You say yourself that society’s morals “if they are generally beneficial based on a preset set of standards) is something we might also need to do…” but you miss the point – it is the preset set of standards – not the rationality. What is the preset, and more specifically, *who* sets a preset? Like I say, we cannot go back infinitely. God must be the “presetter” – the argument for that is a long one, and indeed the very one that I have said Bumblebee doesn’t need to make — because it has already been made. I refer you to Alvin Plantinga, Thomas Aquinas, Barth, the list is very extensive.

Ethnocentric perspective sounds like a nice way of calling someone narrow-minded. Which really only redirects the questioning to *me* and away from the position we are discussing. Am I narrow? No, but the truth is. Truth by nature is defining and exclusive. Am I narrow-minded because I hold to the truth? I don’t think so; I have studied (and as Christians, we are commanded to do so) every other angle available. If others are not “narrow-minded,” I ask them if they are willing to explore the claims of Christ, even (and especially) when they take us places we don’t want to go. I read what Christ said and, no joke, He messed me up. Turned my life all upside down. I didn’t like it. But its the truth, and now I love it. and Him.

Sorry, besides, we are getting perhaps wayyyyy off the point and poor Bumblebee has to sit through it even she doesn’t want to. (though I think I know the answer to that). Anyway, Happy Resurrection Sunday! Long live the Korban Pesach! (Passover Sacrifice)

P.S. I don’t really get the CS Lewis reference.

My point was this – though those points can be argued properly, they cannot be proved upon “evidence” in such a manner than the evidence it is based on must be based on something, ad infin. Where do we stop? We must come, rationally, and logically (if possible in any given discussion) from a common standpoint – standpoints that many people have now disregarded simply because they a) thought them outdated, as though a can of peaches, b) didn’t understand it (who said that was criteria for life?) or c) because they just felt like rebelling. And in that rebelling, against authority, sexual morays, or God Himself, we are inspiring others to do the same – but that when the house of cards fall because of it, we blame others, not ourselves.

I know what you mean, that in such a post, or argument or whatever, that we need to base these statements on more grounding than just our own whims. But Bumblebee has never really been known to do that, even though she claims it often. Most of the “evidences” and reasons for these said beliefs and opinions are listed well back in her own postings. Nor is this a class assignment for grad-school in which I would demand far more notation than even Rene Girard gives in his books. But your point is valid and well made.

Unfortunately, most people who disagree with these statements, are not as open minded about the reasons as they claim. People fight for sexual promiscuity and society’s popular forms of music glorify it and they rely on each other for comfort and assurance. A very foolish and circular thing to do.

As for the reasoning behind dysfunctionality, it is a good one. But one that should be taught to anyone anyway – they are simply straight facts (particularly with the statistics, yes) but people don’t want to hear them because they think you’re spouting “your own” morality at them. May be. But that morality has a real foundation. Just because many people like to or want to disobey doesn’t make that foundation (in God) any less real. It goes back to education and authority.

I think you’re not quite getting where I’m coming from though. We need to contrast two ideas: if something is morally correct, and a judgment on if society is dysfunctional. Since bumblebee used the word dysfunctional in her post, I assumed she was referring to the success of society on the whole, not if rappers are moral people.

You’re right about morals. Our parents and grandparents have held to them, and for the most part they are based on belief systems, and can’t really be rationally proven entirely. Yet if we believe them too, then we hold them to be logical and the right thing to do.

However when we’re judging if society is dysfunctional as a whole, we need to be more rational. Our fathers and grandfathers would be just as rational in dealing with this, studying society from a rational perspective is not a modern idea at all. To prove something is dysfunctional we could say something like this:

Having sex outside of marriage results in the traditional family being broken down. As a result kids are born into broken homes, which results in a higher chance of them committing violent crime (statistically speaking). Violent crime is something we would define as part of a dysfunctional society. As a result we could tie sex outside of marriage to a dysfunctional society.

Of course this is just an argument I thought of off the top of my head, and doesn’t take into account any actual statistics or factors such as birth control, etc. But the idea would be the same. I was just trying to point out that bumblebee’s post didn’t really do that, so it left us hanging like, “yeah, so what?”

