Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Just on a historical perspective..
    
    The term, "Rock and Roll" was a ghetto term for fornication founded by
    Alan Freed, A Cleveland disc jockey in the early 50's.  
    
    Music is never neutral.  Music is a gift from God but always has the
    power for evil as well as good.  This is why we must understand who
    Satan is.  He's not just an element to personify evil...he is a liar, a
    deceiver..and is real person.  Jesus believed him to be a real person
    as he said ...For whenever he speaks he speaks from his own nature for
    he is a liar and the father of lies.  Music can be used for wonderful
    things...and I like all kinds of music.  But as Jimmy Hendrix once
    said, "Music opens us up to a spiritual plane.  When we get the
    listener to their weakest point, we preach into their subconscience
    what we want them to hear.  I believe he was correct and that's why
    music can be a tool for evil as well as good.
    
    The music makes you mellow, the drugs make you high, the sex is simply
    in this context is a counterfeit for love.  So what do you have?  You
    have a false peace.  
    
    -Jack

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 163.36                         Memorials                           36 of 40
GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"                      37 lines  10-AUG-1995 00:21
                               -< Jerry Garcia >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead was found dead today at a drug rehab
center.  I'm not a Deadhead but I do enjoy some of their music and I'm
sorry to see Jerry go.

I guess some people would say that Jerry reaped what he sowed, a fitting
end to a sinful life.  I think using illegal drugs is a bad idea, and the
Grateful Dead contributed to the drug culture of the sixties, not to
mention the seventies, eighties and nineties.  To the extent that the Dead
promoted drug use I can't condone what they did, but I try to see it in
context.

There are two basic tendencies in our culture: conservatism and
liberalism.  Conservatism recommends what's safe, what's worked in the
past.  Like not taking drugs, not having premarital sex, obeying the law.
Liberalism rebels against unnecessary restrictions.  It questions old
assumptions.  Liberalism in the sixties, the counter-culture, the Grateful
Dead, meant sex, drugs, rock and roll.  It also meant a move towards
racial equality, civil rights, the end of Jim Crow, equal rights for
women.

Sometimes liberalism goes too far.  Looking back on the sixties from the
nineties, a lot of the problems we have today started with the sixties
counter-culture and mainstream liberalism.  Drugs may have been
liberating, but a lot of people overdosed or otherwise wrecked their
lives.  Promiscuous sex might have felt good, but in the eighties and
nineties thousands of people died of AIDS.  The war on poverty did a lot
of good, I think, but it also did a lot of bad because it was designed in
a way that destroyed the incentive to get off of welfare.

Could we have gotten the good aspects of the sixties without the bad
aspects?  Maybe not.  Maybe the only way to change a culture is to push it
so far in one direction that you end up bouncing back to where you were
trying to go.

Good-bye, Jerry.  "What a long, strange trip it's been..."

				-- Bob

             <<< Note 1124.2 by GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger" >>>
    
>There are two basic tendencies in our culture: conservatism and
>liberalism.  Conservatism recommends what's safe, what's worked in the
>past.  Like not taking drugs, not having premarital sex, obeying the law.
>Liberalism rebels against unnecessary restrictions.  It questions old
>assumptions.  Liberalism in the sixties, the counter-culture, the Grateful
>Dead, meant sex, drugs, rock and roll.  It also meant a move towards
>racial equality, civil rights, the end of Jim Crow, equal rights for
>women.

    	It may very well be that extremism spawned the positive
    	social changes besides the negative ones.  I don't know.
    
    	What I *do* know is that we now can, with 20-20 hindsight,
    	pick and choose what we want to keep from past eras.  We
    	see (or at least most of us do) that some of the sexual 
    	liberalisms of the '60's were (and are) not generally good 
    	for for us as a society, nor even as individuals.  We see 
    	that civil rights are good, and discrimination is bad.  Why 
    	must people assume (and I am not saying that Bob assumes 
    	this) that retaining the positives of a past era must imply
    	retaining the negatives of that associated era?  Why is
    	it so common for someone who espouses the social awareness
    	of the 60's to also embrace the sexual morals of that time?
    	Or why is a call for the return to the moral tenor of 1950
    	dismissed with the expectation that such morals must also
    	include racism, female supression, etc.?
    
