarily correct when I judge other people based on externals.

Nope. Go to the Monopoly example.

Gotcha.

that treatment would (I am certain) be solemn. Thatâ??s the standard Iâ??m using, and if your standard is different then we certainly have drastically different standards of how weâ??d present ourselves.

My standard is different. So is there any way to tell if one of us is definitely wrong, or is it simply a subjective exercise? Do you have any reason to believe that a standard different than yours is inherently irreverent?

Thatâ??s absurd, and Iâ??m not going into such a ridiculous hypothetical. This isnâ??t the Addams family. Certainly, every individual is allowed his/her own opinion. And those with such opinions so varied from the mainstream get counseling and/or end up in the happy house

Historically speaking it's not absurd at all. Harmony was seen as wicked when it first began to be used. More recently, jazz and swing music were both seen as irreverent and "of the devil", and culture now has no problems at all with these musical forms. Heck, swing music is a LDS ward dance staple! Maybe we should all head to the happy house? In any case, the fact remains that culture and society is not an objective, unchanging standard by which to measure anything.

Tell you what. Play it around a baby at its natural level, and heâ??ll let you know if he think its gentle and peaceful. Out of the mouths of babesâ?¦

Play Beethoven's 5th, Mahler, Sousa, Carmina Burana, or other forte classical compositions, and you'll get the same reaction. This proves nothing, except that babies don't have much in the way of musical taste yet.

You have already agreed that casualness leads to vanity, which is leads to blasphemy (sound like Yoda?). A good heart can get complacent or casual due to lack of focus, and it doesnâ??t make them any worse a person. But that is at least one way that a good heart is committing blasphemy.

And I still agree. But the problem is with the internal disposition of the person, not with the externals. Human beings can treat anything casually. This does mean that these actions are inherently blasphemous. Do you disagree? If so, why?

I agree! But again, it doesnâ??t change that a vain use of Godâ??s name is blasphemousâ?¦be it malicious or casually innocent.

I agree with you here! But vain use depends on the internals, not the externals. What is vain for you may be valid worship for someone else. That's really the main point I'm trying to get across here. You seem to agree on all of the steps of the argument, but then veer away from the only logical conclusion.

Take care, everyone

[Bernard Gui]

One could make a tongue-in-cheek case that a Christian heavy metal concert is closer to Old Testament worship than a modern LDS service. At least, one doesn't see many cymbals or six stringed instruments at sacrament meetings, or any shouting or dancing, for that matter

Except the LDS sacrament service is patterned after the Last Supper...

Bernard

[PacMan]

Rhino,

My standard is different. So is there any way to tell if one of us is definitely wrong, or is it simply a subjective exercise? Do you have any reason to believe that a standard different than yours is inherently irreverent?

Wrong? Yesâ?¦whether one is consistent or not. As I see it, I think most Christians would have similar view as I do of how weâ??d act and treat the Lord in person. Iâ??d bet thatâ??d be a very solemn occasion. As such, His name should be treated and I get the impression that many split hairs. Why should we treat Him differently if He were here, than when Heâ??s not? Isnâ??t that true respect, when we consistently treat Him and reference Him the same as if He were here?

Historically speaking it's not absurd at all. Harmony was seen as wicked when it first began to be used.

Weâ??re not talking of then nor 100 years from now. Weâ??re talking about today, the element of time that forms our paradigm.

Heck, swing music is a LDS ward dance staple! Maybe we should all head to the happy house?

If you keep confounding paradigm so easily, Iâ??d definitely get things checked out!

Play Beethoven's 5th, Mahler, Sousa, Carmina Burana, or other forte classical compositions, and you'll get the same reaction.

And such pieces are neither gentle nor peaceful! Now, if you add the monotonous use of the Lordâ??s name, Iâ??d call Beethovenâ??s 5th blasphemous.

But the problem is with the internal disposition of the person, not with the externals.

Noâ?¦weâ??re judging actions, not condemning people. A spade is a spade. If a little boy calls a cat a horse, heâ??s flat wrong. But in his heart of heart he may really just have it mixed up. As an understanding parent, you take that into consideration in his communicationâ?¦but heâ??s still wrong.

Human beings can treat anything casually. This does mean that these actions are inherently blasphemous.

Are you serious? Where have you been this whole conversation? If I treat a table casually, it certainly isnâ??t blasphemy. Weâ??re talking specifically of using the Lordâ??s name.

