I haven't focused on the Pacific, but I wouldn't be surprised.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
Sure, but a republican would do different, give me a break.
Considering the Republican is the one who went into Iraq to stop a dictator who was hurting his own people, and now is the one who is going to Syria to do the same, I think they would?
To be fair, this new Republican is a lunatic who cheated his way into the presidency to make himself even MORE rich and famous than he already was
Well, by definition: The Bible IS sufficient. It is the ultimate guidebook to our lives, and it clearly lays out for us what God DOESN'T like. Therefore -- knowing what he doesn't like, we can avoid doing the things he doesn't like, and focus on doing what he does like.
But God surely wanted us to what works bets for us, right?
Ah. So the question is no longer 'is it wrong to play musical instruments in worship?' so much as it is 'Is it the best thing to do?'
At this point, we have reduced this matter to that of complete opinion. Only you can determine what sounds better -- instruments, or no instruments. But the important thing to remember is that in any case, we are given the freedom to express our love for God in almost any way we want (respecting certain boundaries, of course, and not being lunatics also helps : P)
*Thinks of Skillet, even though they're not a punk rock band, but still*
As long as the message of any given song is pure and focused on the Lord I don't see any reason not to play Christian punk rock music during a sermon
I hope that's a joke, even if it is its a very bad one.
It's sort of a joke but the message still stands. The only requirement for a worship song is that its message is pure. Besides -- as long as it gets people to lift their hands in the air and seemingly go into a trance, right?
You twist my words. And I think you meant insufficient, but I'm not sure.
I did not say "if you like it." I said "If it meets the moral standards set by the Bible". My point was that the Bible IS sufficient, but not in the since of telling us about everything, (Which empirically it does not) but that it tells about about higher moral truths and standards by which we can judge everything.
And the Lord's Supper is a bad metaphor. Although, shouldn't you question the early church doing it every week(If they did, anyway) since the Bible doesn't say that? According to your line of logic, which is, however flawed. Clearly, there's nothing wrong with doing it every week, just like there's nothing wrong with musical instruments. Why? Because they do not violate anything the Bible says, but add to beauty and worship.
To restate the point(again) The Bible tells us many things to do and many things not to do. Nowhere does it say that we can't do anything it doesn't tell us to, even if it doesn't say not to do it.
That would be ridiculous. It never tells us to sit in chairs while eating, or to jump up and down on one foot, or to grill burgers or fry them, or read magazines, juggle, or close one eye and open the other, or clip our toenails, etc.
We should judge hings that are not exactly mentioned in the Bible against the standards it sets. if they do not violate the standards, and especially when they agree with those standards and help us accomplish the things the Bible tells us to do, then they are perfectly acceptable, and even extremely commendable.
Yes I did, thank you. but, who decides what's moral The Bible does. The Bible tell how to follow God, that's all we need in life.
In a world with evolving customs and lunatics closing in on us from all sides -- we can't afford to not spice up our worship a little bit. Bands like Skillet for example are reaching people who otherwise would never listen to Christian music on their own. Bottom line: if musical instruments were immoral, The Bible would say so.
Heck -- I bet even Jewish people -- who believe a set of impossible laws is the way to reach God, probably play musical instruments in worship.
And Jesus compared the Kingdom of heaven to a Mustard Seed. And leaven. And a dragnet.
Jesus is God, that doesn't mean we get to say anything like he did.
Well, of course not. We definitely don't have the right to add on to The Bible -- but is a debate on musical instruments really adding on to The Bible? The book doesn't even come close to touching that subject, let alone making it clear.
Well if we add to worship by bringing in Instruments why not root beer and Chips for the Lords supper, after it makes people happier, and that what's important, right?
The Lord's Supper isn't supposed to taste good, it's supposed to be a reminder of Jesus' sacrifice. You don't want people to enjoy the food, that will distract them. However, you do want people to enjoy praising God, right?
Me personally I think bread and grape juice was explicitly intended, and that's the example we should follow. In that way, we are literally living out that moment in The Bible.
I haven't focused on the Pacific, but I wouldn't be surprised.