    	Do the negatives of an era (sex and drugs and rock 'n roll,
    	for instance) create the positives?  Maybe, but I don't think
    	that matters now that we are beyond that era.  To me what
    	matters is that we harvest the wheat that discard the chaff.
    	There is good to be gleaned from each era.  We do not have
    	to accept the bad along with it.

	Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll  ==  Wine, Women, and Song

    	Good point, John.
    
    	But there *IS* change in the way it is used.
    
    	What previous culture centered its focus, meaning, and identity
    	on "wine, women and song"?  Probably there was one or more.
    	What happened to such cultures?

    Nero would be a good example!
    
    -Jack

>>    How are Drugs, sex, and rock and roll, linked together.  

They're all acts of rebellion.  But kids rebelling against authority is
certainly nothing unique to the 60's.  


>>   Could we have
>>   had the Peace movement, the Civil Rights movement of the sixties, and
>>   the Feminism of the sixties without Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll.

Again, the rebellious acts were just that... doing the opposite of what
authority expected you to do.  Authority was tainted with bigotry, both
racial and sexual. So the youth of the sixtys rejected these (my guess is
that it was not on moral grounds but simply because it was opposite of what
they were expected to do).   Authority also frowned upon premarital sex and
drugs, so they screwed around and smoked pot.  Authority said that fighting
in Vietnam was a good  thing.  So they had peace movements and burned draft
cards.  And authority said "get a haircut", so they grew their hair long. 
If authority said "UP", they'd say "DOWN".   Again, they were just
rebelling, doing the opposite of what authority wanted.

Some of what authority was advocating was right and just and therefor the
disobeyance of these was wrong.  Some of what authority was advocating was 
wrong and the disobeyance of these was right. 

And now?  We live in a time of growing racial tolerance and what do you
see? Skinheads and white supremisists on the rise (rebelling again). 
Premarital sex is now widespread so guess what?  I heard on the radio the
other day an interview with some teens who were refraining from sex
(rebelling) and this was becommiing more *fashionable*.  Gays were bashed
and shunned for years.  Now we're in the middle of seeing all that change
with the new generation.  And longer haired parents are watching their kids
shave their heads.

Human NAture I guess.

-dave

>>    How are Drugs, sex, and rock and roll, linked together.  

>They're all acts of rebellion.  But kids rebelling against authority is
>certainly nothing unique to the 60's.  

    Yes, but the idea that it was common before the 1960s is a myth.  It
    troubles me that the present common expectation is that teenages must
    be at odds with their parents and authority.  Certainly the pop culture
    promotes this vigourously.  However, I do not expect this from my
    children because they are being taught aggressively to reject the
    thinking of the world and how properly to think.  I praise Jesus that
    He has brought me into the light of truth so that I can raise godly
    children who will live lives of holiness, substance, accomplishment and
    joy!
    
    jeff

    

    I disagree.  Children entering adulthood reflexively search for a
    unique personal identity, different from their parents (who they've been
    mimicing since they were born).  Any elementary text on psychology will 
    tell you all about this.  Usually, some years after the adjustment,
    they "rebound" a bit and reaccept their parents.  I can remember being
    a real ass when I was a teenager and marvel at how my parents put up
    with me and my sisters when we went through that "phase".  I can also
    remember learning how to think for myself at which time I evaluated ALL
    the stuff I've been force fed since I was a kid.  I kept a lot of it, but 
    discarded what didn't make sense.  It's all part of becomming an adult.
    
    History usually doesn't focus too much on this sort of behaviour
    because it's usually inconsequential.  No wars were won or lost because
    the teenage sector of the population was pouting... that sort of
    thing.  But rest assured, kids have always been rebellious.  Read Romeo
    & Julliet. 
    
    Not trying to tell you how to raise your kids, but be careful about how
    forceful you "being taught aggressively to reject the thinking of the 
    world and how properly to think" because you might find a lot of that 
    flying right back at you with as much "aggression" and zeal as you used.  
    This usually happens when a need for self identity and when peer 
    pressure at school and from "the world" starts to become more important 
    to your kids than you are.   Don't be afraid of it, and don't stop
    loving your kids when it happens.  Ride out the storm, be there for
    them when they fall, and help them through it.  It'll happen,
    guaranteed!  You can suppress it with even more zeal and vigor than
    before.  But be careful not to completely alienate your kids in the
    process or you might find them walking out the door on their 18th
    birthday.  A classic reason why Teen runaways "runaway" is because of
    overbearing parents during these delicate years.
    