But vain use depends on the internals, not the externals.

Fineâ?¦is a lack of focus an internal then? You keep referring to the â??heart,â? and what I interpret that to mean is we have to look at the active intent of the individual. What Iâ??m suggesting is that sometimes due to the human experienceâ?¦weâ??re apathetic, or that we loose â??activeâ? intent! We loose focus, although are intentions are good. Loosing focus and using the name of the Lord casually repetitiously is doing so in vain (I think we agree here). I for one could not sing the songs of a â??Christian Rock Concertâ? and every moment be focused on the meaning of every word. Iâ??d at times be distracted by all sorts of things. Again, I reserve the possibility that Iâ??m the weakest of humans. As such, Iâ??d rather sing things surrounding Him, but be less inclined to monotonously repeat His name to avoid it becoming all to â??common,â? or â??casualâ? vocabulary.

You seem to agree on all of the steps of the argument, but then veer away from the only logical conclusion.

Except your â??only logical conclusionâ? only works if such music doesnâ??t perpetuate casualness, and I reject it. Simple usage does, and I canâ??t see how this isnâ??t playing with matches.

Two quick ones:

1) Do you believe one can blaspheme innocently?

2) Would you treat the Lord differently if He were present than the way you use His name?

PacMan

[rhinomelon]

As I see it, I think most Christians would have similar view as I do of how weâ??d act and treat the Lord in person. Iâ??d bet thatâ??d be a very solemn occasion.

Solemnity would be one part of it, but not the whole thing. If Christ was indeed here with us all the time, do you really think he'd want us going about all solemn and somber all the time? Where's the excitement, the joy, the exuberance and love? All of these things, and more, are part of living our lives as if Christ were present all the time.

And I can definitely say that if Christ and I were together all the time, I would certainly be playing my electric guitar for him.

Weâ??re not talking of then nor 100 years from now. Weâ??re talking about today, the element of time that forms our paradigm.

So you're admitting that standards for irreverence and/or blasphemy in terms of music do indeed change over time and culture? If so, it is definitely subjective, and not some objective reality apart from our own preferences.

Noâ?¦weâ??re judging actions, not condemning people. A spade is a spade. If a little boy calls a cat a horse, heâ??s flat wrong. But in his heart of heart he may really just have it mixed up. As an understanding parent, you take that into consideration in his communicationâ?¦but heâ??s still wrong.

The problem here is that we actually have objective, external ways to tell whether or not an animal is a horse or a cat. If it is a cat, it is a cat no matter what we think. But in terms of music and worship, we don't have that kind of objective standard. It is in the eye of the beholder. You have no basis (other than your own preferences) from which to state unequivocally that such-and-such music is wrong or inherently irreverent. What you say is irreverent, in terms of music and worship, says more about you than it does about the person actually doing it.

Are you serious? Where have you been this whole conversation? If I treat a table casually, it certainly isnâ??t blasphemy. Weâ??re talking specifically of using the Lordâ??s name.

I wasn't referring to tables, I was referring to the human tendency to treat anything casually at times, including the Lord's name (whether in rock music or sacrament meeting). This tendency is an internal one, and has no bearing on the action being performed or participated in. A person can take the sacrament casually, and a person can also be reverent and worshipful through rock music. It's all internal. True worship and reverence comes from the heart, not from some outward action or ritual. Likewise, irreverence and blasphemy also come from the inside, and not from some outward action or ritual.

I for one could not sing the songs of a â??Christian Rock Concertâ? and every moment be focused on the meaning of every word. Iâ??d at times be distracted by all sorts of things.

And you admit that this is a human weakness. I wholeheartedly agree! The problem is our weakness, not any particular action or ritual. You may also get distracted at sacrament meetings, not focusing on every word of every prayer. Does this mean that the problem lies with sacrament meetings and prayers, or with our own human weakness? I think it is indisputable the latter. I can also get distracted while worshiping God through rock music or praying, but that doesn't make rock music or praying the problem. The problem is my own weakness.

Except your â??only logical conclusionâ? only works if such music doesnâ??t perpetuate casualness, and I reject it. Simple usage does, and I canâ??t see how this isnâ??t playing with matches.

But I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion. You already agree that human weakness plays a part in our getting distracted, not necessarily the outward actions (otherwise you should have a problem with sacrament meetings as well). And now you seem to be changing your case somewhat, saying that using the Lord's name repeatedly is not automatically blasphemous, but merely runs the risk of falling that way (like playing with matches and eventually getting burned). And this is the case with anything that has to do with God and His name, whether praying, singing hymns or rock songs, or talking with friends.

