Debunked: The "Sin" of Instrumental Worship

This should be a rather interesting post.

My attention was drawn to an article giving ten reasons why instrumental music is wrong in worship.  What my post about is simple: showing you all how wrong the article is.  Thus, I debunk!

1. There is no command in the New Testament for Christians to use instruments of music in the worship of the church.
   
   The Book of Psalms is a collection of 150 worship songs, the 150th of which says "Praise Him with trumpet and sound; praise Him with harp and lyre.  Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe." (Psalm 150:3-4 [NASB]).  This Psalm was written by King David of Israel, who is described in the Bible as being a man after God's own heart.  Surely, a man so close to God would not dare sin against Him by worshiping in a way that God forbade.  There may be no command in the New Testament for instrumental worship, but such music is rampant in the Old Testament, and if you accept one part of the Bible, you would do well to accept the entire thing.
    
2. There is no example in the New Testament of a church, apostle, teacher, or any Christian ever using an instrument in worship.
   
   Again, there are many examples of this in the Old Testament, which is still completely valid and crucial to modern day Christianity.  The Old and New Testament are actually extremely similar, so to reject the Old Testament to force your argument is extremely foolish and ignorant.  Furthermore, it is irrelevant that there are no New Testament examples.  There are no examples of anyone in the New Testament going to the bathroom.  Does that make defecating a sin?
    
3. It is not faith, therefore it is a sin (Romans 14:23).
   
   I shall quote the cited verse: "But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin" (NASB).  In this passage (this is where I apply proper context), the author of Romans is advising the Christians in Rome not to do anything that causes their brethren to stumble in their faith.
   
   In Jewish culture, eating pork is ceremonially unclean.  I am not a Messianic Jew (a Jew who believes that Jesus was the Messiah, and so a "Jewish Christian", so to speak), and so I was never forbidden from eating pork.  However, because I do not wish my Messianic Jewish brother to stumble, I will not eat unclean food in his presence.  In fact, I would not do so around any sort of Jew, or a Muslim, or even a common vegetarian.  That is what the verse that the site was using is supposed to mean.
   
   By that logic, it could be argued that you should not participate in instrumental worship if it will cause one of your brethren to stumble, but that does not at all mean that instrumental worship must be prohibited universally.  The verse they used provides grossly insufficient justification for the point they were trying to make, and so the point is moot.
    
4. It is going beyond that which is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).
   
   This verse says, "Now these things, brethren, I have applied figuratively to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that you will not become arrogant on behalf of one against the other" (NASB).
   
   My question: how does instrumental worship "go beyond that which is written"?  That is a massive and unjustifiable assumption which they provide absolutely no proof for.  What Paul was talking about in this letter was advising his fellow believers not to pass judgment on others before the time of judgment (during which time, all the judgments will be performed by God, and not Christians).  It has absolutely nothing at all to do with instrumental worship.
    
5. It violates the command to "sing" (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).
   
   No it doesn't.  That is another grossly unjustifiable assumption.  Remember that Psalm I mentioned earlier?  The one about praising God with various instruments?  That Psalm was a song.  Both of the verses that they provided here explicitly mention worshiping God with psalms, as well as hymns and spiritual songs.  Psalms were written to be accompanied by music.  King David, the author of many of the Bible's Psalms, played the harp.
    
6. Singing is commanded; the accompaniment of a musical instrument is an "addition" to this command, and therefore it is wrong (Revelation 22:18).
   
   Here, John the Apostle, one of Jesus' original twelve disciples, says, "I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book" (NASB).  He is specifically referring to the book of Revelation, because John had no idea that his book would be incorporated into the Bible.  He wrote it while in exile on the island of Patmos, for crying out loud!  What John was saying is that no one should add any additional prophecies (or revelations) to the book of Revelation.  Once again, it has absolutely nothing to do with how worship should be conducted.
   
   Also, their point that singing is commanded forgets to add that the very same Psalm I keep mentioning also encourages instruments and even DANCING!  Save your solemn worship music for Catholic Mass (which has organ music, so the Catholic Church must be in universal sin).
    
