The idea of a ban on rock/metal/swing/pop music.

[Gracia Divina]

I think it should be banned, but not because of syncopation? This is a bad idea, many native peoples with rich cultures use syncopation in their music. This Christian concern is in fact cultural imperialism and also racism in disguise. We should ban instead music that is firstly electronic and secondly that does not praise the Lord.

I'm going to quote another poster, because they express my thoughts on Christians banning music.

Praise Him with tambourine and dancing; praise Him with the strings and flute. Praise Him with clashing cymbals; praise Him with resounding cymbals. (Book of Psalms)

It would appear that people who try to ban music have no love of God

God Rocks!!!

I am a Christian (which is rarely relevant except to ask people to please not associate all Christians/people with a faith with sentiments like that).

No music should be banned. No-one should force their beliefs on other people. If someone does not like a particular type of music, they can always not listen.

It's a very simple, but effective, solution.

I think this is a little naive. There must be laws to promote good behaviour.

And listening to/appreciating/enjoying music that began in other cultures is not racism. My goodness.

What do you mean?

[The Free Joy State]

I'm going to quote another poster, because they express my thoughts on Christians banning music.



I am a Christian (which is rarely relevant except to ask people to please not associate all Christians/people with a faith with sentiments like that).

No music should be banned. No-one should force their beliefs on other people. If someone does not like a particular type of music, they can always not listen.

It's a very simple, but effective, solution.

I think this is a little naive. There must be laws to promote good behaviour.

Listening to music is not bad behaviour. Someone listening to music that you happen to disapprove of is not bad behaviour.

Making all music homogenous -- in that they all must be songs of praise -- would be dull. The diversity of musical genres is so rich, and society would lose so much.

And, again, non-Christians should never be made to listen to only religious music (or any religious music). That would be restricting their freedom from religion (and freedom of expression). No religious person can expect their own freedom of religion while being happy to trounce on someone else's freedom from religion.

And listening to/appreciating/enjoying music that began in other cultures is not racism. My goodness.

What do you mean?

My reading of:

This Christian concern is in fact cultural imperialism and also racism in disguise.

was that people should not listen to music that began in other cultures as it might be co-opting other cultures.

If I misread that, I apologise for the misconstrual. But, in fairness, the sentence could have been clearer.

[Gracia Divina]

I think this is a little naive. There must be laws to promote good behaviour.

Listening to music is not bad behaviour. Someone listening to music that you happen to disapprove of is not bad behaviour.

Making all music homogenous -- in that they all must be songs of praise -- would be dull. The diversity of musical genres is so rich, and society would lose so much.

And, again, non-Christians should never be made to listen to only religious music (or any religious music). That would be restricting their freedom from religion (and freedom of expression). No religious person can expect their own freedom of religion while being happy to trounce on someone else's freedom from religion.

What do you mean?

My reading of:

This Christian concern is in fact cultural imperialism and also racism in disguise.

was that people should not listen to music that began in other cultures as it might be co-opting other cultures.

If I misread that, I apologise for the misconstrual. But, in fairness, the sentence could have been clearer.

Isn't our duty in life to live in a way that respects and praises the Lord?

[The Free Joy State]

Listening to music is not bad behaviour. Someone listening to music that you happen to disapprove of is not bad behaviour.

Making all music homogenous -- in that they all must be songs of praise -- would be dull. The diversity of musical genres is so rich, and society would lose so much.

And, again, non-Christians should never be made to listen to only religious music (or any religious music). That would be restricting their freedom from religion (and freedom of expression). No religious person can expect their own freedom of religion while being happy to trounce on someone else's freedom from religion.



My reading of:


was that people should not listen to music that began in other cultures as it might be co-opting other cultures.

If I misread that, I apologise for the misconstrual. But, in fairness, the sentence could have been clearer.

Isn't our duty in life to live in a way that respects and praises the Lord?

I see my religious duty as being to do my best to love others, judge not and to carry my faith quietly in my heart. We get no reward for making a big show of being religious (Matthew 6):

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven

I don't see my duty (or right) to attempt to force my faith on others, or to deny myself the pleasures of life (the Bible's in favour of those, too).

[Kihdis]

That article reads like satire and I can’t believe that this is an issue. If God is upset with me for listening to sick riffs that’s a problem we can work out personally.

… and government regulations on how music is written? Seriously?

[Gracia Divina]

Isn't our duty in life to live in a way that respects and praises the Lord?