1) Do you believe one can blaspheme innocently?

Yes.

2) Would you treat the Lord differently if He were present than the way you use His name?

Most likely, yes. But again, this isn't an issue of things I do, but of how I think and how I am spiritually. I wouldn't cut out the style of music I listen to because I think it is irreverent, but I would spend more time trying to quiet my own soul and focus on him as best I can.

Take care, everyone

[PacMan]

Rhino,

Solemnity would be one part of it, but not the whole thing. If Christ was indeed here with us all the time, do you really think he'd want us going about all solemn and somber all the time?

But the fact is, heâ??s not tangibly present all the time. Again, the problem isnâ??t with the joy, exuberance or loveâ?¦but how we treat Him and His name.

So you're admitting that standards for irreverence and/or blasphemy in terms of music do indeed change over time and culture? If so, it is definitely subjective, and not some objective reality apart from our own preferences.

Simply because something changes via social norms or â??common senseâ? does not mean it is strictly subjective. That was the example of pedophilia which I used. Mary was likely 13-15 at the time she married Joseph, but it was typical back then. It is inappropriate and wrong todayâ?¦and thatâ??s objective. There are objective standards by which it is understood, and those standards are established, really truly, via popular opinion.

But in terms of music and worship, we don't have that kind of objective standard. It is in the eye of the beholder. You have no basis (other than your own preferences) from which to state unequivocally that such-and-such music is wrong or inherently irreverent.

Again, I am confident popular opinion and thus, common sense would agree that Heavy Metal music is inherently irreverent. Certainly, I havenâ??t the data on hand. But do you disagree that such a survey of 3000 Americans would agree with (statistical significance), my assessment that it is neither peaceful, gentle, and inherently irreverent?

A person can take the sacrament casually, and a person can also be reverent and worshipful through rock music. It's all internal. True worship and reverence comes from the heart, not from some outward action or ritual.

Again, it comes down toâ?¦is it really necessary? I think the standard is how people would treat the Lord in personâ?¦which we apparently disagree on. I really do see inconsistency. Moreover, the other issue here is the match issue: why tread on sacred, solemn ground so often and regular within minutes at the risk of such monotonous repetition becoming casual? Understand, weâ??re talking of a distinct usage, many, many time within a very short period of time.

Likewise, irreverence and blasphemy also come from the inside, and not from some outward action or ritual.

I disagree. Hence parents need to teach their children reverence, because if they wonâ??t do so naturally. But that doesnâ??t mean their hearts are out of skelter.

And you admit that this is a human weakness. I wholeheartedly agree! The problem is our weakness, not any particular action or ritual.

Yeahâ?¦I see what youâ??re saying and I wonâ??t blankedly say youâ??re wrong. The issue, however, goes back to walking on hollowed ground and the typical standard of human nature. Surely, someone may be able to certainly focus 100%â?¦but Iâ??d dare say (again, weâ??d need some sort of electronic brain wave machine survey to really know) that the majority simply canâ??t. Iâ??m not calling Christian Rock evil, nor even those sub-genres that weâ??ve discussed evilâ?¦but a medium that increases the chances of casually treating the Lord (compared to not) is, in my mind, inappropriate.

Itâ??s the sort of thing that may compare to the quip of â??Guns donâ??t kill people, I do.â? Be that true or not, I still deem guns dangerous. They donâ??t do anything by themselves, but the potential that they hold canâ??t be casually treated. Treading on hallowed ground is, in effect, both a magnificent opportunity but also dangerousâ?¦because it should be done with utmost respect. I admire those that can do so consistently without faultâ?¦but I think the most of us canâ??t keep the necessary respect with frequent, monotonous treatment of the Lord and His name.

Now, you say you agree that one can blaspheme innocentlyâ?¦but how is that possible if it depends on oneâ??s heart?

Most likely, yes.

Recall, the question was how youâ??d treat His name versus how youâ??d treat Him if He were presentâ?¦not change your music style. If you understood the question correctly and still say yes, I think thatâ??s a dangerous inconsistencyâ?¦but thatâ??s just me.

PacMan

[rhinomelon]

But the fact is, heâ??s not tangibly present all the time. Again, the problem isnâ??t with the joy, exuberance or loveâ?¦but how we treat Him and His name.

