1 vs. 1 debate thread

You haven't made an argument other than to say all things are good or evil because I said so and music is either good or evil because I said so. That's not an argument.

I absolutely do want to keep this debate respectable which is why you will never see me misrepresenting your remarks against my arguments by suggesting that they are an attack of the revealed truths of Scripture. That certainly was a charlatan act on your part. You can call me nuts or whatever, but DON'T misrepresent me.

Good, I hope your desire is the same from here out.

Now that I look forward to. See you then.

 

That isn't an argument nearly as much as it is simply contradiction.You can keep saying "no it isn't" over and over and over but that doesn't constitute an informed argument.

Talk about your misrepresentations. I suggested nothing of the sort, and if you take it that way, you are nuts. </font>[/QUOTE]BACK TO THE ORIGINAL STATEMENTS:

Here I make a statement in direct reference to your claim that all things are either morally good or morally bad.

Here you intentionally take my statement and wrongly apply it to the natural order of God's creation fulfilling His will. What I said stands. I will not tolerate such dishonesty, and if you try this sort of thing one more time, the debate is over. I really don't care whether or not you acknowledge this as wrong on your part, just know you will not be allowed to continue this debate by employing these kind of tactics. Thankyou, that is all.

No it applies also to the works of such. Deeds are evil too, not just people.</font>[/QUOTE]Do deeds happen by themselves or do people do them? How can we possibly discuss the ramifications (moral and otherwise) of any deed without including those who commit the deeds? People and their deeds are inseperable.

No you won't and no we can't. As I said I will not let you get away with either dodging or obfuscating this issue. Music is as much a part of God's creation as buildings and every other man made thing. You have not provided one shred of evidence to suggest that things without wills can in and of themselves be moral or immoral. For the third or fourth or fifth time I ask you again to provide an example of something without a will that is either moral or immoral.

Isn't it obvious? That's like asking how a story is more than the words.</font>[/QUOTE]Incorrect. Stories convey information and meaning about events. Stories are made up of words which in and of themselves convey meaning and information.

You're trying to escape by breaking something down into its basic elements, and saying that since neither element is good nor evil, then the whole can neither be good nor evil. That is a fallacy. Communication is more than the sum of its parts yet you readily agree there are evil communications.</font>[/QUOTE]Music cannot convey any kind of explicit meaning by itself. It always needs something in addition to convey explicit meaning. Evil speakings in and of themselves convey explicit meaning.

You say that only because you have a fallacious notion of the nature of music.</font>[/QUOTE]More of the "because I say so" argument. No, I say that because if music was really considered a legitimate form of communication (in that it could convey explicit meaning), wouldn't the Bible make mention somewhere among the many commandments to control our speech to also control our music?


Have to go to work, will be back tonight to continue.

 

Quite the opposite actually. The lewd picture is not merely the means, it is the message. the paint and canvas are the means.</font>[/QUOTE]Do you realize that you are repeating what I just said? Yes, the ink, the paintbrush, and the canvas are all "the means" in the creation of a lewd (or any kind) of picture. The ink and the canvas don't suddenly become evil because they have been manipulated in such a way to make a lewd image. The evil is in the communication that the painter and the picture by extension are trying to convey.

Once again you fail to recognize that music is not capable of communicating any thoughts or information of any kind.

If you are so certain of this then provide just one example of how I can know whether I am playing good or evil when I am practicing my guitar. All you seem to be able to do is make claims.

No.

That's right. No.

I want you to realize that I have a great deal of respect for you. It is obvious that you have spent a considerable amount of time devoting yourself to studying music and it's impact on the modern church. I can even say that you and me share much of the same concern. You see, I respect you so much that I read and thoroughly consider everything that you write before I even attempt responding. Even when I reply with anger, I consider my own words carefully and make sure I feel they are appropriate for the situation. I am realizing now that you don't even begin to extend me the same courtesy. How about a little reciprocation here?

I stated at the beginning of this thread and throughout that music does have the ability to convey all kinds of mood and emotion. If you were paying attention you would have seen that I also stated that mood and emotion are not good or evil in and of themselves. So, while certain musical styles are better suited to set the mood, tone, and tempo of some things, some musical styles are also not appropriate for others. One example of a bad musical style would without question be circus clown music in a poem about the passion of Christ. In any case there is nothing sinful or good about circus clown music, it's just music that sounds playful.

