/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

https://pitchfork.com/features/interview/9004-death-gripz/

>We're feminist, we support homosexuality and individualism, we're in favor of a transparent world leadership.

>As far as gender, race, politics, there's this feeling that so much change is happening so rapidly, both socially and on a world level. We want to make it clear that we embrace people being whoever it is they really want to be.

>We are encouraging that. Even through being a listener of this music, or at our shows, we want to provide an environment that is entirely non-judgmental. You can do whatever you want. You can be whoever you want. Every facet of your personality can be expressed within this space or listening experience.

>Say you were being bullied in school: If you have our music in your headphones, no one is really bullying you anymore. It's like taking a pill that makes you super-human. The music has emotional suffering on the darker and deeper side of what the human experience is like, but it's also a beast– you could take a bite out of a bowl while listening to it. That's the kind of energy we want to project.

Avoid at all cost. Don't associate with people who like them either.

They want to replace Christ with self-worship, as their song Beware makes evident. They repeatedly mock Christianity, like in Birds and Eh. They even openly declare themselves Satanists in Black Paint and Linda's In Custody, even if they've denied the moniker before.

I guess you could listen to their instrumentals, but even then they're made with the same demonic energy than everything else. So you should just avoid them.

>>671849

Note I used to like them a lot back when I was Orthodox, since "lol God's grace is found everywhere anyway xDDD" and Orthodoxy is very self-centered to begin with. Never again.

>>671850

Sounds to me like you either misinterpreted Orthodox theology or were making an excuse to listen to sinful music.

But no, that's totally a valid reason to leave Orthodoxy.

I'd say listening to their music is not itself inherently wrong, but allowing it to warp your beliefs is. I'm a devout Christian and I still listen to all sorts of demonic music, Slayer and the like. It's important to separate your musical tastes from your personal convictions.

>>671886

>playing with fire isn't inherently dangerous, so long as you're careful not to get burned

as Christians our job is to flee from Satan and incline every aspect of our lives toward the imitation of Christ. do you think Christ would listen to death grips or permit his apostles to do so?

there are of course certain exceptions. for example, priests and exorcists might have legitimate reason to keep themselves "in the know" in order to better prepare themselves and the laity for spiritual warfare. the fundamental difference here is between duty and pleasure.

I have a harder time making up my mind on issues like: should artists expose themselves to evil arts in order to combat them? might artists legitimately present these same evils in order to edify the audience, assuming the context can somehow "defuse" the moral risks? and if a layperson manages to find edifying truth in some appearance of evil, does he still sin in exposing himself to it, provided his mindset is holy?

here the natural law limits our scope – pleasure in a thing inclines the will toward that thing, and so any experience of pleasure from evil itself must be avoided. but there is still a lot of grey area.

I winnie the pooh the music!

>>671897

>do you think Christ would listen to death grips

Yes, if at the end of the world for whatever reason Christ wanted to hear death grips, He would get to hear death grips.

>or permit his apostles to do so?

Now this is a bit more tricky, suffice it to say anything not of faith is sin romans 14:23. Why are you listening to *insert music here*? Is it in the faith to so do?

>and if a layperson manages to find edifying truth in some appearance of evil, does he still sin in exposing himself to it, provided his mindset is holy?

No he doesn't sin as his conscience hebrews 9 is still holy because he was doing it in the faith as to edify in line with 1 corinthians 14:26. Actually Paul mentions this very issue in romans 3:5-10

>But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

>God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

>For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

>And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

>What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

>As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

>>671902

you are not welcome on this board. Go away.

>>671909

john 10:31-32

>Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

>Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

>>671914

>5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

>6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

The fact that you can quote the scripture says nothing. You are a filthy heretic spewing garbage and trash on this board and was banned numerous times, but keep evading it. By far, if you had any mental capacity at all, you would've realized that you are not welcome here.

>>671902

>if […] Christ wanted to hear death grips

I'm not referring to ability, but rather will. would our Lord, omniscient and perfectly good, lower himself to music which directly invokes sin?