Obviously. I was using your analogy of Christ actually being physically present.

Again, I am confident popular opinion and thus, common sense would agree that Heavy Metal music is inherently irreverent. Certainly, I havenâ??t the data on hand. But do you disagree that such a survey of 3000 Americans would agree with (statistical significance), my assessment that it is neither peaceful, gentle, and inherently irreverent?

I think the survey would likely conclude that heavy metal was not generally seen as peaceful or gentle, but "inherently irreverent" suggests there is something about the musical style itself that eschews deep respect of anything. That doesn't make sense to me, since it is just a musical form that, in and of itself, is neither respectful or disrespectful.

Moreover, the other issue here is the match issue: why tread on sacred, solemn ground so often and regular within minutes at the risk of such monotonous repetition becoming casual? Understand, weâ??re talking of a distinct usage, many, many time within a very short period of time.

So you now agree that repetition (even if it strikes you as excessive), in and of itself, is not necessarily vain or blasphemous. In any case, you are now talking about relative risk, which obviously varies from person to person. Again, no objective way to judge here.

I disagree. Hence parents need to teach their children reverence, because if they wonâ??t do so naturally. But that doesnâ??t mean their hearts are out of skelter.

Why not? I have no problem with the idea that children's hearts are out of skelter. If they weren't, why would we need to teach them how to do right?

Iâ??m not calling Christian Rock evil, nor even those sub-genres that weâ??ve discussed evilâ?¦but a medium that increases the chances of casually treating the Lord (compared to not) is, in my mind, inappropriate.

I'm glad you included the qualifier "in my mind".

Itâ??s the sort of thing that may compare to the quip of â??Guns donâ??t kill people, I do.â? Be that true or not, I still deem guns dangerous. They donâ??t do anything by themselves, but the potential that they hold canâ??t be casually treated.

I don't think worship or guns should be casually treated, but I don't think either should be avoided because of the risk of something bad happening. In order to learn to treat a gun respectfully and safely, you have to practice with it and know about it! Same with worshipping God. It is a discipline that one must engage in, no matter our own weakness. Otherwise that weakness will never be overcome.

Now, you say you agree that one can blaspheme innocentlyâ?¦but how is that possible if it depends on oneâ??s heart?

It doesn't only depend on the heart. Earlier in the thread I used the brief example of "porn stars for Jesus". While a porn star may actually have good motives, what he/she is engaging in is obviously sin. The difference between that and rock music is that one is specifically prohibited by the scriptures, and the other is not.

If you understood the question correctly and still say yes, I think thatâ??s a dangerous inconsistencyâ?¦but thatâ??s just me.

I still say yes, simply because I know I do not treat his name perfectly now. It would be much easier to show Christ the reverence and worship he deserves if he were right in front of me. Hence the difficulty of walking by faith, in which I constantly display my own weakness! I simply noted that the weakness on my part is not due to the style of music I like, but to deeper, much more important issues (both internal and external).

And I'm also interested in hearing other people's thoughts on the matter. This thread, despite recent events, is open to the general public!

Take care, everyone

[PacMan]

Rhino,

but "inherently irreverent" suggests there is something about the musical style itself that eschews deep respect of anything.

Youâ??re confounding terms. Irreverence is a derivative of reverence, not respect. I think those things you feel when you deeply reverence something or something are more easily maintainable in an atmosphere of heavy metal.

So you now agree that repetition (even if it strikes you as excessive), in and of itself, is not necessarily vain or blasphemous. In any case, you are now talking about relative risk, which obviously varies from person to person. Again, no objective way to judge here.

I never said that repetition is vain, but have mentioned time and time again, â??monotonousâ? repetition. Excessive use is vain.

Moreover, the objective standard is typical human nature. Where the typical person would stumble in a given situation, it is therefore responsible to call such a situation risky. Now, you can disagree that such is â??typical.â? At that point weâ??d just have to pass out the surveys, but the results would certainly be objective.

Why not? I have no problem with the idea that children's hearts are out of skelter. If they weren't, why would we need to teach them how to do right?

If I take my little boy to a church and he starts crying because heâ??s hungry, itâ??s not because his heartâ??s bad that he chooses to be irreverent. Itâ??s because heâ??s hungry and doesnâ??t know how to better express himself, all the while ignorant of the way in which he should act and why. You canâ??t say a childâ??s heart is out of skelter until they understand what they do is wrong.