Incorrect. I seriously consider the character of the music because the music will help set the proper tone, tempo, and mood of the message. If the music could really be the message, then there would be no need for the poem to begin with. Please read that a couple of times before you respond in such a way as to make me think you didn't.

Yep, happy songs are nice.

Couldn't agree more. Except I might correct that statement a bit to say "The emotions conveyed by music are not imaginary, they are real".

*I cut out all the stuff about Michael Ventura simply because I really don't understand what you were quoting him for and how it could possibly have anything to do with this debate. If you want to discuss that passage more, please clarify.

You haven't succeeded beyond showing that music can only express emotion, but then I have already stated as much.

If you are saying that once I see that music can express mood and emotion, and that mood and emotion in and of themselves are not inherently evil or good, it will follow that music can be judged as either-then I'm game. Go ahead and show me how amorally emotive music can suddenly turn good or evil without context or words. If that's not what you mean then you have got quite a bit more esplainin' to do. Of course even if that is what you mean, you have quite a bit of esplainin' to do.

 

No I didn't mean you were disrespectful (well, not all that much). I mean I don't understand how you can be posting some of the stuff that you do in response to me if you've actually been reading everything. That bit about the poem is really baffling.

Please back that statement up empirically.

So far I'm in agreement...

Why did you suddenly switch "communication" with "interaction"?

First, since you have stated multiple times that there can be no morally neutral thing, I am going to again ask you to provide evidence.

Second, music does not need interaction, it only needs a performer.

Third, please explain how music communicates sinful or moral concepts, feelings, information, magical pixie dust, or whatever.

 

You were speaking of human interaction when you quoted Paul. My only point was that music does not require human interaction. Communication of the kind Paul was speaking of in 1 Corinthians 15:33 most certainly does. Music is irrelavent to this passage.

Here, I'll assert it again. Moods and emotions in and of themselves are amoral.

How can I know whether someone's anger is justified or not unless I know what it is he is angry about?

What about actors? Their jobs are dependant on their ability to fake emotions that they don't "in reality" feel.

There you go again. How can a facial expression reveal any specific information at all? I might know someone is happy by the look on his face but he could be happy about almost anything. Only God can judge things like that. It is not up to you and I to say that the look on any person's face is moral or immoral because we are incapable of seeing the inner workings of the heart and mind.

I think facial expressions are the best analogy you have used yet. Facial expressions like music can indicate mood and emotion, but in and of themselves are amoral.

Oh, and in case you thought you were going to escape here it is again:

You have stated over and over and over without providing one shred of evidence that nothing in and of it's self can be morally neutral.

I would like you to please demonstrate that:

A sad facial expression is either moral or immoral.

I would like you To demonstrate that a large slab of concrete is either moral or immoral.

Finally, please explain how music communicates sinful or moral concepts, feelings, information, magical pixie dust, or whatever.

If you really believe in the stuff you are saying, you should have no doubt that it can withstand the test of scrutiny. If for nothing else other than the desire to reveal the truth, please answer these challenges. I am guarenteeing that you will not be permitted to perform the kind of mental and lingual gymnastics required to dodge these arguments. Degree or no degree, you are going to be held accountable for the claims you make.

[ February 07, 2003, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

Not one shred?[/QUOTE]

That's right, not one shred. All you have done is make moral claim after moral claim after moral claim without one single shred of evidence.

 

Whoa whoa whoa there my home skillet. I am not the one making all kinds of positive moral claims! I'm not the one saying "The dirt under your fingernails sends out evil brainwaves to my bum!" You're the one making moral claims! In fact, the only reason I started the thread with a claim of any kind was because you told me to. I don't have anything to claim accept that to which the Scriptures hold. Things are what they are. No my friend don't try to turn the tables on me, the burden of proof with respect to this debate is entirely on YOU. If you want to say something is evil, provide the evidence pal, that smoke and mirrors trick won't work on me.

If you scroll up you'll notice that I already have. Several times.

