Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Chris on March 16, 2014, 07:22:06 PM
-
A musician is defined as a person who wrote songs, lead a group of people in singing and worship, or who was described in the Bible as being a musician by profession.
An Enhancement involves music if it does one of three things:
Represents all or part of a song or Psalm.
Represents an event that was noted for its music.
Represents a musical instrument or singing.
The first character I'll tackle is Simeon. His story can be found in Luke 2:22-40. Upon seeing and holding Jesus for the first time, he uttered what would become the Nunc Dimittis, which Redemption treats as involving music. Essentially, Simeon wrote a hymn, and thus, should be considered a musician under Redemption definitions.
Isaiah wrote four Servant Songs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_songs) found in the book of Isaiah itself, which most Christians interpret as talking about the life and death of Christ. Again, Isaiah wrote songs, and thus should be considered a musician for the purposes of Redemption.
-
Not knowing very much about the Nunc Dimittis, I just did some more research on all of this, and I very much agree with Chris. However, I also found that this is not a new discussion.
So I was driving to Midwest Regionals when I get a text from Olijar saying that Simeon was a musician. The logic behind this is that he wrote Nunc Dimiitis. We started looking further and discovered that Isaiah was also a musician, as there are several Songs of Praise in Isaiah. So I built The Deck again at 3:30 a.m. the morning before MW Regionals, as both John Earley and Jordan Alstad agreed that they fit the definition of musician. However, at nationals there was dispute and it was agreed that they should look into it further before changing the REG identifiers, and the former definition stood.
I can't argue with Isaiah, that's fairly solid actually, but as far as Mary, Zach and Simeon go, they weren't leading anyone in worship, and the bible never explicitly states that they wrote songs for others to sing, These are more like 'one-off's'. I'm sure if we expanded it to "Anyone who ever wrote two poetic lines, or Lead worship" we'd have Musicians as one of the largest themes.
The definition that Rob agree upon is "anyone who wrote/lead songs".
Isaiah (Isaiah 5:1) - Only indicates that Isaiah sang a song. Singing a song by itself doesn't meet the definition.
Mary (Luke 1:46) - This indicates to me that she sang a song, but that's all. That doesn't make her fit Redemption's definition.
Zacharias (Luke 1:67-68) - Ditto
Simeon (Luke 2:28-29) - Ditto
The scripture passages referenced don't indicate to me that any of these people ever wrote or lead songs.
Looking at the scriptures and history, I feel that it is very clear that Nunc Dimittis, Benedictus, and Magnificat were all new songs that were made for the particular circumstances the person found themselves in, to express their unique wonder and joy about the gifts God had given them. And as these 'new' songs are considered music for Redemption, it does not make sense why their authors would not be considered as having written music (which qualifies for a musician). For similar reasons, Isaiah should also be a musician.
I can't see why we keep having this discussion come up without these characters being made musicians...they fit the definition from everything I can see.
-
Also don't forget Habakkuk, since he had a song (the last chapter) that he specifically said he was giving to the leaders of worship.
-
I agree ^ Plus that'll make him fit into my Ruth+ musicians: D
-
Although I agree that all 3 of these characters should be muscians I am scared to think of the combos which may arise. :-)
-
Although I agree that all 3 of these characters should be muscians I am scared to think of the combos which may arise. :-)
Fear the Music.
-
I've honestly given up on this ever happening but it 100% should.
-
Elders! Where are you?
-
Hard at work on the next set :)
I can't speak to anything but the status quo on this one. The characters in question are not Musicians, and that is unlikely to change unless you can find more or new evidence supporting their cases.
-
Hard at work on the next set :)
I can't speak to anything but the status quo on this one. The characters in question are not Musicians, and that is unlikely to change unless you can find more or new evidence supporting their cases.
Change the definition. Because currently they fit it. Writing of music=Musician under Redemption standpoints.
-
I can't speak to anything but the status quo on this one. The characters in question are not Musicians, and that is unlikely to change unless you can find more or new evidence supporting their cases.