I'm glad you included the qualifier "in my mind".

Well thatâ??s evident and pretty inherent to the conversation. I happen to think the Lord might agreeâ?¦but Iâ??m not particularly concerned if He doesnâ??t. Iâ??m willing to change my opinions.

I don't think worship or guns should be casually treated, but I don't think either should be avoided because of the risk of something bad happening. In order to learn to treat a gun respectfully and safely, you have to practice with it and know about it! Same with worshipping God. It is a discipline that one must engage in, no matter our own weakness. Otherwise that weakness will never be overcome.

Agreed! I would simply submit that doing tricks with a loaded gun (even with the safety on) is unnecessary and dangerous. One careless act can prove dangerous, indeed. Thatâ??s how I see treading on Holy Groundâ?¦something that should be done most cautiously and thoughtfully. My expressions in this conversation are that when His name is used in a monotonously repetitive manner, human nature is to (likely unconsciously) casualize it, and focus is lost. That presents a Petri-dish for vain usage.

Earlier in the thread I used the brief example of "porn stars for Jesus". While a porn star may actually have good motives, what he/she is engaging in is obviously sin.

But that only works if they were ignorant that porn is bad. I donâ??t see the example as plausible. Again, turn to pedophiliaâ?¦the historic content of the scriptures support it, right?

PacMan

P.S. Related but unrelated: If Jesus appeared in the middle of the court at a basketball game, what would you do? This isnâ??t a trick question or anything. Just curious.

[Paul Ray]

Did you read what I said, rhinomelon, way back on page 2.

I like finding people who God agrees with, although I've given up on agreeing with everyone about everything.

Nothing, IMO.

I like the song and I sometimes sing it, personally. I just wouldn't sing it in a Sacrament meeting.

... just like I wouldn't wear jeans and a T-shirt to a Sacrament meeting unless I had nothing better to wear.

I do wear jeans and a T-shirt on other occassions, however, and I don't see a problem with doing that.

I thought it was a pretty good form of entertainment, but it's not what I would call reverent.

The only thing reverent was the subject matter, IMO.

I think the movie still conveyed some good thoughts, though.

Clearly our tastes are different.

I define worshipful reverence as what makes me one with our Father as I seek to emulate him and his personality.

There are times when I play around, and there are times when I get serious, and I think that's okay with God as long as I know when he wants me to be serious.

[rhinomelon]

Paul, just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the use of rock music as a means of worshiping God?

Youâ??re confounding terms. Irreverence is a derivative of reverence, not respect. I think those things you feel when you deeply reverence something or something are more easily maintainable in an atmosphere of heavy metal.

According to every dictionary definition I've found, "respect" or "deep respect" is a part of every single definition of "reverence". "Irreverence" is almost synonymous with "disrespect". And I'm assuming your third sentence is a typo. If not, I'm glad we agree

I never said that repetition is vain, but have mentioned time and time again, â??monotonousâ? repetition. Excessive use is vain.

True, but I think we can both agree that what is excessive is in the eye of the beholder. There is no objective standard. What is fine for me may be excessive for you, and vice versa.

Moreover, the objective standard is typical human nature. Where the typical person would stumble in a given situation, it is therefore responsible to call such a situation risky. Now, you can disagree that such is â??typical.â? At that point weâ??d just have to pass out the surveys, but the results would certainly be objective.

But who is the "typical" person? I think that someone raised in your religious tradition would respond very differently to this kind of music and lyrics than someone else raised in my tradition.

Agreed! I would simply submit that doing tricks with a loaded gun (even with the safety on) is unnecessary and dangerous. One careless act can prove dangerous, indeed. Thatâ??s how I see treading on Holy Groundâ?¦something that should be done most cautiously and thoughtfully. My expressions in this conversation are that when His name is used in a monotonously repetitive manner, human nature is to (likely unconsciously) casualize it, and focus is lost. That presents a Petri-dish for vain usage.

Doing tricks is one thing, but actually practicing with it is something else. One must always be careful, but what you are suggesting is more like locking the gun away forever because there is some kind of risk involved in having it out. There is always risk, but that doesn't mean we should just abandon something entirely. Otherwise we'd have to abandon anything that uses God's name, since even one casual use would be blasphemous.

But that only works if they were ignorant that porn is bad. I donâ??t see the example as plausible. Again, turn to pedophiliaâ?¦the historic content of the scriptures support it, right?

