1 vs. 1 debate thread

[Aaron]

I will not be letting you dodge this point so you can forget about trying to obfuscate the issue.

...

Again, do not think that obfuscation will confuse me. I may be a couple cogs short of a gear, but I can tell when someone is trying to pull a fast one.

I'm at work so don't have the time to deal with your points. However, these accusations of being disingenuous are getting old. You can disagree with my assumptions, but I am growing tired of the ad-hominem remarks. It's one thing to offer evidence to counter my arguments (something we're all waiting to see you do), it's another to summarily reject them and paint me a charlatan. Wasn't you who said that you wanted to keep this debate respectable?

Yes, when I scroll up and look at your remarks I see that it was you.

I'll answer your legitimate arguments one by one after I get home.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
It's one thing to offer evidence to counter my arguments (something we're all waiting to see you do),

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
it's another to summarily reject them and paint me a charlatan. Wasn't you who said that you wanted to keep this debate respectable?

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Yes, when I scroll up and look at your remarks I see that it was you.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
I'll answer your legitimate arguments one by one after I get home.

Now that I look forward to. See you then.

 

[Aaron]

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 think it's obvious to the most casual observer that I have made arguments of a nature quite contrary to your take on them.

...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.

Talk about your misrepresentations. I suggested nothing of the sort, and if you take it that way, you are nuts.

The discussion of morality only applies to that which is sentient.

No it applies also to the works of such. Deeds are evil too, not just people.

Also, the nature of rocks and trees is irrelevant to this discussion. I'll argue with you on that in another thread if you wish, but not here. We can argue about music without agreeing on this point.

In what way is music more than the sum of it's parts?

Isn't it obvious? That's like asking how a story is more than the words.

I contend that music is equally amoral as that of which it is made.

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.

Interestingly enough there is no claim contained anywhere in the Scriptures (Old or New Testament) about the inherent moral nature of music.

You say that only because you have a fallacious notion of the nature of music.

It is communication and action which are a direct extension of our wills, not the means by which we communicate and act. It would be sheer idiocy to claim that "evil speakings" are evil in some way due to the fact that our vocal cords are evil don't you think? I don't understand how this truth is supposed to support your argument.

...The means of communication are not evil in themselves, only the communication itself. You're really starting to work against yourself here.

Quite the opposite actually. The lewd picture is not merely the means, it is the message. the paint and canvas are the means.

Music is not merely the means, but the communication itself. The pipes, strings and resonators are the means, the music is the message. And whether you will admit to that or not here, in works you will demonstrate it time and time again.

Let's say you're asked to write a musical accompaniment to a poem about the Passion of Christ. What would be the character of the music you would write. Would it sound like circus clown music?

No?

Why not? After all, the music is just a means of communicating these solemn words, isn't it?

Of course not. You might like to say that it is, but if you want to be taken seriously as a musician you won't act accordingly. You will seriously consider the character of the music itself, because though you deny it, you really believe that music itself is a message.

It's not a message like "go two blocks south and turn right at the light." It speaks directly to the body and emotions in a person. In fact music commands one to feel a certain way. Why else is someone who sings songs ["happy" songs in the Heb.] to a grieving heart likened to someone taking away a man's coat in the winter time? (Prov. 25:20)

The research on this fact alone is so pervasive that it can no longer be disputed. For a summary of some of the research done by the University of California, Irvine, see this publication: http://www.musica.uci.edu/mrn/V8I1W01.html

The emotions created by music are not imaginary, they are real.

The music is the communication. It is a work. It is a deed. It will be judged in the last day as either good or evil.

Okay, so this "renowned" Michael Ventura starts off by describing subjective amoral feelings associated with the music of Mozart and Brahms .*As a side note I would say this doesn't come close to describing how I feel when I listen to either*.Then he goes on to describe the type of dancing that evolved from their music. In no way does he begin to attempt to suggest that the music communicated anything of a moral or immoral nature.

Ventura doesn't believe music is good or evil. He is a pagan and was describing the "good" effect that rock music has had on American society by focusing it more on sensuality. And Ventura himself is not renowned, this paricular work is and is probably his most famous. It is required reading in many university music history courses.

But your question was not "How is music good or evil?" Your question to which I posted Ventura's quotation was "How on earth does music express meaning to the listener?"

BTW, your labeling of his observations as "subjective" is really reachin'. Labels are not evidence. Find an authority who rebuts Ventura's observations. That would be evidence.

My argument thus far has not been how certain styles of music can be evil, just that music is communication.

Once that is seen, whether we can understand how music is good or evil, it will follow that music can be judged as either.