>romans 14:23

that which proceeds from faith is that which is done for the love of God, as judged by both will and intellect. this does not affect the nature of sin; it only emphasizes that acting apart from the will of God is de facto sin.

>Actually Paul mentions this very issue in romans 3:5-10

these verses actually work against your point. God allows evil to exist so that it may bring his glory to greater fruition – but this evil is still evil and will be thrown into the fire. the same is true for those in our actions. so, based on this passage, we might rather suspect that a work of art, even if able to edify, is evil if it contains some evil; and that we are participating in evil by taking an evil means toward a righteous end (edification)

>>671920

>You are a filthy heretic spewing garbage and trash.

The whole point of the matthew 4 verse is not to tempt God. I quote scripture, not filthy garbage and trash as you imply. If I have spouted something false or untrue, then tell me now and openly rebuke me using what God says in the Bible.

>>671923

Well yea exactly, that's why romans 7:14-19 exists

>For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

>For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

>If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

>Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

>For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

>For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Because our flesh has sinned, and will die. But the spirit which worships the Lord shall be saved as Christians worship God in spirit and in truth john 4:24.

>I'm not referring to ability, but rather will. would our Lord, omniscient and perfectly good, lower himself to music which directly invokes sin?

Probably not, save if it were being played as an example of what not to do.

>>671914

So works are important. I knew it all along. I should never have let that Baptist trick me.

>>671930

>Well yea exactly, that's why romans 7:14-19 exists

<For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

read: God will forgive me the sins that I cannot yet avoid as a consequence of my fallen nature, but I am responsible for those which come about due to my actually willing them (by, say, listening to evil music despite the warnings of my Christian brothers)

>Christians worship God in spirit and in truth john 4:24

truth, yes. this requires taking off your blindfold and viewing created things for what they are. hiding behind a personal feeling of faithfulness is not in line with the truth – it is self-deception, and Satan will be all too happy to drag you around by this leash.

>Probably not

so you can't even claim ignorance. ask God for forgiveness and the strength to resist illicit pleasure, friend.

>>671882

Orthodoxy entirely revolves around theosis and making yourself become deified through the sacraments. It is incredibly self-centered and doesn't take into account objective evils, which is why their natural law theology is so ridiculously poor.

>>671893

That everything is sacramental is what I was taught by my priest. It is evidently wrong, but the Orthodox like to be hippies because of a couple of things Maximus the Confessor and Isaac the Syrian said.

https://www.reddit.com/r/deathgrips/comments/8wvkny/can_christians_listen_to_death_grips_ongoing/

Faggots are lurking.

>>671942

This is what happens when you promote your board to Halfchan.

>>671890

But this is absolutely true. Playing with fire isn't wrong as long as you make certain that no harm will happen.

yes

the only POSSIBLE justification for people who would disagree are basically people who hate music and think it doesn't amount to anything. The video goes more in depth but you see it in some of the comments on reddit, just acting like music and what you focus on has literally no effect on you and it's just fun.

It leads you away from God, and is worse even because it explicitly goes against God and you are basically training yourself to be comfortable with blasphemy and awful emotions

>Faggots are lurking

implying that this place hasn't always been infested with winnie the pooh faggots

>>671942

if they had any peace they would not waste their time mocking the peaceful. miserere eis, domine

>>671959

>Then maybe, you know, find a new priest?

I have two priests.

It's a pretty common teaching in Eastern Orthodoxy. Are you even Orthodox? If not, why are you trying to tell me what the Orthodox believe?

>I dont know, what denomination you belong to, but I assume that you are hopefully Catholic, instead of pr*testant, then you should know that there are also """hippies""" like bishop Barron there, and divinization is prime end goal not only for Orthodox, but for Catholics as well.

Of course theosis is an important Catholic doctrine. But it's not the sole thing Catholics care about. An understanding of theosis without care for natural law, for objective good and evil, for understanding of the wrath and punishment of God, etc. is incomplete and dangerous. Do you even know how many Orthodox are purgatorial universalists just because of Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian? Orthodox theology is all about me, me, me, and how God is more mercy than justice.