Has there been a serious thread since the one Redoubter pointed to? I don't see how Isaiah, Simeon, or Habakkuk don't fall under this definition. Both Isaiah and Habakkuk clearly wrote music which qualifies them, and Simeon is universally believed to have written the Nunc Dimittus, not just reciting it. There's nothing in any version of the Bible I can find that suggests Simeon that when Simeon said it, he was just reciting something somebody else wrote. I recognize that you (at least last I had heard) are in favor of making them both Musicians, but I really think that if they're not going to be considered musicians for Redemption purposes, there needs to be a good reason and the definition of musician probably needs tweaked.
-
If nothing else, add "except Isaiah, Simeon, and Habakkuk" to the definition to quell the arguments because right now your only argument is "we don't feel like making them Musicians so they won't be."
-
If nothing else, add "except Isaiah, Simeon, and Habakkuk" to the definition to quell the arguments because right now your only argument is "we don't feel like making them Musicians so they won't be."
Don't forget Mary and Zacharias...
-
I've been on the "Habakkuk for musician" party train for years now, and even seeing the "definition" of musician above, it still seems pretty clear to me that Habakkuk was a musician.
Habakkuk 3 concludes (NASB): "For the choir director, on my stringed instruments." So he had stringed instruments, and he wrote a song, and gave it to a choir director, with the (reasonably-assumed) intention of having it performed for people.
-
Haha, this is especially humorous to me as I put Habakkuk 3 to music several years ago after discovering this little "hidden gem" in the scriptures. Ironically me reading Habakkuk 3 was brought up by a roommate trying to convince me Habakkuk was a musician for Redemption purposes...
-
I can understand wanting to keep the status quo the status quo, but when it contradicts what the rules/definitions say, isn't the status quo supposed to change?
-
I've honestly given up on this ever happening but it 100% should.
-
I've honestly given up on this ever happening but it 100% should.
-
Hard at work on the next set :)
I can't speak to anything but the status quo on this one. The characters in question are not Musicians, and that is unlikely to change unless you can find more or new evidence supporting their cases.
Just for clarification: does the REG definition of Musician count as new or more evidence? If not, does this mean that we can ignore REG definitions about what can be classified as what if we don't like what it has to say (that is the precedence that you are setting here...)?
-
Hard at work on the next set :)
I can't speak to anything but the status quo on this one. The characters in question are not Musicians, and that is unlikely to change unless you can find more or new evidence supporting their cases.
Just for clarification: does the REG definition of Musician count as new or more evidence? If not, does this mean that we can ignore REG definitions about what can be classified as what if we don't like what it has to say (that is the precedence that you are setting here...)?
Likely not, it will probably linger as an inconsistency in the game because no one will be bothered to deal with it. I mean we have as much evidence for these guys to be musicians as practically any other musician in the game of Redemption, but they can't be musicians just because.
-
I think the PtB's should be hung, drawn and quartered once we have completed our coup.
-
As long as I end up in charge you can do whatever you want
-
I do know that one of the Elders has made a post on the other side of the boards with this discussion, and that it has not seen much activity, as few Elders are overly active at the moment. However, Underwood has gone on record suggesting that "silence is assumed consent." If Elders are silent on the subject and there is no resistance to it on the other side of the boards as of right now, I'm forced to conclude that we all agree that Simeon and Isaiah should be musicians.
-
As long as I end up in charge you can do whatever you want
You're wearing blue, so you'll have to go.
I'm forced to conclude that we all agree that Simeon and Isaiah should be musicians.
They are musicians here in Florida. Perhaps you guys should leave your backwards-thinking states and come visit the Sonshine State.
-
As long as I end up in charge you can do whatever you want
Says the Dome.
-
Hard at work on the next set :)
I can't speak to anything but the status quo on this one. The characters in question are not Musicians, and that is unlikely to change unless you can find more or new evidence supporting their cases.