And if they are ignorant that porn is bad, it is still bad and still sinful. As far as pedophilia, that is a legal definition in which children are the primary object of perverse sexual feelings or action. This is not what the biblical examples encourage. The biblical examples are about mutual relationships and marriages, not perversion. I think that comparison is apples and oranges.

P.S. Related but unrelated: If Jesus appeared in the middle of the court at a basketball game, what would you do? This isnâ??t a trick question or anything. Just curious.

Who knows? Probably I would be completely overwhelmed and worship him on the spot. But if Jesus stuck around and wanted to come to my house and spend time with me, I might bust out the guitar for him. There's a difference between Jesus suddenly popping in out of nowhere, and Jesus staying with me all the time (which would be more closely related to what we're talking about, I think). If Jesus is around all the time, then all that I do is directed towards him in worship and thanksgiving, whether it is eating or drinking, or singing or dancing, or talking with friends and typing message board posts.

And just a thought that someone recently reminded me of: Have you ever been to traditional African-American funerals in the deep South? Often they are packed with singing and dancing, marching bands, jazz and the like. Is this irreverent? Are they expressing disrespect for the deceased? I don't believe so. This is how they express themselves in this situation. It is different from how you or I would likely do it, but that doesn't make it irreverent or invalid. It is the same with styles of worship. People do it differently, and as long as their means of worship is not inherently sinful, and it is directed towards God from a sincere heart, I don't think anyone can really judge that as irreverent or blasphemous. It's just different.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

And another thought, speaking of risk and God's grace now. If worship is truly risky, in terms of possibly committing blasphemy if we treat it casually, then why shouldn't we stop it entirely? Any form of worship, any practice or ritual that uses the name of God contains risk, so we should abstain in order to minimize the risk of blasphemy?

I don't believe so, and I believe that even if we do stumble and find ourselves worshiping casually, saying the Lord's name with no heart or thought behind it, we should use that as an occasion to refocus ourselves in worship. God commands us to worship, and even though we all probably do it blasphemously every week, I think that God understands and sympathizes with our weakness. His grace is sufficient for us. This doesn't give us license to take worship frivolously. Quite the opposite! Thinking of God's grace for us in our weakness should remind us of the seriousness of worship on the one hand, but give us the courage to step forward and keep trying to do it better on the other hand. We will stumble, but every child stumbles while learning to run or walk. Heck, even as an adult I do it!

Also, as far as reverence goes, I am also reminded of the people Jesus interacted with in his earthly ministry, who were anything but reverent, and yet still received love and reward from Christ. The woman who grabbed Jesus' cloak, for example, or the men who tore a hole in the roof (interrupting Jesus' teaching within) in order to lower a crippled friend down to him. Or Zaccheus who climbed a tree, or the women who anointed him with oil and washed his feet, or the lepers who shouted at him. All these people were rather out of the norm for society, and yet Jesus saw right through their impropriety and saw their faith (an internal matter). People who use rock music to worship God may not be doing something a lot of people would accept, but Jesus can see through all the external stuff to the heart, to one's faith. That is the most important aspect, I think.

Just some more thoughts to add to the mix. Take care, everyone

[Paul Ray]

Paul, just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the use of rock music as a means of worshiping God?

I believe true worship involves emulating the object of worship, and I can't see God as a rock star, personally.

According to every dictionary definition I've found, "respect" or "deep respect" is a part of every single definition of "reverence". "Irreverence" is almost synonymous with "disrespect". And I'm assuming your third sentence is a typo. If not, I'm glad we agree

You do realize you're not quoting me, don't you?

My thoughts about this issue are pretty much stated above.

To reverence someone is to revere them, or emulate them.

I think we can see what a person thinks of God by the way they worship him/them.

But who is the "typical" person? I think that someone raised in your religious tradition would respond very differently to this kind of music and lyrics than someone else raised in my tradition.

Different strokes for different folks. I agree.

[rhinomelon]

I believe true worship involves emulating the object of worship, and I can't see God as a rock star, personally.

I agree, but I don't think using rock music necessarily entails seeing God as a rock star, or wanting to become a rock star myself. I enjoy the music, but the thought of being a rock star actually makes me rather sick. I think the music is merely a means of getting our thoughts on who God really is and who we really are, and what we should be doing about it.

Different strokes for different folks. I agree.

That's basically my main point, all summed up nicely.