I see my religious duty as being to do my best to love others, judge not and to carry my faith quietly in my heart. We get no reward for making a big show of being religious (Matthew 6):

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven

I don't see my duty (or right) to attempt to force my faith on others, or to deny myself the pleasures of life (the Bible's in favour of those, too).

But I don't see those verses as particularly relevant to what I am saying to you.

[The Free Joy State]

I see my religious duty as being to do my best to love others, judge not and to carry my faith quietly in my heart. We get no reward for making a big show of being religious (Matthew 6):

“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven

I don't see my duty (or right) to attempt to force my faith on others, or to deny myself the pleasures of life (the Bible's in favour of those, too).

But I don't see those verses as particularly relevant to what I am saying to you.

You asked how I saw my duty. I answered how I see my duty (to keep my faith private -- i.e. not make a big show with demanding it be publicly vaunted -- and to love others -- which I would say includes not forcing my faith on them), using the verses as illustrative examples.

I am also not the topic of the thread.

[Gracia Divina]

But I don't see those verses as particularly relevant to what I am saying to you.

You asked how I saw my duty. I answered your question I see my duty (to keep my faith private and love others -- which I would say includes not forcing my faith on them), using the verses as illustrative examples.

I am also not the topic of the thread.

The verse you gave did not exactly to say faith must be private. To me it says don't practice it "to be seen by them", meaning do not be vain. Faith that is public and also sincere is the best idea.

[The Free Joy State]

You asked how I saw my duty. I answered your question I see my duty (to keep my faith private and love others -- which I would say includes not forcing my faith on them), using the verses as illustrative examples.

I am also not the topic of the thread.

The verse you gave did not exactly to say faith must be private. To me it says don't practice it "to be seen by them", meaning do not be vain. Faith that is public and also sincere is the best idea.

What was that verse about how you can't claim to know the mind of the Lord?

Anyway, I think not. It continues:

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you[…]

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him[...]

17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

It seems to suggest that we are rewarded for our private acts of faith, not our public showy-offy ones.

It's not the topic, but the repeated use of the word "secret" seems pretty clear to me.

[Gracia Divina]

The verse you gave did not exactly to say faith must be private. To me it says don't practice it "to be seen by them", meaning do not be vain. Faith that is public and also sincere is the best idea.

What was that verse about how you can't claim to know the mind of the Lord?

Anyway, I think not. It continues:

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you[…]

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him[...]

17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

It seems to suggest that we are rewarded for our private acts of faith, not our public showy-offy ones.

It's not the topic, but the repeated use of the word "secret" seems pretty clear to me.

You seem to be arguing against reading the Bible and spreading its word. That seems quite un-Christian. But yes it is off topic. Perhaps we should stop.

[Petrolheadia]

What was that verse about how you can't claim to know the mind of the Lord?

Anyway, I think not. It continues:

“So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you[…]

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him[...]

17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

It seems to suggest that we are rewarded for our private acts of faith, not our public showy-offy ones.

It's not the topic, but the repeated use of the word "secret" seems pretty clear to me.

You seem to be arguing against reading the Bible and spreading its word. That seems quite un-Christian. But yes it is off topic. Perhaps we should stop.

If quotes from the Bible are an argument against reading it, it's probably not prime literature.

[Petrolheadia]

It's only a contradiction if we accept your assumption - that there is a way to create a better world than this one and you know how to do that. If you really do, please go ahead. I'm looking forward to living in this better world you'll make.

I can't. But I'm also not supposedly omnipotent.

[DD214]

Damn kids these days with their noise. Ban it all.

[The Greater Low Countries]

The verse you quoted is Jesus talking to the Pharisees. They believed their giving to the poor and needy and paying would get them to heaven, and they performed these actions for the purpose of bragging. Jesus here tells them that God does not care about performing these actions in order to have bragging rights, but that God wants his people to pray and give to the poor because they want to obey God.
This has nothing to do with evangelism. Jesus' Great Commission says that we are to go out into the world and make disciples of all nations. You are not to keep your faith private, but your motivation for prayer and charity should not be "I'm going to make a big scene, and everyone will say, 'Wow, he's so religious.'"
There seems to be a misunderstanding in that evangelism is forcing your belief system on someone. This is false. Evangelism is listening to other people and their belief system, showing them the flaws in their belief system, and then giving them the Gospel. While it might seem harsh that I am pointing out the problems with the way you think and act, wouldn't you like to see the holes in your sinking ship and get out? This doesn't even have to be a religious metaphor. What if I told you that you were anorexic and you actually were not as in control of your body as you thought?
I kind of hate leaving it at that, but I can't think of a way to wrap this up.

