Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

It's very simple. Communication is behavior. It is a form of human interaction. It is behavior. Were we discussing ants, would I have to cite an authority that says an ant has six legs?

 

What is music? I want chapter and verse.

 

This will be answered once we're all talking about the same thing when we say "music."

 

Again, please do a quick search on Google. You will find no supporting documentation for your assertion that music itself is a behavior. You will find much information to support that music affects behavior.

If I had no idea what an ant was, then yes, you would be required to cite an authority that says an ant has six legs. Since I doubt the validity of your assertion that music is a behavior, and I've gone out and researched for any authority that supports your assertion and have failed to find such, then you are are required to support your position with more than just "it's very simple."

It's quite possible that you're wrong, and that we should simply focus on music as communication.

But I concede that it's quite possible that you're correct, and I've been using the wrong search parameters. Please take the time to educate me.

 

Really?

http://www.public.asu.edu/~jwang2/portfolio/psychology/culture.htm

http://www.jstor.org/pss/924582

http://www.eeme.gr/en/downloads/Programm_5th_conference_eng.pdf

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ngarcia/

This was my first Google search and it took only 0.15 seconds. As you can see, it is simply a given. This is also the first and last time I will do your homework for you.

To concede that music is communication is to concede that music is human behavior.

 

My question was my response, but I'll humor you.

From #200:

Music comes out of a man.

Now, answer my question. What is music? I want chapter and verse from the Bible.

 

I've attempted to be civil and reasonable, and keep the discussion focused on the subjects/topics presented, and keep emotion out of this; if you feel I've been less than honorable in my dealings with you, then please let me know where, and I will apologize for my behavior. I would appreciate it if you would keep the tone civil and reasonable as well.

I'm going to spend the next few minutes scanning through the articles.

 

Well, folks, I have been proven wrong. Along with Aaron's other links, I also read through this one (using "musical behavior" as my search term this time, rather than just "music behavior").
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNEA5ZWBdVbzy2AjBXss8JGvNYHEtw&cad=rja

I admit that music is behavioral.

Now, on to the rest of the discussion.

 

Aaron, Larry's questions were in post #154; I started a series of responses beginning with #158.

Do you care to address any of those, or is there another point you'd like to present?

 

I already said I wouldn't reply to everything. I'll pick key issues, and a key issue is the misapplication of Scripture.

Christ was speaking of meats, and meats alone when He said, "that which goes into a man." You certainly cannot take in another's evil thoughts and remain unscathed. Be not deceived, evil communications corrupt good manners 1 Cor. 15:33. Paul prefaces the statement with "be not deceived," because many are.

Now, answer my question. What is music? (Chapter and verse, please.)

 

Nope. My point has been made. The Scriptures do not allow for the concept of amoral behavior. All behavior is either good or evil, and that answers the title of the thread.

You will then ask me which musical behaviors are evil. My response is, see for yourself. The Scriptures condemn immoderate behavior. Any style that can be classified as excessive or riotous would, therefore, be off limits for the Christian. When Paul spoke of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, he was speaking of styles. An hymn was a specific Greek style contrasted with its opposite, the dithyramb. Both hymns and dithyrambs were songs of praise to deities, but dithyrambs were characterized by druken revelry. (They were, afterall, composed to Bacchus, the god of wine.) Dithyrambic and Bacchanalian are English words meaning riotous.

You then ask, who defines immoderate or riotous? My answer would be, God does, but that's for another thread.

 

And then, as I have done with Larry, I would point you to the story of when David danced, and his wife rebuked him for it because it was "immoderate behavior," to which he basically told her that she was wrong because he was doing it unto God.

 

They also lit candles, burned incense, offered grain, butchered animals and flung blood around.

The OT was a carnal, temporary parenthesis in God's work of Redemption, full of types and shadows, and not the reality. So when citing the accounts, make certain it's the spiritual application that you're illuminating.

But just for kicks and grins, let's say that the outward appearance of this event applies to NT worship. Are you reading it correctly? Was what David did really immoderate, or are you accepting as true the bitter accusation of an unhappy, unloved wife?

 

How was sacrifice of the best by God's people carnal and unholy?

 

I didn't say "unholy." I said carnal and temporary.

1) God declared it carnal, Heb. 7:16.
2) It was ineffectual
3) It is inferior to the NT.

Basic Christianity 101.

 

Granted, my mind works in different realities than most others; just ask my wife. But I believe this passage exemplifies a spiritual application with regards to this conversation.

When you look at the passage, and you see indications of wording of David being "unclothed" (not naked, mind you), one then has to determine for themselves whether David was being immoderate. His wife, being ungodly, found fault; but David was not alone in what he was doing. Although scripture doesn't identify the reactions of the other people present, there were others who were participating with David.

Behavior that may "appear" immoderate to some, is fully recognized as praising and worshipping by others. That, sir, is the spiritual application here.

Now, to stretch it further and run the risk of possibly twisting scripture to my own interpretation--but I hope and pray that I'm not--I couple this understanding with the principle found in Romans 14: one man says we must worship on a certain day; another man says it doesn't matter. One man says eating meat is sinful; another says it is not. But Paul knew, and was persuaded by the Lord, that there is nothing unclean of itself.

Our charge is to not be a stumbling block to our brethren, and follow after the things that make for peace and edification.

Does that make sense? Or am I piping sounds that only I understand, and therefore should re-think my position?

 

You're applying Scriptural principles to music. You and I will disagree on where to draw the line, but, unless I'm misunderstanding you, you at least agree that there are Scriptures that directly apply to the morality of music. That was all I was concerned with. :thumbs:

 

Actually, to be technically correct, those scriptures apply to much more than just music. They apply to the morality of everything we do, and especially how it is perceived by fellow Christians.

Although my original premise (that I hadn't yet made publicly known) hinged around Romans 14, and that principle hasn't changed...I did have to somewhat change my way of thinking after being provided information that I previously didn't have.

Unfortunately, it hasn't changed any of my responses to Larry.