Just for clarification: does the REG definition of Musician count as new or more evidence? If not, does this mean that we can ignore REG definitions about what can be classified as what if we don't like what it has to say (that is the precedence that you are setting here...)?
Likely not, it will probably linger as an inconsistency in the game because no one will be bothered to deal with it. I mean we have as much evidence for these guys to be musicians as practically any other musician in the game of Redemption, but they can't be musicians just because.
Completely +1 with this. There is so many things that could be fixed but are not. While we are fighting for this, we should bring up the Phillistines are Canaanites argument again. ::) :angel:
-
Why? That's historically inaccurate.
-
So now the Dome is a Super Nerd?
-
Obviously.
-
Dome goes along with the Super Nerd because the people chose Helix.
-
The Phillistines were Sea people that attacked Egypt. King Ramses 3 defeated them and took them as captives. Ramses built cities in southern Canaan for them to live in and taxed them. Later the Phillistines got there freedom and remained in southern Canaan or now known as Palestain. Centuries later the Phillistines were defeated and taken captive by the Assyrians where the blended in with other cultures and now do not exist.
-
Hey,
If a definition in the REG and the list associated with that definition seem to conflict to you, try to get a better understanding of the definition. We don't intentionally put contradictions in the REG. Seeing as this topic has come up multiple times before if the REG and status quo haven't changed it's very likely that there's a valid argument for the opposite perspective that you haven't managed to adequately understand yet.
The REG says a character is a musician if they wrote a song. What does it mean to write a song? When the REG and the Elders use that phrase they mean that the individual created a song with intention for future use. Therefore spontaneous worship in the form of song does not constitute writing a song. Also speaking or writing words that are later turned into a song does not constitute writing a song. There is a legitimate definition of writing a song that would include those things, but that's not the definition that we're using. The people in this thread saying that the ruling on the characters in question "100% should be changed" are simply holding to a different definition than the Elders are. That's fine, as long as they can accept that we chose to use a different definition.
It's also important to remember that there are a lot of different interpretations of various Bible passages. Just because you found an interpretation that supports your argument doesn't mean it's necessarily the right interpretation, the most popular interpretation, or the most likely interpretation. And it definitely doesn't mean that it's the interpretation used by the Elders in coming up with the status quo.
Using the NIV translation, Mary "said," Simeon was "saying," Habakkuk's words were a "prayer," and Zacharias "prophesied." If it weren't for the chapter headings (which aren't actually part of the Bible) you wouldn't have any reason to think that these were songs. Nunc Dimittis and Benedictus having the identifier Hymn is Redemption recognizing that the words of Simeon and Zacharias inspired songs and/or became songs, but it doesn't inherently follow that the original speaker of the words is credited as the writer of the song. Isaiah 5 is the one place where a form of the verb sing shows up with regard to the characters in question but there is no conclusive evidence in that passage that the song was intended for future use. The Wikipedia link in the original post regarding the four servant songs says they were first identified in 1892! Which I can only assume means that for over 2000 years they were not thought of as songs (and again nothing in the Biblical text identifies them as songs).
In other words, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests these characters were at least musical, but there is no hard evidence that proves any of them were musicians. So in Redemption, they're not. [Excluding Habakkuk since today is the first time I've heard mention of him as a potential musician and I've not done enough research on him yet to take a stand on him one way or the other.]
Regarding the comment about silence of the elders, on non-established issues silence suggests support for the proposed position. On established issues silence suggests they have not seen enough evidence to merit changing the status quo. The very first reply to this thread includes a quote from Gabe (an Elder) that both states and explains the official stance on the characters in question. That quote still reflects the status quo, so no further input from elders should be necessary. (Do keep in mind there are a lot of inactive or minimally active elders at the moment, silence from those elders means they are probably not aware of the issue and if you would like their input on the topic you should contact them directly and ask for it.)