The rest will be academic.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
I think it's obvious to the most casual observer that I have made arguments of a nature quite contrary to your take on them.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...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.

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:

Originally posted by Travelsong:
To say that God's creation is morally good or morally bad doesn't make a lick of sense. Morality is an assessment of behaviour, not the state of the inanimate.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
We clearly see throught the illumination of God's Word, that creation is actively "engaged" on the side of God. Whether or not it makes a "lick of sense" is not the issue. This is the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The discussion of morality only applies to that which is sentient.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Also, the nature of rocks and trees is irrelevant to this discussion. I'll argue with you on that in another thread if you wish, but not here. We can argue about music without agreeing on this point.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In what way is music more than the sum of it's parts?

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I contend that music is equally amoral as that of which it is made.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Interestingly enough there is no claim contained anywhere in the Scriptures (Old or New Testament) about the inherent moral nature of music.

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.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It is communication and action which are a direct extension of our wills, not the means by which we communicate and act. It would be sheer idiocy to claim that "evil speakings" are evil in some way due to the fact that our vocal cords are evil don't you think? I don't understand how this truth is supposed to support your argument.

...The means of communication are not evil in themselves, only the communication itself. You're really starting to work against yourself here.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Music is not merely the means, but the communication itself. The pipes, strings and resonators are the means, the music is the message.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
And whether you will admit to that or not here, in works you will demonstrate it time and time again.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Let's say you're asked to write a musical accompaniment to a poem about the Passion of Christ. What would be the character of the music you would write. Would it sound like circus clown music?

No.

Originally posted by Aaron:
No?

That's right. No.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Why not? After all, the music is just a means of communicating these solemn words, isn't it?

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
You will seriously consider the character of the music itself, because though you deny it, you really believe that music itself is a message.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
It's not a message like "go two blocks south and turn right at the light." It speaks directly to the body and emotions in a person. In fact music commands one to feel a certain way. Why else is someone who sings songs ["happy" songs in the Heb.] to a grieving heart likened to someone taking away a man's coat in the winter time? (Prov. 25:20)

Yep, happy songs are nice.

Originally posted by Aaron:
The emotions created by music are not imaginary, they are real.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
My argument thus far has not been how certain styles of music can be evil, just that music is communication.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
Once that is seen, whether we can understand how music is good or evil, it will follow that music can be judged as either.

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.

 

[Aaron]

At work, so this will be brief.

I am realizing now that you don't even begin to extend me the same courtesy. How about a little reciprocation here?

I'm a little puzzled about this. I have in no way attempted to be disrespectful. I realize it's difficult to "hear" my inflections and intonations in written form, but I assure you that there is no belittling lobbied from my side of the fence.

More later.

 

[Aaron]

Communication involves much more than words. In fact only about 10% of our communication is verbal.

Any kind of interaction, verbal or non-verbal is communication, and Paul said plainly, Do not be deceived, evil communications corrupt good manners. Other translations use the word companions or company.

Now he was not speaking merely of evil talk there, though the idea is present, he was speaking of all manner of interaction.

Communes (notice the root word) are not merely places where a lot of people gather to talk, they are places where people live together.


[Consider also the words community and commute.]

Music is simply another, yet powerful, mode of interaction. If there is evil interaction, then there is good interaction, but there can never be amoral interaction.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
I'm a little puzzled about this. I have in no way attempted to be disrespectful. I realize it's difficult to "hear" my inflections and intonations in written form, but I assure you that there is no belittling lobbied from my side of the fence.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Communication involves much more than words. In fact only about 10% of our communication is verbal.

Please back that statement up empirically.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Any kind of interaction, verbal or non-verbal is communication, and Paul said plainly, Do not be deceived, evil communications corrupt good manners. Other translations use the word companions or company.

Now he was not speaking merely of evil talk there, though the idea is present, he was speaking of all manner of interaction.

Communes (notice the root word) are not merely places where a lot of people gather to talk, they are places where people live together.

[Consider also the words community and commute.

So far I'm in agreement...

Originally posted by Aaron:
Music is simply another, yet powerful, mode of interaction. If there is evil interaction, then there is good interaction, but there can never be amoral interaction.

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.

 

[Aaron]

Because the word "homilia" (communication) also includes the idea of interaction or, as the lexicons say it, "intercourse." There is no companionship without interaction.

In fact, one cannot NOT communicate or interact, whether it be verbally (words spoken, written or signed for the deaf) or non-verbally, e.g. posture, dress, mannerisms (notice the root: corrupts good manners), facial expressions, etc.

Even when one is alone, he is still communicating with himself.

One cannot NOT communicate.