Not interested. You understand their ideas. If it's relavent to the discussion, then throw in you understanding.

This is why I am positive you skim my responses. No, I believe that morality can only be applied to beings that God has created with sentience (men and angels). The very concept of morality demands this.

Try making this connection. God created all that there is including such things as space, time and the laws that govern them. Music, even though it is a man made thing, is still as much a part of God's creation as a building. All of the elements that you find in a building have their orgin in God's creation and all of the elements that you find in music have their origin in God's creation. Since God's creation is amoral, all that is in it (man made or not) is amoral. In order for you to end the discussion of the inherent nature of God's creation, you will need to prove that the concept of morality does indeed apply to it.

I'm sorry but human interaction requires two or more people, at least what Paul was discussing does.

Hooray for that.

Here is another fatal flaw in your reasoning. You cannot "make" me feel any way that I don't want to feel with music. You know this is true.

You can't. A mood is a moral act. It doesn't matter whether the act is voluntary or not. It is an act that requires a sentient will—to invoke your own definition of a moral act.</font>[/QUOTE]Mood and emotion are not acts. They are states of being. I can act from my emotions, or I can act to change my emotions, but my emotions are definately not acts.

The motivation is irrelevant. It's the origin that counts. The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Someone may be angry that he was stolen from. Doesn't matter. If it's anger that springs from the natural man, then it falls short of God's glory, which, by the way, is the very definition of sin.</font>[/QUOTE]Pay attention here. Pay really close attention, this is the part you really need to pay attention to. Are you paying attention? One more time, PAY ATTENTION. I really hope that got your ATTENTION Ready? Okay, do you notice how you had to place a condition on the anger in order to judge it? Do you see how in your example the man's anger was sinful because it "springs from the natural man"? You and I are both incapable of taking an emotion like anger and judging it without a context. You could just as easily have given an example of righteous anger like Jesus and the money changers or how you felt about ROE Vs. Wade. Anger by itself is just an emotion that God has given us. we can only begin to discuss the morality of emotion within the context of our actions. You have just demonstrated this without even realizing it. This is my whole point about music. While it may sound like a whole range of different emotions, it can't provide a context or meaning. I could take a piece of music that sounds angry and use it in a scene depicting Jesus with the money changers, or I could take that very same piece of music and throw it in a movie about a guy named Aaron who gets mad when he is stolen from. In either case the music can only provide tone, tempo and mood. NOT MEANING. I really hope you were paying attention to that.

[ February 08, 2003, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

That is a false statement.</font>[/QUOTE]Incorrect. That is a true statement. See how easy that was?

When the Bible speaks of things in the terms you have just described (good or evil, right or wrong, righteous or unrighteous, clean or unclean), it always does so in reference to our actions (apart from Old Testament ceremonial law). So even though the word "moral" might not be a Biblical word, it most certainly is a Biblical concept. Does the word "Trinity" mean anything to you, or is that just another man made word that has nothing to do with the Bible?

No, as I said you will be held accountable for your claims. No amount of wiggling will get you out of this. Light, sound, matter and energy are all a part of God's creation and you WILL address this issue in this thread because it is relavent and you know it.

Nice air of superiority there but it rings hollow. I haven't offered any evidence of any kind ever because I don't have anything to claim. I don't need evidence to counter lack of evidence. That is the only thing you have been right about. All I need is common sense observations to poke through your "evidence".

Aaron: Nothing is amoral. Everything is either good or evil.

Me: Please back that up.

Aaron Gen 1:31. See? I told you so.

Me: Ummmm, but the very concept of a moral right and wrong demands will and action. This verse doesn't describe how the inanimate is morally right or wrong. Are you off your rocker?

Aaron: That verse is evidence and you can't say it isn't!!!!! In fact, it's your job to provide evidence to prove it wrong!!!! I am completely absolved from backing up any moral claims I make and there is nothing you can do about it!!! If this were a real debate you would have already lost!!!! HAHAHA!! Music is communication!! I win!!!! Woo HOO!!!!

 

Or in words to the contrary, no you aren't.

You can run but you can't hide.