    -daev

Yes, but where is there biblical evidence that, per se, wine, women and
song are evil, bad or otherwise immoral?

Sure, there's rules on how, when and where but these are not proscribed
as far as I can tell.

Also, the idea that children rebel against their parents is a very old
phenomenom. I think Cain was one of the first rebels.

And it seems to me that following shows some rebellion, at least in terms
of Mary and Joseph:

2:49  And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I
 must be about my Father's business?

This may lead to some future conflicts between parents. What happens if
the child feels the parents are not doing things the "right" way.
Shouldn't they rebel??

TTom

    So what's the major difference between to two titles.
    
    Drugs, Sex, and Rock & Roll.
    
    Wine, Woman, and Song!

    >>This may lead to some future conflicts between parents. What happens if
    >>the child feels the parents are not doing things the "right" way.
    >>Shouldn't they rebel??
    
    Of course.  IMO, you should make sure they're not doing anything to
    harm themselves or others.  That's a core responsibility of being a
    parent.  Be adamant about preventing and disallowing this sort
    of destructive behaviour but (IMO) it'll help if you make this sort 
    of "interference" in their lives appear as distasteful as possible.  
    If they still won't accept your guidance, put them in the hypothetical
    "driver's seat" where they're responsible for young children playing
    with matches and gasoline.  Ask them how they'd explain to these kids 
    why they can't play with that stuff despite their objectsions and lack
    of understanding your reasons.  Then tell them that it's sort of the 
    same thing with you and them.  Maybe that'll work, or at least quell 
    the anger a bit.  BTW, it'll help a lot if you mix the "distaste" with 
    a HUGE sense of the fact that you love them.
    
    As far as religion and God are concerned, that's something
    they're going to have to find for themselves.  The more force you use
    ramming God down someone's throat, the more forceful the gag response
    will be (once they realize their stomach is full of stuff they never
    chose to eat... if you get my drift).  
    
    -daev
    
    

re: .11

There is no real difference except that one's a subset of the other.

Drugs includes more than wine. Sex includes more than women. Song
includes more than rock n' roll.

However, it their usage, there is a world of difference. "Wine, woman and
song" sounds romantic and good. Sex, drugs and rock n' roll sounds
unhealthy and bad.

TTom

    Let me give you a clue.
    
    The answer to .11 may in fact be the heart of the question posed by
    Bob Messenger.
    
    IMHO
    
    Any one else care to answer .11?
    
    Patricia

    In my opinion, they both connote lasciviousness.  This is something
    that is condemned as sin in the New testament.
    
    -jack

    
    The difference is that one slogan doesn't limit debauchery to men only
    and the other does.
    
    jeff

    Jeff, 
    you are the warmest,
    
    
    How about taking the answer just a little further!
    
    
                                             Patricia

>    In my opinion, they both connote lasciviousness.  This is something
>    that is condemned as sin in the New testament.

I guess you're refering to using all three of these expressions together?

I wonder why Jesus chose as his first miracle changing water into wine?
That would seem like a pretty strong endorsement.

TTom

    
    One slogan reflects the oppressive history of patriarchal systems which 
    have so influenced the world.  In the slogan, which has become a cliche
    for the whole world, we see women excluded (only the lesbians have
    escaped) from enjoying what God has given to all people; strong drink,
    sex, and music.  These most basic of necessities are withheld by the
    overpowering patriarchy from being enjoyed by women and are thus simply
    another tool used to keep women from achieving their own self-awareness
    and uniquely superior contributions to a society literally starving for
    lack of female nurturing and relationship skills and contributions.
    
    The other slogan doesn't limit women as the first one does.
    
    jeff 

    re .19
    
    Taking it a little too literaly, don't you think?  Both sayings are
    fundamentally equivalent (obviously) but originated in two different
    cultures separated by time.  They both mean "have a good time" and were
    probably never meant to be considered as philisophical, social or
    religious teaching of any kind.  And they were both probably created by 
    a select group of people who intended their audience to be themselves.
    So if a bunch of drunken men in the middle ages say "Wine Women and
    Song... hic-cup!" amoung themselves, that's their buisness.  And if a 
    buch of hippies high on dope say "Sex Drugs and R&R... Wow Man" that's
    their buisness.
    