Not only do I not think we do, I propose it is impossible to do so. Not just for this case, mind you. Anything that demands to be “proved absolutely” breaks down. This mistake is referred to in philosophy and theology as “Evidentialism” and then, moving in the same thought line, “Classical Foundationalism” breaks forth.
These ideas state basically that all knowledge (beliefs or even morals) must be built upon prior proven knowledge and the line must go back ad infinitum. The flaw is that nothing can do such. Infinitely speaking, we must see that we can never even begin a debate. The solution to this is a “properly basic” or “legitimately basic” : a belief that is grounded in a foundation or *is* the foundation upon which we lay our claim.

Modern men and women, since the Enlightenment have usually rejected these basic beliefs (ie, the most fundamental of which is “There is a Truth and it is Absolute”) because they dismissed all authority which claimed it – usually the Church or Government. The problem with that came when people who were not (are not) as intellectually inclined, spiritual or even wise started claiming “truths” for themselves outright – as the saying goes, “Modern man will stand for anything – except a woman on the bus.”

What all this leads us to is this. That the common man (and let us not be fooled into thinking we aren’t in that crowd, we are) makes his own rules, and sings about it. Those willing to listen are dragged on in the flood that music and culture produce, and lastly, sadly, have been looking at the wrong “American Idol” for so long that they don’t recognize the Truth nor Wisdom (nor real talent…) when He comes. Traditions are swept away because they are old.

Morals don’t die of old age, men do. Morals, speaking from a socio-anthropological standpoint, are tested and secured with age. Therefore I see Bumblebee’s point in the remarks about society and the music that relate to it. Do I think it bad to be able to speak or sing one’s mind? No. Do I believe things should censured? To some extent, yes. I believe the basic foundation handed down through our fathers (or Uncle Ben’s) that with Power comes Responsibility. With Freedom comes the Weight of bearing our Brothers and Sisters Burdens along with us and the Responsibility we must take – not share – of the Freedoms of our Tongue. Must more concisely, be careful what we say, it does have repercussions. Loose lips sink ships, and that not just in wartime.

Is sex outside the marriage good? No. Do I have to prove it to make my point? No. I could. But Bumblebee doesn’t have to dispute that. People need to be educated, especially learning their history and literature – then they would have already heard those solid arguments for proper Marriage, sexual relations and fundamental morality (though I completely understand that the spiritually blind will never see any truth shoved under their noses). But then again, learning ones history is often disregarded because, well, those people are old, un-evolved and dead. What does it matter what they said.

Hurmph. “Modern Man.”

(PS, I wrote this straight out, without planning it, so its probably chock full of mistakes and I might get “owned” on my thinking too, but hey, keeps me humble.)

But to answer ur questions, “Bumblebee”:
A) If you look up the definition of culture it’s the “customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or social group. Since music is definitely art (although some would disagree if certain genres of music are ), I don’t think one could answer this question any other way.

B) So I think it follows that the choice of music reflects the individual. For example look at groups of people. People that hang out around skate parks listen to a very distinct style of music, dress accordingly, and hang out with other people who like similar music.

With that said, I think your making a huge assumption. You’re assuming that there needs to be a well defined “marriage” structure for society to function correctly. I’m definitely not saying I think it’s fine to have sex outside of marriage, but what I am saying is that for you to be able to say a lifestyle in our society is dysfunctional, you have to prove why that lifestyle is dysfunction on absolute terms in relation to society as a whole. Otherwise how can we condemn it, or a genre of music that is associated with it?

Uhm…I’m not a RHCP fan… you’re gonna have to show me what makes this particular bassline so great (I haven’t heard it…sorry).

James: I agree entirely with your contention that music shapes cultures and can take forever to clean up (1960-70). We’re still feeling the effects of that entire ideologyfest. Ugh….
One thing I would take and run with is the idea that music written with an understanding of the past is better than music
that just repeats past mistakes(for example, some punk that advocates anarchy). But I think any genre can be found guilty of doing exactly this. We would be a far wiser generation if we learned that the past isn’t our enemy, it /can/ be our best friend /if/ we choose to learn from it instead of mocking it as outdated.

I don’t know. The brilliant ideas aren’t flowing today! I’ll check back later.

(BTW, I think we’ve reached the point where the original post is about 1/10th the length of the comments! I love that.)