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
The REG says a character is a musician if they wrote a song. What does it mean to write a song? When the REG and the Elders use that phrase they mean that the individual created a song with intention for future use. Therefore spontaneous worship in the form of song does not constitute writing a song. Also speaking or writing words that are later turned into a song does not constitute writing a song. There is a legitimate definition of writing a song that would include those things, but that's not the definition that we're using. The people in this thread saying that the ruling on the characters in question "100% should be changed" are simply holding to a different definition than the Elders are. That's fine, as long as they can accept that we chose to use a different definition.
By that definition, 90% of current artists wouldn't be considered musicians. Additionally, Chopin wouldn't be a musician.
(There's a difference between musician and composer with lyrics).
-
If that's the definition, put it in the REG. If the REGs definition is incorrect,( if because the elders definition makes no sense to me) then update it.
-
No, but that would undermine the redemption ruling philosophy. It has to be that half the time the REG is wrong, and the other half of the time the REG is right, and no one knows which time is which. If it was right all the time why would we ever need ruling threds?
-
The REG says a character is a musician if they wrote a song.
We need to clarify that this is not correct, and it says they are a musician if they "wrote songs, lead a group of people in singing and worship, or who was described in the Bible as being a musician by profession." Otherwise almost none of the current musicians are.
When the REG and the Elders use that phrase they mean that the individual created a song with intention for future use. Therefore spontaneous worship in the form of song does not constitute writing a song. Also speaking or writing words that are later turned into a song does not constitute writing a song.
The characters we are referring to wrote songs that are currently used as songs by Redemption, as well as by the Church as a whole. Also, if you want to go with that definition, how does Habakkuk not fit? He clearly wrote songs to be distributed.
The Wikipedia link in the original post regarding the four servant songs says they were first identified in 1892!
First, if we cannot use the Talmud as a source, we should not be able to use Wikipedia.
Second, that is not what the statement says at all. Instead, it points to Bernhard Duhm as the source of the modern commentary that led to the deeper understanding of Isaiah and Jeremiah, which includes identifying these already existing songs for what they are. They were already in the book of Isaiah, and we cannot say what others in the past may have thought, as much of that was lost to the years. Why is Magnificat involving music, or Benedictus, or Nunc Dimittis? If, as you say, we are excluding the authors as writing 'music' because they are described with words like "say," "said," or "saying," then remove the "involves music" identifier from those enhancements, since that would have to have been understood to be music by the Church later (just like our understanding of the Servant Songs).
In other words, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests these characters were at least musical, but there is no hard evidence that proves any of them were musicians. So in Redemption, they're not.
I have read everything you put forward, and everything posted on these boards on the issue, and it still very clear to me that there is hard evidence that these characters meet the current definition of musician. You may say I don't understand your position, but I do; I just do not understand how that logic can keep you in the status quo ruling.
-
If the Elders want to change the definition of musician to make it more stringent, I'm perfectly fine with that. What I'm not fine with is having enhancements that are labeled as hymns and related to music, and the people who wrote them are not considered musicians. That's not intuitive to a streamlined definition structure, it's just confusing. Clearly there are extremely strong arguments to be made for these characters, or there wouldn't be so much public support for them. The Elders (taken as a whole) could very easily include them as musicians, but they choose not to, and in the process, alienate members of the community. I know for a fact that at least one Elder is a strong supporter of them as musicians, and I'm fairly certain another one is as well, so it's not even as if there is some overwhelming consensus on the topic on the other side of the boards.
-
Any progress on the ruling front?
-
Hi everyone, I am relatively new to Redemption and the boards, but love the game and these boards seem like a great community. Something that really surprises and bothers me though is the lack of respect for the Elders that is communicated in the way that they are spoken of and to. I don't know the organizational structure of Redemption, but I assume as "Elders" these people are serving the game and the general Redemption community in a position of leadership and authority. As Christians, we should use proper appeal, having a spirit of humility and love when stating our position...especially to those in authority (Romans 13) and in the Christian community.