Now, onto the real question!
Despite my being a Christian, I like Christian and secular music. I think the big problem in modern music is this strange need to cryptically talk about sex. And like most evil things, it is disguised under a good instrumental, good vocal talent, etc. My example is Daft Punk - Get Lucky. If you've ever heard it, the instrumental will be filling your head, and Pharrell's soprano voice. I think Christians should be discreet when listening to songs like this.
Another big problem is the swearing in modern pop songs. This is easily solved with clean or KidzBopified (thank you for this word, jacksfilms) songs. I won't provide much input here because Christians have varying degrees of acceptance towards swearing and it's not my job to judge anyone.
Now we move onto the big one: death metal. I've probably only ever heard four death metal songs, and I'd say it's difficult to say if it's right or wrong. I will not say it's wrong just because I don't like the style of music. I'm no pastor, but I'd say be discreet again and don't go outside your comfort zone.
I think it's wrong to have a government ban any type of music. As for a church, I think that's fine. Who am I to judge a fellow believer in Christ for his/her stricter beliefs?
Do I like Christian music? Yeah. Some music resonates with me more than others. Have you ever heard of TobyMac? He's a really good guy. Love his music. I don't know what makes him my favorite Christian artist.

Basically, banning music violates freedom of expression. Are there things out there that I don't like in music? Of course! Instead of banning music, have discretion. And that is my opinion.

[Bienenhalde]

I am saying that banning music because of syncopation is cultural imperialism.

That is not wrong, but banning any music that doesn't have an explicit Christian message is some pretty f*cking hardcore cultural imperialism.

That would be rather extreme, but it would be a good idea to ban music that is blasphemous or immoral, and unfortunately there are many modern pop, rock, and metal songs that fall under those categories.

[Internationalist Bastard]

That is not wrong, but banning any music that doesn't have an explicit Christian message is some pretty f*cking hardcore cultural imperialism.

That would be rather extreme, but it would be a good idea to ban music that is blasphemous or immoral, and unfortunately there are many modern pop, rock, and metal songs that fall under those categories.

What would we get out of banning blasphemy?

[Geneviev]

That is not wrong, but banning any music that doesn't have an explicit Christian message is some pretty f*cking hardcore cultural imperialism.

That would be rather extreme, but it would be a good idea to ban music that is blasphemous or immoral, and unfortunately there are many modern pop, rock, and metal songs that fall under those categories.

Don't ban blasphemous music please. That would include Twenty One Pilots due to their Bible references. And don't ban immoral music. That's literally everything else.

[Freezic Vast]

Banning music because it's "blasphemy" is a ridiculous idea that would only work in theocracies, which the U.S. is not, and neither is most if not all of the western civilized nations.

[Gracia Divina]

You seem to be arguing against reading the Bible and spreading its word. That seems quite un-Christian. But yes it is off topic. Perhaps we should stop.

If quotes from the Bible are an argument against reading it, it's probably not prime literature.

Not the verses but the opinion he started with. Why bother reading the Bible at all if we cannot know the mind of the Lord. What matters is that we read and obey Him. Sorry I said I would stop replying but really it is hard to resist defending yourself!

[The Free Joy State]

That would be rather extreme, but it would be a good idea to ban music that is blasphemous or immoral, and unfortunately there are many modern pop, rock, and metal songs that fall under those categories.

Don't ban blasphemous music please. That would include Twenty One Pilots due to their Bible references. And don't ban immoral music. That's literally everything else.

Not to mention that "immoral" is such a vague and subjective word that depends entirely on the whims of who's doing the judging.

To some minds, the "wrong" political opinion is immoral (seeing liberals and Satanism equated is often entertaining).

[Ifreann]

I'd be totally down to ban rock music, but only because I'm guessing an illegal, underground rock concert would be loads of fun.

[Gracia Divina]

I'd be totally down to ban rock music, but only because I'm guessing an illegal, underground rock concert would be loads of fun.

Probably it would be unsafe.

[Geneviev]

I'd be totally down to ban rock music, but only because I'm guessing an illegal, underground rock concert would be loads of fun.

That does sound great actually.

[The Free Joy State]

I'd be totally down to ban rock music, but only because I'm guessing an illegal, underground rock concert would be loads of fun.

Or the day every radio station becomes Radio Caroline, circa late 1960s.

[Petrolheadia]

If quotes from the Bible are an argument against reading it, it's probably not prime literature.

Not the verses but the opinion he started with. Why bother reading the Bible at all if we cannot know the mind of the Lord.

That's why I have 4 copies and read none of them.