         

>    The difference is that one slogan doesn't limit debauchery to men only
>    and the other does.
 
    
    
    One slogan  "Wine, Women, and Song"
    
    makes women equivalent to the debauchery!
    
    

    .20
    
    My tongue was nearly puncturing through my cheek when I wrote .19,
    you've gotta know.
    
    jeff

    	re .14
    
    	I addressed it in .5.

   Tom:
    
     The greek word used in the bible for sorcery is pharmakia.  This is
    where we get the name for drugs.  Sorcery was condemned in the bible.
    
    But I was just suggesting lasciviousness in the context that it infers
    drunkenness and partying!
    
    -Jack

    re .24
    
    "pharmakia" = drug.        (ancient Greek)
    "pharmakia" = sorcery.     (Bible)
    sorcery = condemned.       (Bible)
    alchohol = drug.           (20th Century English)
    wine has alchohol.         (20th Century Science)
    Jesus makes wine.          (Bible)
    
    ergo...
    
    Jesus makes alchohol.
    Jesus makes drug.
    Jesus is a sorceror and is condemned?
    
    I don't think so.
    
    But this just goes to show how dangerous it is to extrapolate too much
    meaning from ancient languages and, in this case, their interplay with 
    other cultures which are also virtually unknown to us.
    
    
    
    
    

 ZZZ      alchohol = drug.           (20th Century English)
    
    Perhaps you are right about extrapolating.  I believe however that the 
    above is flawed since wine is simply fermented grape juice.
    
    -Jack

    Jeff,
    
    I would suggest being very careful about how stictly you try to stop
    your kids from experiencing thoughts other than what you consider
    correct.  My father tried that with all four of his kids.  Needless to
    say, it didn't take well with any of us, and you know what I am.
    
    meg

    I believe it is the responsibility of a father to pour his life into
    his children.  I understand what you are saying Meg.  It would be kind
    of like trying to force somebody to like chocolate ice cream and the
    possibility is there that the child will rebel.
    
    I believe that if something comes up where the teen has to make a
    decision, the best thing to do would be to present the facts to him in
    such a way where he/she would draw a conclusion to the negative, i.e. 
    presenting it in a way where the obvious would be to decide against it.
    It's kind of like selling, granted; however, the teen would hopefully
    develop a conviction about whatever it is.
    
    -Jack

    
    Hi Meg,
    
    I didn't say I was going to "stop my kids from experiencing thoughts
    other than what I consider correct.".  I said, in paraphrase,  I am 
    teaching my children how to think, that is, how to discern truth from 
    error.
    
    And I don't know what you are, Meg.  You're a woman and a counterculture
    McGovernick ;) but I can't imagine that's your father's fault.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    The father's sperm determines the sex.  I have never hidden the fact
    that I am an earth worshipping, goddess loving pagan who was shoved
    into a heavy Evangelical church for the first 14 years of my life, the
    last two of which were against my will when I learned the intolerance,
    bigotry, sexiem and racism this particular sect practiced in the name of 
    a trinity.
    
    Since my mother did not go to church, but practiced her faith quietly
    in the home I can't blame the exposure to this den of thieves in the
    lambs clothing on her.
    
    meg

    re: .10 (and the general "rebellion theme")
    
    Rebellion is a part of the human condition.  It is natural for our youth, 
    who  have not matured in wisdom, to rebel from authority, as they 
    (some, anyway) do not have the wisdom or experience to see the damage 
    blind rebellion can cause them.  Eve was the first rebel, followed soon 
    after by Adam (rebelling against God, their parent(s)).  
    
    It all comes down to wanting to be your own person, to do things YOUR
    way; when in fact, we belong to God and should be doing things HIS way.
    Ironically, doing things YOUR way usually equates to "following the
    crowd".
    
    
    
    -steve  

    actually God created each of us unique and individual and gave us all
    freedom to do things our way.  Created in the image of the Divine, each
    of us can co-create with God, a world that is beautiful, loving, and
    just.
    
                              Patricia