Is it wrong to listen to Death Grips? Their music makes a lot of references to satan, the beast, the occult, death...

you are not welcome on this board. Go away.

john 10:31-32

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.

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

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.

Well yea exactly, that's why romans 7:14-19 exists
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.
Probably not, save if it were being played as an example of what not to do.

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

...

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.

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.

reddit.com/r/deathgrips/comments/8wvkny/can_christians_listen_to_death_grips_ongoing/
Faggots are lurking.

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

Attached: 43b8a82fe7895d37222a879946514ac6752ca4370b5d47823d0c726b8f70dc70.mp4 (480x480, 730.52K)

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

kek

Attached: Screenshot (58).png (847x139, 24.4K)

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

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

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

Then maybe, you know, find a new priest?
Why do you like to bear false witness? Why do you assume your headcanon to be a general truth?
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.

Attached: disgust.png (1000x966, 1.27M)

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?

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.

Like in anything that isn't intrinsically (i.e. the evil is "built-in" in the act, in its very essence; note that, contrary to what seems to be a common belief, "intrinsically evil" isn't the same as "very evil" - for example, lying is intrinsically evil, but usually it's a very light sin) evil, there is no single, universal answer - since it's not intrinsically evil, each case of listening to such music must be considered separately, because, depending on the circumstances (like the character of the person who is listening, their reasons for listening, etc.), it can be either good or wrong.

Now, the evil you want to avoid is being tempted to commit whatever sin you might be tempted to by listening to DG (possibly scandal to others, but this is true for almost everything you can do, because almost every action you do can be misinterpreted by others.)

How can you know whether in such and such circumstances a not-intrinsically-evil action is wrong or not? The double effect principle, one of the most popular principles in at least Catholic moral theology (I don't know about other denominations), applies:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=33215

Also read this:

jimmyakin.com/2005/07/bad_music.html

Attached: ma_ms_beauvais_ext_20.jpg (424x650, 72.29K)

I'm Orthodox since birth and altairservant, for your information. And no, "everything is sacramental" is not a common teaching. I dont know where are you from, but here at least it isnt.
Natural law is also present here and even Isaac of Syria mentions wrath and punishment of God. But the punishment is same as love of God, who scourges the wicked, instead of presenting some kind of sadistic scenes from dantes inferno.
Yes I know and just as I've mentioned, Catholics also have bishop Barron and similar. Personally, I have a distaste for apokatastasis but for different reasons, though I wish that it would be true.
And now you are projecting your personal beliefs and you are no better than some Russians who accuse Catholic mystics in being constant prelest and flirting with God.
And here, you try to install your human view of Justice, as well as missing the point that, yes God is really more Mercy than Justice, because, first of all, He is All-Forgiving and if he was more "justice" (perverted human understangding of it) we would be glassed already. And besides this, word for "Justice" in old testament is Tzedakah, denoting charity and charitable justice.

Attached: disgust.png (1500x1449, 2.88M)

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.

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…)

Just to prevent possible defamation, Bishop Barron never said that all will be saved. He believes in a real Hell that you can't escape from. The only thing that happened was that in some place in one video, he said that maybe, perhaps, possibly everyone will repent before their deaths and so avoid getting damned in the first place.

Attached: UgoAnon.jpg (443x583, 27.17K)

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.

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).

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.

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.

Also to illustrate the intrinsically evil/not intrinsically evil distinction:

An intrinsically evil act is something like murder. The very nature, the very elements that make murder a murder (and not something else) are evil, and so, if the act you have done is murder, then it follows that it must have been evil, no matter what the circumstances were, whether it caused more good than evil, etc.

On the other hand, a not intrinsically evil act is something like using a stove. It might or might not be evil, depending on the circumstances - if you are a child who doesn't know how to do it safely, it would be evil to do this; if you are an adult who can do it safely, it wouldn't be evil to do this.

Basically, music is like fire, or knives, or any other thing that might get you hurt - it's not wrong to use it, as long as you make sure you are safe.

Attached: 1280px-Consistoire_Saint-Pierre-e1498941423673 (1).jpg (1200x847, 184.42K)

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

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.

Don't project.

Attached: satanic nominalism.png (886x351, 133.05K)

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

No u

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

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.

Underrated post.

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.

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

It's fine according to whether this particular case of listening fulfills the double effect principle, which is wider than just "acting upon what the lyrics promote" - it concerns any kind of evil outcome (which is why it applies to pretty much every kind of action, even the mundane ones). (But yes, putting himself in occasion where he is very probable to sin without a proportionate good is of course wrong according to this principle. Putting yourself in a situation in which you will (in the normal course of events) certainly sin, and sin heavily, is similarly obviously wrong.)

See the part of this comment right above, it should explain what I'm saying.

What do you mean by "partaking"?

Is it "intentionally listening to someone saying something blasphemous"? If this is the case, of course it's not inherently (i.e. intrinsically) evil - saying it is leads to absurd situations. If I can point to you even one situation when it's not wrong, your assertion fails, because if there is any situation when it's not wrong, it can't be inherently wrong. And there are many obvious situations when it's not wrong: for example, Bible quotes a blasphemy in Matthew 12:24. Of course Jesus didn't sin by listening to their blasphemy. It's true, this is a very different context: but the context doesn't change the fact that it's listening to someone blaspheming, and again, if there is even a single example of this, no matter the context, in which it's not wrong, it can't be inherently wrong.

In such case, we must conclude that, since it's not inherently wrong, in some circumstances it's wrong and in some it's not. Our job now is to figure out what are these particular circumstances.

If by "partaking" you mean actually blaspheming as a result of listening to the music, then of course it's a sin - but if you went by the principles I wrote about, you would reach the result that if this is happening with you, listening to this music is, precisely because of this happening, in your case wrong.

Refer to the double effect principle I posted above. It's a very general principle, and in "bad outcomes vs good outcomes", the word "outcomes" is as general and has as wide range of meanings as it looks. It's not just "immediate, visible, material outcomes", it's "outcomes".

Attached: 0qs8c7roj0e01.jpg (1280x1780, 486.63K)

See titus 1:15-16

Those damn tiggers, faggots, and gooks are going to leak into our pure and holy board.

I meant consume as in intake of information.

why are you evading your ban?

shut up monkey

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

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.

People please stop namedropping 8ch on other websites especially reddit and halfchan

Attached: Blank _43d4c0aca7c30d811f24fe3e50fbfbe8.jpg (516x485, 35.82K)

winnie the pooh off reddit tigger

Attached: Blank _a4d57522b9f76edea2c2edcae209f429.mp4 (326x244, 646.02K)

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.

Well now we know why there's been a spike in retarded posts.

Attached: -_-.jpg (425x292, 38.89K)

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.

...

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.