7. The use of the instrument in worship to God is a failure to "abide in the doctrine of Christ" (2 John 9).
   
   Yet another huge assumption which for which they offer no justification.  "Anyone who goes to far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (NASB).  The teachings of Christ were simple: love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; love your neighbor as yourself; and prepare for the Kingdom of Heaven.  Jesus never gave specific instructions on how to worship.  In fact, He gave us many freedoms on how we may choose to worship Him.  Jesus is always delighted when we worship Him, even if it is done with musical instruments.
    
8. Those who use the instrument in worship "reject" the authority of Christ (Matthew 28:19; Luke 6:46).
   
   These points are very circular at this point.  They are essentially arguing that instruments in worship are wrong because instruments in worship are wrong.  They make an assumption, and attempt to prove the assumption correct by assuming that they are already correct.  That is a very pathetic demonstration of illogic.  And just to come full circle, no: those who use instruments in worship do not reject Christ's authority, for reasons I have already mentioned.
    
9. It cannot be done "in the name" (or by the authority) of Jesus (1 Corinthians 4:6; Colossians 3:17).
   
   Yes it can, and it is done quite often.  These points are committing suicide at this point.  I can't debunk each one without sounding redundant.
    
10. From the above evidences, the use of the instrument in worship is obviously not from Heaven, so it must be from men (Matthew 21:25).
    
    They did it AGAIN!!!  They assumed they were already correct, so they could bring in their final point!  First off, they provided no evidence, only Scripture verses quoted way out of context and a legalistic theology WHICH, ironically enough, IS FROM MEN!  Not only is the author of this article an idiot, but also a blatant hypocrite!

But wait, it gets better!  Here's how the article is concluded:

From the above Scriptures, we can now "clearly" answer this question, "Can Christians use musical instruments in worship and still be pleasing to God?"

I am sorry, idiot who wrote this article, but the answer is "Yes, God is overjoyed when we worship Him, instruments or no instruments."  He is infinitely more gracious than you can ever hope to be.  It's people like you, who treat the Bible like a book of laws to be forced upon others, to whom Jesus said, "Woe to you!"  I would say, "God have mercy on your soul," but not only is that tremendously cliché, but I also know that God already will be.

God loves music, and music is made with instruments.  Get over it.

On Agnosticism

By definition, an Agnostic knows nothing.

Are you searching Dictionary.com to prove me wrong?  The word agnostic, and many other words in the wonderfully corrupted language we call English, has had its definition warped by colloquial and idiomatic influences.  I, being a lexical purist, vehemently eschew such distracting cultural movements and adhere to the true definition of agnostic.  And by this true definition, an Agnostic does not know anything.

Let's take agnostic back to its roots to ascertain its true meaning.  We see it has the prefix a-, which means "without", and also the Greek gnosis, which means "knowledge".  With this we see that agnostic means "without knowledge", so an Agnostic truly does know nothing.  More specifically, an Agnostic makes no claims to having knowledge.

Take a look at this wonderful chart I found laying around on Wikipedia (do not worry.  I referenced the article from which I took this image, and that article is indeed accurate, despite Wikipedia's infamous reputation):

At the right side of the image, we see a bar which represents one's claim to knowledge.  At the bottom, there is a bar representing one's strength of belief.  The top of the Knowledge bar indicates no claim to knowledge, and the far right of the Belief bar indicates no belief.  Thus, you can infer from this diagram that an Atheist has no belief in a god, but the amount of knowledge the Atheist claims to have in this regard can vary greatly.  A Theist has belief in a god, but again, the amount of knowledge claimed could vary.

This is where Gnosticism and Agnosticism come in to play.  These two philosophical methods determine certainty.  For example, and Agnostic Atheist (which is what most people think of when someone says they are "an Agnostic") has no belief in a god, but does not claim with any certainty to know whether any sort of deity does or does not exist.  Contrariwise, a Gnostic Theist has a belief in a god, and claims to know for certain that there is one.

Whether or not the person's beliefs are justified and indeed factual are another story entirely.  I shall save that for another blog post.  For now, let's remove the theology from Agnosticism and focus on the philosophy.

"I don't know and I can't know."