Of course it's okay to disagree...but let's do so in the right spirit (humility and love) so we will please the Lord and witness well to all. :)
-
Something that really surprises and bothers me though is the lack of respect for the Elders that is communicated in the way that they are spoken of and to.
I can understand getting that sentiment, and it is true for many of the comments on the boards in general. As a newer member, though, you probably also don't catch some of the humor (albeit sarcastic ;)) of some of the contributors that are not necessarily meant to be harmful, but you are right that the way things are approached can sometimes be a bit testy.
There is nothing wrong with us arguing with each other either, and it allows us to find more precise rules/rulings when more people with different interpretations give their input.
The only point of contention I would take with your post would be that Romans 13 is not necessarily applicable to this situation (beyond the "love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" part, which is ALWAYS applicable), because we are the customers of Cactus, not governed by them. As customers of the game, if we are not satisfied with the product (in this case, the rules), we have outlets for that. The Elders have been very receptive to input in the past (on most things :angel:), and that is what the meat of threads like this are for.
That said, if you have a problem with the way things are said on here, or think something crosses the line, you can always go to that person (or a mod if you feel more comfortable doing that).
-
Thank you for explaining! :)
-
Of course it's okay to disagree...but let's do so in the right spirit (humility and love) so we will please the Lord and witness well to all. :)
Just as an FYI, my "hung, drawn and quartered" post from earlier was my way of lightheartedly saying what you are saying. ;)
-
Sort of agree with Jesse, tired of seeing the same dissenting opinions over and over despite multiple elder ruling. Sure it might not make sense, but whatever. Beating a dead horse at this point.
-
Of course it's okay to disagree...but let's do so in the right spirit (humility and love) so we will please the Lord and witness well to all. :)
Just as an FYI, my "hung, drawn and quartered" post from earlier was my way of lightheartedly saying what you are saying. ;)
Yep, YMT was one of the people I was referring to who has an odd sense of humor that will come off as 'harmful' when it really isn't ;) I can certainly understand taking his posts the wrong way, but he means well with his posts (as he said), and he is actually rather funny (outlandish thought, I know).
Those who have been around have just gotten used to his antics by this point ;D
Sort of agree with Jesse, tired of seeing the same dissenting opinions over and over despite multiple elder ruling. Sure it might not make sense, but whatever. Beating a dead horse at this point.
We're getting information that some Elders disagree with the current ruling, and there are specific points given to support the status quo that are being specifically argued and countered. Also, if the rule doesn't make sense to the majority of players, then addressing it is not a waste.
-
Sort of agree with Jesse, tired of seeing the same dissenting opinions over and over despite multiple elder ruling. Sure it might not make sense, but whatever. Beating a dead horse at this point.
That's the point it doesn't make sense. If I'm buying the cards you can at least try to keep my business by being consistent with the REG. At this point I don't care if Simeon and everyone else become musicians. I just want them to change the REG to the definition the Elders use because currently they fit the definition,and that is just another inconsistentsy the game has because rules won't be changed to fit the REG just because.
-
That's the point it doesn't make sense. If I'm buying the cards you can at least try to keep my business by being consistent with the REG. At this point I don't care if Simeon and everyone else become musicians. I just want them to change the REG to the definition the Elders use because currently they fit the definition,and that is just another inconsistentsy the game has because rules won't be changed to fit the REG just because.
Point taken. I'm sure the Elders will chime in if they have anything additional to add. The need for this thread to facilitate Elder answers by repeating the same thing over and over is probably not necessary for them to arrive at such answers.
-
Spent some time thinking about this thread, and I am locking it. Responses have been given to some of the clearer Elder responses on the topic anywhere on this side of the boards, a lot of evidence has been posted, and I do not know that there is anything else to be added (agreeing on that part with MKC). The only thing likely to happen is escalation of the tone, which we don't want.
If an Elder adds more details, or posts in dissent, this thread will reopen. Otherwise, it will stay locked, and future topics on the subject that don't add any new evidence will be referred here and assessed with similar criteria.
Anyone with questions or concerns can PM me, thanks.