>>671846

It's music, you have to be a complete fool to worship it and claim it as the devils work. Because in that case all music is the devils work.

>>671976

And some music literally glorifies sin and actually mentioned devil in the positive light. Be it degenerate garbage such as rap, or more elaborate certain rock bands, like Ozzy Osbourne, that has some songs subliminally promoting suicide (Although I have to admit, I like several of his works that are not…well…degenerate. Also, he's Anglican, big shock…)

>>671977

>And some music literally glorifies sin and actually mentioned devil in the positive light.

And it's still music. You have to a fool to claim that it's satanic garbage itself. Or you have to be schizophrenic to claim that it can influnce you.

>>671980

I'm not defaming him, in fact I respect him in certain regards, though disagree on others. But the point stands. Gregory of Nyssa also had similar attitude that, for example Barron has. Also, I dont know what you mean by "real Hell that you can't escape from". I think that its a permanent state of soul and from which you cannot escape too (as I've mentioned, I dislike apokatastasis, ironically, because of the writings of the St. Isaac of Syria).

>>671982

>And it's still music. You have to a fool to claim that it's satanic garbage itself. Or you have to be schizophrenic to claim that it can influnce you.

And porn depicts beauty of the female body. Can you see where it is going? We are not talking about music in general, but ones that promote sin and decadence. As trash and insult to God, Mankind and Art, have to be put in a trashcan.

>>671984

>Can you see where it is going?

The only thing I'm seeing is that all art is demonic, because all art is made by man and man is corrupt with sin.

>>671985

No, its not.

And even parts of art that have potential to be degenerate are not degenerate if they dont promote degeneracy. Renaissance paintings and sculptures have potential to be degenerate for perverted minds but are not and they dont promote degeneracy. Some music has potential to be degenerate but do not promote degeneracy. and there were threads where some people literally posted non-lewd monster girls, but they werent deleted, because, I repeat, they werent lewd, nor promoted lewdry. But when you see works that promotes degeneracy, when it actively or passively advocates for it, you must simply throw it in trashcan and get on with it. The fact that there are good music, painting, drawings and so on, dont justify their degenerate counterparts. But if you cannot even separate these two, nor see difference between average artwork and degenerate artwork, yes, it will be better to pluck out your "left eye" (in this case, Art) and cast it out.

Unless, of course, you are troll and either working to promote sin, or defame art, therefore sage

>>671987

>No it's not

Yes it is. Who are you to claim that some things can be art and others can't be?

It depends if it's wrong to be a fool.

Go down to the boulevard and hear the cars go by if you want to hear machines working with a crack addict screaming profanity over it.

Good for you for thinking about what you consume i the media. The average person would think the example I gave is absurd, because they like Death Grips but not what I suggested, therefore they think they are complete opposites. Because they implicitely let their pleasure rule over reality.

>>672008

I'm not. I just disagree when people say that something is demonic or so evil when in reality it's just temporal art that has no real effect on people.

lol you guys are some pretty sad hateful people

>>672274

No u

>>672274

>>672311

if you dont have anything to contribute, dont bump the thread

>>672011

Your utter detachment of the mind and context is disgusting.

How are you not influenced by everything you consume? The very words you used to claim it doesn't ARE ALSO a product of your interaction with your context.

This mindset, of individualism, is how corporate america rules us through symbols. Worse than that, you come here defending it as in "it's just good fun", absolutely clueless to being molded by it.

>>671954

Underrated post.

>>671971

>>671986

I might be reading you wrong, but do you think listening to DG would be fine as long he does not act upon what the lyrics promote?

If so, be aware that if you think it becomes evil through action it means you would be implying that as long as no material action is taken, there is not intrinsic evil in partaking in blasphemy. That is a very materialistic worldview.

However, if you think it can become evil through a explicit change of faith, you're still wrong.