By the way, I found you a pirate hat:

Take care, everyone

[Paul Ray]

I agree, but I don't think using rock music necessarily entails seeing God as a rock star, or wanting to become a rock star myself. I enjoy the music, but the thought of being a rock star actually makes me rather sick. I think the music is merely a means of getting our thoughts on who God really is and who we really are, and what we should be doing about it.

Heh, it looks like we missed each other, somehow.

How does rock music fit in with your idea that music (including rock music?) is a means of getting our thoughts on who God really is and who we really are, and what we should be doing about it?

I was trying to say I can't get into the idea that God is a rock star, or is like that which I think of when I think of rock music.

By the way, I found you a pirate hat:

Take care, everyone

Arggghh. Looks good. What do you think?

... it doesn't seem to show up in my pictures, but oh well.

[rhinomelon]

How does rock music fit in with your idea that music (including rock music?) is a means of getting our thoughts on who God really is and who we really are, and what we should be doing about it?

I was trying to say I can't get into the idea that God is a rock star, or is like that which I think of when I think of rock music.

I think it again breaks down to, as you put it, "different strokes for different folks". Very rarely do I think of a rock star when I'm listening to rock music. I'm paying attention to the musical quality, and to the lyrics. Rock music may bring rock stars (and their sometimes questionable lifestyles) to your mind, so rock music wouldn't be conducive to you worshipping God.

Now am I understanding you right? Glad you enjoyed the hat

Take care, everyone

[PacMan]

Rhino,

For this discussion, semantics seem in the details. Surely respect is synonymous with reverence, but the meaning is not the same. For example, I respect the right of a person to practice homosexuality, yet I certainly donâ??t reverence that rightâ??but on the contrary!

On repetitionâ?¦just realize Iâ??m saying â??monotonous repetition.â? It may not be a difference to you, but I differentiate between them.

But who is the "typical" person? I think that someone raised in your religious tradition would respond very differently to this kind of music and lyrics than someone else raised in my tradition.

A typical person would be determined by a random sampling. I am suggesting that a study on the subject would identify my view as being â??typical.â? My point being, it is certainly objectiveâ?¦we just need the data.

Doing tricks is one thing, but actually practicing with it is something else. One must always be careful, but what you are suggesting is more like locking the gun away forever because there is some kind of risk involved in having it out.

Noâ?¦ not at all. I have certainly never considered banning sacrament or singing hymns at church. I have never said to use the name of the Lord what so ever. Sureâ?¦locking it away in a safe may not be necessary, but I donâ??t think leaving it on the kitchen table is appropriate either.

There is always risk, but that doesn't mean we should just abandon something entirely. Otherwise we'd have to abandon anything that uses God's name, since even one casual use would be blasphemous.

Again, thatâ??s neither my position nor anything I recommended. I support being judicious, clearlyâ?¦and think with anything sacred or holy, such judiciousness should err on the side of caution.

And if they are ignorant that porn is bad, it is still bad and still sinful.

But they have not sinned. One cannot sin without the law.

As far as pedophilia, that is a legal definition in which children are the primary object of perverse sexual feelings or action. This is not what the biblical examples encourage. The biblical examples are about mutual relationships and marriages, not perversion. I think that comparison is apples and oranges.

Pedophilia is simply the act of an adult being sexually attracted to a child. It being illicit is not necessarily part of the definition, nor is perversion. Strictly speaking, Joseph and Maryâ??s relationship was likely pedophilia (if she was really 13 or 14)â?¦but it was a different time when it was not only not wrong, but commonly practiced. Moreover, marriage has nothing to do with itâ?¦whereas thereâ??s been a number of such marriages that have landed people in jail because the girls have often been underage.

And just a thought that someone recently reminded me of: Have you ever been to traditional African-American funerals in the deep South? Often they are packed with singing and dancing, marching bands, jazz and the like. Is this irreverent?

If youâ??re asking for a sweeping judgment, then no. I consider the above drastically different than heavy metal.

Are they expressing disrespect for the deceased? I don't believe so.

Again, considering the U.S. as a whole, it is certainly not the common practice. Moreover, I have identified previously the need for consistency. For those that they themselves wouldnâ??t use such a method to â??revereâ? the deceased, they should likely not treat the Lordâ??s name the same.

If worship is truly risky, in terms of possibly committing blasphemy if we treat it casually, then why shouldn't we stop it entirely?

