I don't Got Rhythm

Su Wei! Long time no see!

I don't have broadband, so I don't view videos, but I'm sure it's a hoot.

Since your thread has almost the same title as one I started (but has been closed) can I continue it here? Thanks in advance . . .

 

You might see that it hallows some.

If you know what it is, then you should have no trouble defining it in biblical terms.

 

Ok, since you know what it is, please do define music in Biblical terms for me.

I have to wonder though, do you allow the Bible to define or do you force your traditions upon the Bible?

 

I have defined it, and will, but I want you to do it first. I want you to be perfectly clear and unambiguous about what you mean when you speak of music, and what you think is meant when music is spoken of in the Bible.

 

What would be the point, Aaron? You have shown us more than enough that you don't think anything of today is "spiritual" enough for you. To keep on banging our heads against that same wall is a bit much when the outcome will always be the same.

Music is nothing but noise, pure and simple. Songs are nothing but words and are usually set to said noise and a beat. None of it is sacred or heretical in and of itself. how people use it, and the words used in the song, can give it spiritual or heretical meaning, but not always. A song in a foreign language means nothing to one who does not understand it.

What does it matter if a song uses a beat, or music? Every song has some sort of meter to it... if nothing else the ending and beginning of the words. A beat does not go against the bible, nor does music. Either one is an argument from silence, be it for or against. Only your personal eisegesis can pull something out that says otherwise.

 

Wow. This is incredible.

So, when you say "music," you don't mean a beat. Right?

 

Dale-c

Are you able to do this?

 

There. That is the definition of music.
Every instance I have seen in the Bible of music in consistent with that definition.

 

You don't got rhythm?


You don't got no grammatical skills neither. :laugh:

 

Aaron, I appreciate your posts, and agree with much of what you say.

That said, there are some folks in the world (surely not on these boards!) that confuse emotion with worship. That is, for them worship is all about having a specific set of emotions stirred. Music is a very good medium for stirring the emotions, as some have here told us. (Ex: Someone listened to ccm and was stirred to pray.)

I don't fall into that camp. Oh for sure I expect my emotions to be touched or moved when I worship. How can it not when one focuses on the God of the universe? How can I not be moved when I focus on the Savior? But to really do that, I must CHOOSE to do it.

For me (my testimony, no scripture backup) IF I focus on Jesus and worship and exalt Him, I will experience worship. Doesn't matter if the music has a beat or not. In fact, when music has a very strong beat or meter, I find myself caught up in the music and the fun rather than caught up in Jesus.

And I believe from personal observation that is exactly what is happening in the churches. Satan will use even something good (music) and use it to get us to focus on anything but Jesus.

Now, scripture DOES say rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. I don't wanna go THERE.

And some forms of music are self described by those who perform it, write it, and in fact "invented" it as the music of rebellion.

That says enough for me.

 

Well, back on topic ...

Funny clip, Su Wei! I LOVE the muppets!! I miss the show. Fozzie Bear is such a cutie!

 

Very good. Music is a form of non-verbal communication. It is human intercourse. It is behavior.

Now, is there a Scripture somewhere that bears directly upon the character of our expressions and interaction?

 

Good post, nodak. It really is very simple and straightforward isn't it? :thumbs:

 

Todd W. never did get back with his thesis on the biblical proofs of the anti rhythm position, did he?

From
Music in Fundamental Churches posts #85, 86

That was my site, but last fall, AOL shut down its ftp space, and I had to buy my own domain name. So now, it's at www.erictb.info/ccm.html

The people I was exposed to were the Chick circle (Godwin, Rebecca Brown), and an IFB class I took, using BJU/Garlock & Woetzel material and Tim Fisher's book (cited the most in the article, and he's also from that BJU circle). Then, other KJVO types, who are even more belligerent (Watkins, Cloud, etc) and some outright racist (Paulson --the purest form of this teaching, though covered up by the others).

They do tear down "rock", "jazz" and all contemporary, and of course point back to the cultural origins of the beat (and this from BJU, with their race reputation!), and the class played G&W and Fisher's Sacred Music Service tracks, and it was all the same bland style, and they had no examples of anything else from any other culture that was good. (Fisher tries to hold up different European "cultures" from different time periods as different cultures, but the point is, it seems to be all European that is good).
Again, they just tear down a lot, and it seems their styles win by default. (Fundamentalism was always cricized for "being known more for what they are against, than what they are for"; hence them being lumped together).

 

Music is thought. It's muse-ick. Does the Bible specifically address the manner of our thoughts?

 

Define music in biblical terms and suddenly no one wants to play. :type:

 

The clip is hilarious.

 

Because your "defining" isn't saying anything. You link it to "thoughts", and then appeal to what the Bible says on thoughts, but this does not prove your doctrine on which style is better than others. So we can play ablong and call one style of music a thought, and another style another thought, you have not proven from that alone that one style is a bad thought and the other style is a good thought.
So yet again, you are right back to square one with an unfounded assertion, and this is why no one ever engages your "definitions".