Haha, I might retreat if that gun of yours was loaded. As I said, I don't have anything to back up. I take a look at your baseless conclusions and write what I find. You really believe you are displaying all kinds of education don't you? How cosmopolitan of you. Come on man, get a little grounding here.

Translation: I am completely absolved from providing a rationale for my moral claims.

Translation: You need to provide evidence to show that my evidence isn't evidence. That's right! You won't be using simple observations to show my logical inconsistencies! That's against the rules of this debate, so if you try it I have every right to ignore it and be the winner.

Could you possibly be any more disingenuous? I offered to debate you at your request and you didn't even have the decency to start it off. Here you are all gung ho to show the world the truth about music and you couldn't even start the debate. No, you had to make me start it. Not only did you make me start it, but you provided me with the starting premise! That wasn't even my idea. I was interested in seeing you expound on your beliefs (which you seemed more than willing to do), and here you turn the tables on me as though I am the one with moral claims to make. okiedokie

Sure I can, and I posted a link to the summary of research in this area that supports it. Did you read it or merely skim it?</font>[/QUOTE]No you can't. Music cannot make me feel a certain way that the performer intends it to. If that was the case you could bring about world peace by making everyone happy. Use some common sense when you make a claim. And as I already said I am not interested in your links. If you have something relavent to say then say it. Of course if it's too much to type, then tell me what to read and post a link to the appropriate page. Don't expect me to go through volumes of information just because you think I should.

Actually that's not anger that is equated with murder, it's anger with your brother. I take it you only skim the Bible as well?

 

No I didn't. Not once. I used it to show that it is common knowledge that music is intended to communicate. Period.

That's not what I said at all. Go back and read it again. Read, don't skim.</font>[/QUOTE]Sure thing, here's what you said:

But music is not an object, it is a work. There is intelligence behind it. It is ordered and is intended to communicate a certain idea, as Paul stated, "And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?" 1 Cor. 14:7.


What is the whole basis of your point except to show that music communicates ideas? Funny how now you only want to say that music just "communicates". If that was your point to begin with of course I would have agreed with you.Unfortunately for you I do read what you say.

Translation: I am completely absolved from providing a rationale for my moral claims.How you can take a statement that clearly says we are both required to provide evidence is a way for me to wiggle out of it is beyond reason.</font>[/QUOTE]What do you want me to provide evidence to? I don't need evidence to show that you don't have any. I just need to point out the logical inconsitencies of your reasoning.

You never said "I can make you feel a certain way with music, here is the link to research that proves it."

Why don't I just post a link to the Bible and every time you disagree with me I'll say "Hey, didn't you read my link? That was all the evidence you need!"

You need to work on recounting events a little better. I have said multiple times I am not interested in reading large volumes of information just becuase you think I should. if you have something relavent to say, then say it. I don't think that's too much to ask.

In any case as I said, you are incapable of making people feel a certain way with music. If you could do that, you could bring about world peace by playing happy music for everyone. Try thinking before you make a claim!

Isn't it interesting how you take a discussion about whether or not emotions are an act and turn it into a dissertation about the carnal mind verses the rejuvinated heart. What incredible irony. Since you obviously didn't read what I said I'll just do the same thing a repost what I originally said to show that emotions are not acts.After you realize that what follows is simply understanding that you need to give an emotion a context before it is judged as evil or good. Do you notice how all of the emotions given in Galatians 5:19-21 are given a context? yep, they are actions of the heart in the flesh. Not too complicated.

Here is another dose of common sense for you.

You tell your son he must clean his room before he goes out to play. He willfully disobeyes you and slips out the back door to play with his friends all night.

When you find out about this do you

A) Decide whether or not to become angry.

B) Become angry.

If you are a functioning human being, you become angry. You don't have any choice in the matter Aaron. It is just what happens. If it was just anger alone that Mathew 5:21-22 was talking about you would be condemned already. The action of the heart which you speak of is how you deal with your anger. Emotions are effects, not causes. You cannot confuse the accountability we have for the way we deal with our emotions with the emotions themselves.

Happy or sad or angry or any of the emotions that God has put into us are simply what we "are" at any given point in time. That is what I mean by "state of being". It's not all that difficult to understand.