That imo is quite sad that the pacific thetre gets no discussion, the ussr took Manchuria and korea during the war which would help the CCP later win the Chinese Civil war. The battle of midway is another great one, where Japan lost 3 aircraft carriers. But yeah Tojo held a lot of titles
Jesus is God, that doesn't mean we get to say anything like he did.
Well, of course not. We definitely don't have the right to add on to The Bible -- but is a debate on musical instruments really adding on to The Bible? The book doesn't even come close to touching that subject, let alone making it clear.
Adding onto the Bible is a condemned sin, actually. Read the end of Revelation.
You twist my words. And I think you meant insufficient, but I'm not sure.
I did not say "if you like it." I said "If it meets the moral standards set by the Bible". My point was that the Bible IS sufficient, but not in the since of telling us about everything, (Which empirically it does not) but that it tells about about higher moral truths and standards by which we can judge everything.
And the Lord's Supper is a bad metaphor. Although, shouldn't you question the early church doing it every week(If they did, anyway) since the Bible doesn't say that? According to your line of logic, which is, however flawed. Clearly, there's nothing wrong with doing it every week, just like there's nothing wrong with musical instruments. Why? Because they do not violate anything the Bible says, but add to beauty and worship.
To restate the point(again) The Bible tells us many things to do and many things not to do. Nowhere does it say that we can't do anything it doesn't tell us to, even if it doesn't say not to do it.
That would be ridiculous. It never tells us to sit in chairs while eating, or to jump up and down on one foot, or to grill burgers or fry them, or read magazines, juggle, or close one eye and open the other, or clip our toenails, etc.
We should judge hings that are not exactly mentioned in the Bible against the standards it sets. if they do not violate the standards, and especially when they agree with those standards and help us accomplish the things the Bible tells us to do, then they are perfectly acceptable, and even extremely commendable.
Yes I did, thank you. but, who decides what's moral The Bible does. The Bible tell how to follow God, that's all we need in life.
Exactly. And since musical instruments are clearly Moral, they are excellent for using when we sing hymns, songs, etc. :tounge:
You seem to be implying that we can only do things the Bible tells us too. This is obviously ridiculous It never tells us to blink, or relieve ourselves, or take vitamins, or brush our teeth, or ride in cars, etc.
We wouldn't just wind up living miserable, pain filled lives in horrible, ascetic conditions, we'd die, if we followed what you say to the end.
Fortunately, the Bible never says that we are forbidden to do anything it doesn't exactly tell us to, and obviously it doesn't mean that. Why? because
1. it never says so. Such a point would be so important it would surely be said. It never is. Therefore, evidently, we can do things even it tell us to if they don't violate the Bibles Standards. As I previously said, this is clearly the intent, as the Bible can not deal with every consequential issue, but it sets standards against which we can judge everything.
2. It tells us things we shouldn't do. If we were forbidden to do anything it doesn't tell us to there would be no point it telling us things we can't do as it would already be forbidden.
How about Peter Dinklage? :tounge: Or Peter Jackson? :tounge: or? Peter the Great? Or Peter Rabbit? Or Peter Cushing? Or Peter pan? or Peter Capaldi? or Peter Davison? or Peter Quill? or Peter O'toole? or Peter Benjamin Parker? :tounge:
Yes I did, thank you. but, who decides what's moral The Bible does. The Bible tell how to follow God, that's all we need in life.
In a world with evolving customs and lunatics closing in on us from all sides -- we can't afford to not spice up our worship a little bit. Bands like Skillet for example are reaching people who otherwise would never listen to Christian music on their own. Bottom line: if musical instruments were immoral, The Bible would say so.
Heck -- I bet even Jewish people -- who believe a set of impossible laws is the way to reach God, probably play musical instruments in worship.
Impossible set of laws? Its only 300 laws, and they aren't that impossible
Considering the Republican is the one who went into Iraq to stop a dictator who was hurting his own people, and now is the one who is going to Syria to do the same, I think they would?
To be fair, this new Republican is a lunatic who cheated his way into the presidency to make himself even MORE rich and famous than he already was
Trump, is going to be a great us president. The electoral college exists to prevent some crazy person from becoming president. It is serving the nation rightfully.
![[y]](http://storage.proboards.com/6672327/images/WYWPH2VRo26pOFDid7QZ.png)