That statement, dear reader, is Agnosticism.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the existence of a deity.  It is instead a question of whether or not anything can be known.  I find this interesting, because if Agnosticism is justifiable, then by the logic of agnostic thinking, an Agnostic is by definition incapable of knowing that they are agnostic.  Therefore, anyone who calls themselves an Agnostic is either mistaken or lying!  With the understanding that agnosticism has had its meaning corrupted over the years, we find that most who identify themselves as "agnostic" are simply mistaken.

Everyone has doubts, naturally.  In this way, everyone at some point has a measure of agnosticism.  We can know some things for certain—as René Descartes deduced: "I think; therefore, I am."  Other things are rather uncertain, such as the origin of the Universe.

If you believe something, you must declare at least some agnosticism.  One does not know beliefs; one believes beliefs.  That is exactly why beliefs are called "beliefs": they are not factual!  For this reason, we see Agnostic Theists, who say that while they believe that there is at least one deity, they cannot say this with any certainty, and so they simply have faith that their belief is justified.  I personally do not have any doubt that there is a god (at least, not now!), but I do acknowledge that I could easily be wrong, so I must be an Agnostic Theist.

In conclusion, if a person identifies as an "Agnostic", it is safe to say that they probably mean "Agnostic Atheist".  Do you see why definitions are important?

The Illusion of Equality

Black History Month discriminates colored people.

It is also hypocritical, ridiculous, and creates an illusion of equality.  The finger of Modern Culture is now pointing at me, stabbing the air, crying, "He is a racist!"  No I am not.  I can prove what I am saying.

Black History Month, the month of February, is the shortest month of the year, having a mere 28 days (an occasionally 29 every four years).  It relegates the history of an entire people group to one month out of the year.  It discriminates the black people by separating them from the rest of the human population and focusing your attention on them.  That separation is called segregation, which is what the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s so vehemently opposed.  Any sort of separation for special treatment, be that treatment good or bad, is segregation.  Black History Month segregates and discriminates in the name of equality and tolerance.

The government really should rename it "American Hypocrisy Month".  If Blacks are equal to every other "racial group" (which is a discriminating notion in itself), then they do not deserve their own History Month, unless you also have a White History Month (even though not all Caucasians are white, and vice versa), Yellow History Month (which fails to discriminate between any of the Oriental ethnic groups because it has to fit the color-history-month theme, but is only understood to be the Chinese), Indian History Month (which really should be a part of Black History Month, but isn't because Indians aren't from Africa), Brown History Month (which could describe people from almost every ethnicity) and even Jewish History Month (even though the Jews aren't a race, but it is a religious group, and groups need their own months of history for some political-correctness reason).

I have pale skin.  I am not proud to be white, nor am I ashamed to be white.  Any sense of pride or shame based on skin color is the very zenith of human stupidity and ignorance.  In fact, I disagree with even calling myself "white".  My skin is not white.  It is clearly skin-colored.  I do not look like a vampire.  Why am I "white"?  By definition, I am not even Caucasian!  I have never even set foot in Caucasus!

The very idea of "races" is completely illogical, backwards, and dangerous.  America is not at all interested in putting a stop to racial prejudice.  If America truly was, then every American would condemn the very idea that there are different races.  If America genuinely wanted to end racism once and for all, then every American would come to terms with the staggeringly simple fact that there is only one race: the human race.

I passionately forbid the government to define things, because they are absolutely stupid when it comes to definitions.  I wholeheartedly oppose the idea of different races because all races do is create labels, and anything that can be labeled can be hated.  There is no equality between colored people.  Those with lighter skin are still favored by popular culture even today.  Those with darker skin are paid less and punished more harshly than those with lighter skin.  This is a national statistic.

The entire country is rank with hypocrisy and double-standards.  It is tolerant and acceptable to have a Black History Month, but it is evil, repugnant, and racist to even think of having a White History Month.  How is that equality?  That is a double-standard which lobbies for white guilt.  Apologize for being white. Be sorry that you were born with light skin, you oppressive scum.

I am exaggerating, of course, but these hypothetical sentiments may not be so hypothetical.

