Question 1 answer: A chord is a chord, not a style of music. Question 2 answer: Metronome settings are not music. If you want to get into what beat is holy or not, a beat that gives a rhythm that people dance to in a sexually suggestive manner, I’d say that was not a holy beat. Question 3 answer: An instrument is used to make music, the instrument is not the player of the instrument, who determines what type of music is being played.
Your questions are off the point, and even so, they have been answered. The point has always been about the fact trying to wrap a christian message in secular music makes the music secular. It’s still secular music.
No they are not. Your obfuscation of the issue is. Again you have failed to answer the questions.
You say "A chord is a chord, not a style of music." That is correct as far as you take it. However, you were asked what chord progressions constitute holy stuff. Chord progressions create style and tension and expression (it's known as MUSIC). A chord by itself does nothing. It is when you put a bunch of them together to create music that you have something. WHAT SEQUENCE OF CHORD PROGRESSIONS IS HOLY? (You have not answered this question, just deflected and redirected the sense.)
You say "Metronome settings are not music". That is a true statement. However you have not answered the question. Maybe you would prefer the usage of the word 'tempo' or 'rhythm'? By inference you seem to think that anything that can be danced to is evil. Please reread the psalms. The point that you have refused to respond to is that you are making an arbitrary statement, and I am trying to get you to provide a concrete definition of your belief. You have not supplied that other than in your own circular logic track with which you seem most comfortable.
You say "An instrument is used to make music, the instrument is not the player of the instrument, who determines what type of music is being played." You state correctly. Now, upon the instrument, what sequence of notes or chord patterns being played by the musician would be considered Holy? Major scales, maybe a minor third only rarely? How about a minor-Major seventh? Soft contemplative structures with a largo tempo? How about energetic march tempo stuff?
Would it be the notes and structure of the music that makes it Holy or some other attribute? Ponder the following, which is the logical outcome of your convoluted argument.
How about if someone would take the musical construct that we commonly recognize as the "Lord's Prayer" (the one written by Albert Malotte) and let, say, Sid Viscous write the lyrics for it, thus rendering the words (which you say don't matter) to be something totally other than the Lord's Prayer. Would it still be a Holy song? After all, the music would be the same, and you say that somehow it is the music, not the lyric content that is Holy (yet you cannot or refuse to define what it is that makes the music Holy in terms that a musician can relate to.) By your logic, wrapping a secular message in Holy music would make it a Holy composition. If, as you state, wrapping a Christian message (even Bible verses I would guess) in whatever it is that you "feel" (but cannot or refuse to define) as "secular" music makes is "secular" then following the logical rules of extension, wrapping a piece of "secular" lyric in your definition of Holy music would make it still Holy.
There... thanks for clearing this up for me.