Rhino, youâ??re confounding the argumentâ?¦again. Worship is not risky. This is absurdum, a strawman, and erroneous usage of reducio. Worship neednâ??t use the name of the Lord. Amongst all these pages of dialogue, I am increasingly beginning to believe that you have yet to understand if they most basic of my positionsâ?¦and itâ??s frustrating.

Any form of worship, any practice or ritual that uses the name of God contains risk, so we should abstain in order to minimize the risk of blasphemy?

This is my position! And the answer is no. But it should be prepared for so we are in a state of focus and reverence. It is a great opportunity to use self-discipline and think upon holier things. We have the capability of doing itâ?¦but also the tendencies to treat casually that which becomes common.

I believe that even if we do stumble and find ourselves worshiping casually, saying the Lord's name with no heart or thought behind it, we should use that as an occasion to refocus ourselves in worship.

Agreed.

God commands us to worship, and even though we all probably do it blasphemously every week, I think that God understands and sympathizes with our weakness.

[My emphasis]

AGREED!! Thatâ??s my point! Like you said, it is still blasphemous, although I agree that weâ??re not going to be damned for a common, human weakness of omission (something that we donâ??t do, rather than such of commission which we actively do).

People who use rock music to worship God may not be doing something a lot of people would accept, but Jesus can see through all the external stuff to the heart, to one's faith. That is the most important aspect, I think.

Again, I agree. Iâ??m not judging anyone. I am judging a practice which I have the prerogative to do. I never said that anyone that does it is a sinner, or bad, etc., etc. I simply have said that it is a practice that makes the usage of Godâ??s name all the more common, and the danger is in it becoming casual. That is where the blaspheme lies. That being the case, itâ??s better to avoid practices that seemingly perpetuate blasphemy.

Thanks,

PacMan

[Paul Ray]

I think it again breaks down to, as you put it, "different strokes for different folks".

I think that much is obvious.

I was trying to understand what you think about that while telling what I think about that, and at this point I still do not know what you think.

Very rarely do I think of a rock star when I'm listening to rock music. I'm paying attention to the musical quality, and to the lyrics.

Yeah but when you are paying attention to the musical quality and the lyrics in the music are you also maybe kinda sorta singing the song to the intended audience while thinking the intended audience might get in tune with your song and then maybe want to start singing along with you?

That's what I think a rock star tries to do, and I am including "Christian rock stars" in the mix.

Maybe I should now ask what you think a rock star really is?

I think a rock star is someone who can get in tune with a certain type of song and sing that type of song in a way that others feel "inspired" to get in tune with him/her and start singing that song along with him/her. I'm not talking about the extra baggage that often goes along with some rock stars nowadays. I'm talking about a person who gets in tune with a certain type of song a certain way.

If you think you know what I mean now, try contrasting that idea against the idea of an intended audience who enjoys having people sing songs of praise TO him while knowing that all who are singing TO him sincerely love him... minus the previous idea where the singer(s) seem to be trying to get other people in tune with singing the song along WITH him/them.

Do you see the difference?

Personally, I don't see God as a person who gets in tune with a song other people sing TO him to the point where he wants to sing along with the song or try to get other people to sing the song along with him... which is what I think rock stars do or try to do.

Rock music may bring rock stars (and their sometimes questionable lifestyles) to your mind, so rock music wouldn't be conducive to you worshipping God.

I'm not talking about that kind of extra baggage.

I'm only talking about people who sing songs a certain way to try to get other people involved with their show.

Now am I understanding you right?

I'm still not sure yet.

Glad you enjoyed the hat

Actually, it doesn't fit. It's now sitting somewhere appropriate on my fireplace.

Take care, everyone

Arrrggh.

[bluebell]

I recently ran across an odd banner ad on a website and clicked on the link-

Which lead me here-Lord's Gym

Scroll down to the bottom and it shows some apparal etc. that has some interesting pictures on it.

It seems like these people have very good intentions but a picture of Christ on the cross with a crown of thorns on His head and the heading 'The Lord's Gym' above Him seems, to me, to greatly trivialize His Atonement and His divinity (that was what the banner ad looked like, FYI).

I know that people have different thoughts on what's appropriate and what's not but this seems just way to much over the top.

[Bsix]

Of course not. In no way imaginable does the Savior using the instrument of his murder...as a barbell...during the single most sacred event in the history of humankind.. tivialize the suffering and atonement of Jesus Christ.

Oh by the way...does anyone think that the Savior used steroids?

Regards,

Six