Equality is an illusion.

No, not everyone is equal.  No, not everyone has to be equal.  No, equality does not have to be a social priority.  However, one's skin color should never have any affect on one's inequality either.

Michael Phelps and I are not equals.  I am a high school student, and he is an Olympic Gold Medalist.  His prestige and athleticism are both vastly superior to mine.  In this sense, we are vastly unequal.  I would address him as a superior out of respect, rather than as an equal.  Equality means nothing.  It is a subjective and personal judgment.

The cure for racism and inequality is this: stop comparing people to other people.  You are so incredibly unique, you could not possibly hope to effectively compare yourself to another human being.  Even identical twins are extremely different from each other—and I know this because I am dear friends with a pair of twins!  The issue is not equality.  The issue is respect.  People disrespect people.  It happens.  It hurts when it happens and it hurts to see it happen.  Equality has nothing to do with it.

Want to stop racial prejudice?  You can start by regarding others as superior—unequal—to yourself.

Debunked: Fundamentalism vs. Legalism

What many, many people consider "Fundamentalism" is actually something putrid known as "Legalism".

Egad!  What are these long words!  What do they mean?  That is a fair question, of course, and naturally I will explain myself.

I will start with the term most people are familiar with:

Fundamentalism:

I am a Christian Fundamentalist.  As a Fundamentalist, I am concerned with the essentials or the basic function of Christianity.  The basic function of Christianity is to live like Christ.  In fact, the very word "Christian" means "to live in Christ" in Greek.  By this, I am concerned with living like Christ.

So, how did Christ live?  He followed two rules: Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and love everyone.  In order to live like Christ, I should strive to live by these principles as well.

That is Christian Fundamentalism in a nutshell, but maybe that's too simplistic for your taste.  I shall summarize what the majority of Fundamentalists believe.  The following are the Five Fundamentals of Christianity as they were established by the Niagara Bible Conference and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church:

1. The Bible was inspired by God, and is inerrant as a result.
2. Jesus Christ was born of a virgin.
3. Christ's death was the an atonement for sin.
4. Christ was bodily resurrected.
5. Christ's miracles are historically real.

That's it.  That's Christian Fundamentalism.  The first point listed understandably generates the most controversy, for not everyone believes the Bible is divinely inspired, but take a look at something:

• Christian Fundamentalism says nothing about homosexuality.
• It says nothing about abortion.
• It says nothing about Evolution.
• It says nothing about politics or government.
• It says nothing about Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
• It says nothing about religion vs. irreligion.

What does it say?  Love God and love people.  If you can do those things, then, in theory, everything else will fall into place.  Your mission will become serving God and serving others, rather than dictating their morality or forcing beliefs down their throat.  This doesn't sound like the Fundamentalism people are used to hearing about.  Who are these people that keep getting called "fundies"?

Legalism:

Christian Legalism is the over-emphasis on discipline of conduct.  The symptoms of Legalism are as follows:

• Misguided rigor
• Religious pride
• Superficiality
• Hypocrisy
• Noted neglect of compassion or mercy
• Ignorance of the grace of God
• Emphasizing the letter of the law over the spirit of the law
• Asserting the view that obedience to the "laws" of the Bible, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption

A colleague of mine presented an interesting point regarding obeying the "laws" of the Bible.  He pointed out that only ten of all the "rules" stated in the Bible were directly from God.  The rest were created by man.  Moses authored the Mosaic Laws which are found in the Old Testament and followed by many Jews to this day.  Trying to adhere to all of these laws poses a risk of missing the whole point of Christianity: having a personal relationship with God.

It also puts you at risk of becoming an unpopular Bible-Thumper.  Jesus Christ was very frustrated with the Legalists of His day: the Pharisees.  He constantly called them out on their distortion of God's commandments and their pride in their religion.  This does not make all Christian Legalists judgmental bigots, of course.  However, the risk of becoming a bigot, or a modern day Pharisee, is very high.