You'd be saying we are conciously aware of all conceptual changes we have. That is false because it's an atomized view of very complex concepts and of our interaction with them.

Still, I think it again goes back to materialism because you think as long as it is indistinguishable to others and to the ego, it's fine.

>>672323

>How are you not influenced by everything you consume?

Because I'm not a poohing consumerist, I hide in my room and refuse to come out.

>>671987

>potential for leaven vs non potential

See titus 1:15-16

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

>They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

>>671986

<An intrinsically evil act is something like murder

First off none of what you said is backed by the Bible. Second, Saul/Paul was a murderer in the flesh and yet is the writer of most of the new testament books and repented of his sins.

>if the act you have done is murder, then it follows that it must have been evil, no matter what the circumstances were

Third how do you explain God ordering the israelites to murder the caananites in the old testament books and yet they were justified? I think you forgot to account for 1 corinthians 7:19 in your studies

>Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

This just goes back to the teaching of romans 14:23 that anything not of faith is sin, why are you listening to *insert music here*? Is it for a reason based off what God says? Or is it sin? I think listening to death grips in just about any situation would be sin, with the exception of it being played as a what not to do lesson in following psalms 149/150.

why is reddit still here?

>>672361

I meant consume as in intake of information.

>>672485

why are you evading your ban?

>>672474

The first two comments of yours imply that the

Reasoning is always aware of the outcomes after execution. It is not, so this set of rules are not relevant to making moral choices.

I really doubt I would be the one to convince you that the double effect principle is based on that false premise, although I would be happy if you realized it, so I'll respectfully ask for our conversation to move somewhere else.

But I want to make clear that my opposition to this specific case of listening to secular music is that entertainment shapes us in ways we might not be fully aware it does. A lad posted something nice here >>671954

In Matthew 12:24 Christ was discussing and not jamming to their blasphemy or finding beauty in their hymns.

Complete different meanings were interpreted but you wrapped them up to mean the same under a definition you've arbitrarily chosen.

>>672498

>Complete different meanings were interpreted but you wrapped them up to mean the same under a definition you've arbitrarily chosen.

True, but I said exactly that: their contexts were completely different, these events were completely different. I'm not trying to justify one based on the other. But despite being wildly different actions, they share one, single characteristic: wilfully listening to someone blaspheming. And it's enough, because what I'm trying to prove is that listening to someone blaspheming isn't automatically, always evil; just a single example, no matter what event and what circumstances this would be, is enough to prove this: if it really was always evil, not even one such example could exist.

Now, of course, the only result we have reached is "wilfully listening to blasphemy is in some cases not a sin, and in some cases a sin". Nothing so far about how many cases are not sinful - perhaps "listening to blasphemy for the reasona Jesus did" is the only one acceptable, perhaps there are more, the proof I offered doesn't concern this. The point is, there are at least some acceptable ways to do this without sinning.

The only thing we have proved is that listening to blasphem doesn't always, aytomatically make something a sin, and there are some actions in which it doesn't. Or, in other words: "but it's listening to blasphemy" isn't enough to prove something is a sin, one has to expand such an argument for it to be valid.

>>671962

You didn't understand Orthodoxy, may God have mercy on the priests who have probably driven you away from the Church. What you described is a current amoung some people but some stuff is directly anathema like univeralism and what you described isn't normal Orthodox theology outside of some western theologians. There ard far more liberal Catholic priests who will say the same things and more.

>"anyone who doesnt believe in universal salvation is an ass. anyone who teaches it is an ox"

>>672744

its not anathema per se and several (note for our friend who converted to Catholicism: pre schism) saints support it, but neither is it "le mainline Orthodox teaching" like he wants to present. Its a theologoumena that he could simply reject, and yet chose to abandon Orthodoxy in whole. It makes me really sad, but somewhat gives me hope. there were cases here in my country where people converted for Catholicism for this reason (being elaborate and attractiveness if scholasticism) but left afterwards. i hope that we have siimilar case and our friend here will return to Orthodoxy at the end.