What can bigotry do?  It can give you and the platform on whose behalf you are speaking a bad name.  A loud minority is a minority that is heard, and a minority that is heard can affect the opinion of the majority in the eyes of the third party.  In reality, not all Christians are bigots; likewise, not all bigots are Christians.  The Christians who are bigots, though, are the ones who are more ready to condemn and judge other people.  People generally respond negatively to such attacks, and therefore the platform these bigots represent (Christianity in this example) is given a negative connotation.

In the same way, Fundamentals are given a bad name—"Fundie"—because Legalists operate underneath that title.  So when you say that someone is a "Fundamentalist", what are you really saying about them?

The Problem of Good vs. Evil: Revisited

I feel compelled to further expound on the Good/Evil duality.

In my first Ruminations post, I briefly touched on the subject, but I wish to go deeper.  I believe I left some crucial points unmentioned, so I am going to dissect my first post and expand upon its ideas.  I'll start now:

What is Evil?  What is Good?

According to moral relativism, good and evil don't exist.  That's complete foolishness, because relativism disproves itself.  It is simply one's excuse to exempt oneself from responsibility and accountability.  It doesn't matter if you don't believe in a right and a wrong, because the country in which you live does.  No matter how relativistic your paradigm is, morality is imposed on you by society.  You are raised from birth being indoctrinated that morality is a thing, that it exists.  Most accept this indoctrination without question.  I, ever the Devil's Advocate, will gladly question this notion!

Let me ask you something: do you believe in morality?  Why?  What justification do you have for believing in morality?  By what standards to you base your morals?

If you answer was something along the lines of, "I believe in subjective morality", then you are, in my very humble opinion, making a paramount mistake.

The Illogic of Moral Subjection

Moral subjection is what happens when a person defines their own standards of what is "right" and what is "wrong".  It is very similar to moral relativism, and it is just as illogical.  To be frank, if you adhere to moral subjection, you have no justification to oppose rape, murder, thievery, dishonesty, or anything else that is popularly deemed "wrong".  At this point, you are probably wondering where I found the gall to make such a shocking claim.  Forthcoming: my explanation!

A person with a subjective morality has to set their own standards of "right" and "wrong".  This is something they must do on their own.  It is a personal thing.  Therefore, those standards are personal standards, and consequently can only be personal standards.  To impose your own arbitrary standards of morality on another person makes no sense!

Where do your morals come from?  From where did they first derive?  Did you make them up yourself?  That's moral subjection.  Did you obtain them from someone else?  That's moral subjection.  Did you acquire them from your parents or your culture?  That's moral subjection.  These sets of morality are entirely concocted by human beings, who are entirely arbitrary creatures.  If your morality is influenced by your opinion, it is subjective an unreliable due to its overwhelming lack of factuality (for opinions can never be nor become facts).

What comes about as a result?  Laws and political definitions.  Here in America (for I am an American), we have laws that prohibit certain courses of action.  Murder is a crime, for example.  My government has defined murder as a "wrong".  I have a few options, but I shall focus on the two most common: I can use my subjective opinion and agree with this definition of murder as a "wrong", or I can use my subjective opinion and disagree with this definition of murder as "wrong".  However, both scenarios do not in any way alter the true nature of murder.  The rightness or wrongness of murder (or any other action) is never for me to decide.

Where does morality come from?

Most of the time, it is made up.  The government of our respective nations tell us what is wrong and what is right, and we either comply or rebel.  Social acceptability tells us what is right and what is wrong, and we either conform or deviate.

There are those among us, though, who derive their sense of morality from higher, objective standards.  For Christians, these objective standards are found in the Bible as the Ten Commandments; and as we see in Exodus, the Bible and the government are in agreement that murder is in fact wrong, so subjective morality is certainly superior to total lack of morality.  Greater still, though, is objective morality.  Muslims find it in the Qur'an, Buddhists find it in The Eightfold Path.  Hindus find it through the study of karma.  Jews find it in Mosaic Law.

Those who do not affiliate with any religion, perhaps, find federal law to be their objective morality.  Even so, one should not define their morality solely by what they feel should be right or wrong.  That would make it far to easy to justify any sort of action, no matter how radical it was.  Rather, before any action is committed, contemplate it and anticipate the consequences.  Determine how your actions will affect yourself and others, and act accordingly.

In conclusion, I have but two questions:

1. Do Good and Evil exist?
2. Says who?

If you know the answers, then any research conducted will surely agree with you.  The truth is only found by those who go looking for it.

The Truth About Judgment and Forgiveness

There are two things that the Mind of Modern Culture either fails or refuses to understand: the actual natures of Judgment and Forgiveness.

And so, I have taken it upon myself to debunk the rumors concerning them both.  Contrary to popular belief, both—when used correctly—can be beneficial and even necessary to one's growth and maturity.

And, as always, I shall explain what I mean, and then you can come to your own conclusion as you see fit.  Isn't freedom of thought amazing?

First off, I feel I should address how judgement should not manifest itself.  If you are making an objective declaration about a person's character, once might say you have judged them.  If a person stole a wallet, and I called them a "lowly thief", I have judged that person based upon one action that they have committed.  In this way, defining a person by one action is judgment.  Likewise, condemning a person based upon their actions is judgment.

So, why should we not judge others?  Christianity and other world religions give that privilege to their respective deities.  The right to judge others belongs to God alone.  If you are irreligious, then you would not want to judge others simply because it is rude and frankly quite ignorant.  Who can know the heart of another?  Who are we to say we know enough about a person and their story to make judgement calls on them?

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged.  For in the way that you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."—Matthew 7:1-2 (NASB)

In other words, if you don't judge others, then chances are that people won't judge you, and God will also not judge you for being condemning (which is technically a privilege that only God possesses, so by condemning others, you're stealing).  It's common courtesy to be free of pretension, but unfortunately common sense is not so common.  But I digress!  Now that I have demonstrated what bad judgment looks like, what does good judgment look like?

 Judgment as Discernment: How to Forgive

discernment

noun

The act of showing insight and understanding something

In other words, perception is a proper application of judgment.  Seeing things for what they really are is good judgment.  Exposing lies for what they are is an application of good judgment.  Discernment is used by many philosophers (or simply by people who enjoy thinking) to search for and discover truths.  In many ways, judgment is a necessary thing.

Forgiveness, for example.  Judgment is necessary for forgiveness.  So...what's forgiveness?

Forgiveness is what happens when you give up resentment.  Forgiveness is what happens when you call off a debt.  Forgiveness is an act of mercy.  It is much more awesome than the Mind of Modern Culture thinks it is.  If a person has a debt owed to you, you call it off.  If a friend betrays your trust, you shake their hand and make an effort to restore that trust.  If a person has wronged you, you do not hold it against them for the rest of their days.

So, why is judgment necessary for forgiveness?

Let's say you stole my wallet and took the money out of it.  Naturally, I am going to want my wallet back, but let's say I don't care about the money.  You return my wallet, but you keep the money, and you say, "I am sorry."  If I answer you saying, "It's okay.  You've done nothing wrong," then I have not forgiven you.

First off, I haven't forgiven you because my statement was false.  You have done something wrong.  You've stolen! I didn't use very good discernment, did I?  Also, if I told you that you did nothing wrong, then I am basically telling you that it's okay for you to steal from me.  In order for forgiveness to take place, a wrong has to be committed, acknowledged, and then amends can be made.

Now, let's say this time you've stolen my wallet and have taken the money.  Now let's say you return both the wallet and the money, and say, "I'm sorry for stealing from you.  This belongs to you."  I can do two things at this point.  I can accept the wallet and the money back from you and say, "I forgive you; do not do it again," or I can accept the wallet back but say, "I forgive you, but you keep the money.  Just don't go stealing from anyone else."

So now my question for you is this: which scenario do you think best demonstrates forgiveness, and from which scenario would you be more likely to have learned something about forgiveness if you were the wallet-snatcher?

Well, there you have it: my explanations concerning the importance of judgment and forgiveness.  Use them well!

Addressing the Pursuit of an Abstract Idea

"Follow your dreams".

I am just going to tell you straight off: that is a bad idea.  Read on to see my explanation, for today I'm going to challenge the widely-accepted notion that is this popular phrase.

Follow your dreams.

Well, right from the start, you see this statement is a command.  The subject, You, is understood.  "(You) follow your dreams".  The speaker, the issuer of this command, is addressing you, commanding you to follow the dreams that belong to you, the dreams that are in your possession.

So, what is a "dream"?

Well, no one is quite sure what a dream is.  It appears to be your brain's attempt at processing random information in a logical fashion as you sleep.  Dreams serve no practical purpose.  They also, unless you are a prophet, are never seen to come to fruition─they never come true.

And someone wants you to follow dreams?  Don't listen!  They are commanding you to follow something that is intrinsically incapable of leadership!  A dream has no sense of direction, no awareness that you are following it, and no motivation to lead you anywhere.

This is with the context of following a literal dream, however.  What if we interpret "dream" as a metaphor?  "Dream" as a metaphor represents a desire housed within you.  It is a goal that you want to accomplish, usually a big goal.  "Dreams" are often manifested as the thing that you want to do for the rest of your life: something paramount and pivotal and moving, like becoming a famous author or musician or performer or movie star or politician, et cetera.

This type of dream is an abstract idea of something in the projected future that has no justifiable quantification.  You cannot guarantee that such a dream that such a dream will be fulfilled, and yet someone is commanding you to follow one!  Who in their right mind would follow an abstract idea?  That's like me asking you to follow the number one!  A number is simply an abstract idea that represents quantity and value.  It has no physical form, no mental capabilities, no metacognition, and, as before, no leadership skills.  This is the case with dreams.  You would be following something that hasn't even happened yet─something that might never happen─and people say "follow these"!  That is sheer folly!

And even worse than this is a similar phrase:

"Follow your heart".

Let me ask you something: Who wants to follow a blood-pumping organ that is totally useless unless it is trapped inside one's rib cage and attached to a web of blood vessels?  If you follow your heart, you will die. This is not a recommended course of action.

I'm being facetious, of course.  "Heart" is metaphorical here as well, like with "dreams".  Indeed, the heart is the metaphorical seat of human emotion.  In this sense, one's heart is all their feelings and emotions.  Thus, "follow your heart" really means "be completely dependent on and/or influenced by your illogical, irrational emotions".  Letting your emotions determine your choices is extremely immature and incredibly unwise.  Your heart cannot accomplish higher thinking.  It cannot even think for itself, so what brings you to believe it can think for you?  That's pure foolishness!

I think modern culture has it backwards.

Don't follow your heart.  Lead your heart.

Let your logical and rational brain make the important choices in harmony with your moral convictions─your "heart", so to speak.  If you feel something is good or right, your brain will understand this as a message of the heart, and accordingly come up with an appropriate action to take.  Think with your head; feel with your heart.

The same goes for following dreams.  That's backwards!  Don't chase after an idea that hasn't happened yet.  Make it happen!  Don't sit around and expect fate to suddenly bless you one day.  Make your dreams chase after you.  Like before: use your brain to discover what things you want to see happen in your life.  Ask yourself, "Are these goals reachable, even if they might be difficult or risky?"  If the answer is "yes", then your heart will send a message to your brain saying, "This is a good thing; I have a passion for this", and your brain will execute the proper decision-making tactics.

So, "follow your brain?"

Of course, this is all counting on your brain's reliability.  Indeed, at face value, a blob of grey matter on its own isn't capable of leadership either.  This is why I do not follow my heart, nor my dreams, nor my head.  I follow God, or, at least, I try to follow God.

Now, you might not believe in God, and that's fine.  If this is the case, you will not want to follow something that doesn't exist.  That is understandable, rational, and logical as well.  However, if you do believe in God, as I do (or if you pray to Buddha or Allah or Brahman or another deity), I would encourage you to follow Him (or them) as I am striving to do as well.

A heart should not be followed; it should be caged (hence your rib cage).  Dreams should not be followed; they should be lived, propelled into fruition by your merits.  Your merits will not fall into your lap, however.  You will have to earn your merits, earn your qualifications, earn the skills you need to see your dreams fulfilled.  Your determination and work should be such that they send your dreams hurling towards you in the single cataclysmic moment that is known as achievement.