My degree is in Speech Communication, and I'll dig out an old dusty textbook when I have time (I'm at work).

Now earlier you agreed that music required also a listener, not merely a performer. In cases where my wife plays the piano when she is alone, she is both the performer and the listener.

And lest you again assert that moods are themselves amoral, what can be communicated by facial expression other than mood? And yet we're told in Proverbs that God hates a proud look. The Bible also speaks of "lofty" eyes and "wanton eyes." No mood is amoral.

More later.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Now earlier you agreed that music required also a listener, not merely a performer.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
And lest you again assert that moods are themselves amoral,

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
what can be communicated by facial expression other than mood?

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 ]

 

[Aaron]

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.

Not one shred?

Let's go back over the points I've made:

</font>

• Nothing is amoral. Nothing. Everything is either good or bad.</font>
  • </font>
  • Gen 1:31</font>
• Music is intended to communicate a certain idea. (Notice that you have a more limited definition of idea than I do.)
  </font>
  • 1 Cor. 14:7.</font>
  </font>
• Creation is certainly engaged in God's purposes.</font>
  • Gen. 1; Gen 18:20; Rom. 8:22</font>
  </font>
• If music is a work it can be classified as good or evil</font>
  • Ecc. 12:14</font>
  </font>

But where is there any appeal to the Scriptures or to any authority in any of the premises that you have set forth? My friend, the only one guilty of not offering any evidence for any of the views he holds is you.

You may disagree with my interpretations of these Scriptures and say that there is nothing "moral" about all things being created "good," but you may not say that I have not offered evidence. (I'm prepared to offer the opinions of recognized authorities on the Scriptures to support my interpretation, but I will not in this thread.) You agree that some created things are either good or evil, but not objects. You agree that music is not an object but a work, yet you insist that I argue about the nature of rocks and trees thinking that the nature thereof is related somehow to something that is not an object. Now who's performing "mental and lingual gymnastics"?

No in all of this you have not offered any shred of evidence to support your rebuttals of my statements. Up to now you have simply dismissed them, not because you have studied the issue, but because they "don't make a lick of sense" to your own preconceived ideas. If my position is so shakey, then you should have no problem finding evidence to counter my position.

My only point was that music does not require human interaction.

I don't know what to say to this. It's like saying breathing does not require air. How do you figure that music does not require interaction?

Communication of the kind Paul was speaking of in 1 Corinthians 15:33 most certainly does. Music is irrelavent to this passage

Only if you assert that music does not require human interaction. Music is one of the most intimate forms of human interaction. I can make you feel a certain way with music. That's not interaction?

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

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.

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

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.

The same thing with sorrow. Someone may be sorrowful that his house burned down. The motivation is irrelevant. The sorrow of the world worketh death. Why someone is angry or sorry isn't what makes the anger or sorrow unrighteous or deadly, (though it is a good clue as to whether the sorrow is godly or worldly) it is the inherent nature of the anger or the sorrow that makes it good or bad.

Is it the anger of man or of God? Is it the sorrow of the world, or of God? That's the real question. Not why is this man angry?

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

Which is the very nature of hypocrisy. The word hypocrisy is from the Greek root applied to stage actors. But far from supporting your point it works against it. The actors are doing something that will be judged as either good or evil.

I would like you to please demonstrate that:

A sad facial expression is either moral or immoral.

I don't have to. I've already shown that a proud facial expression is.

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

Not here. Start another thread and I'll be happy to indulge your whims there.

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

Not yet. All I have to show is that music is communication. By that virtue alone it is either good or evil communication. There is no such thing as amoral communication. How it does what it does is academic.

If you really believe in the stuff you are saying, you should have no doubt that it can withstand the test of scrutiny.

I have no doubt, and you have yet to argue with something other than your own feelings and arbitrary assumptions. That is hardly scrutiny.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
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.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:

Let's go back over the points I've made:

Let's do that.

Originally posted by Aaron:

</font>

• Nothing is amoral. Nothing. Everything is either good or bad.&lt;/font&gt;</font>
  • </font>
  • Gen 1:31</font>

• Gen 1:31 God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very (1) good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
  
  First, there is only God making everything "good". There is no mention of even the possibility of "bad".
  
  Second, to think of God's creation as being good or bad in a moral way you must think of it in terms of behaviour.
  
  Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
  Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-
  Function: noun
  Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
  Date: 14th century
  1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
  2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
  3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
  4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE
  
  That verse gives absolutely no indication that God's creation was good beyond the idea of being fit for His purposes. Using a verse doesn't constitute evidence. Try using reason as well, it just might make you more persuasive. Until then you are just spurious.
  
  

  Originally posted by Aaron:
  

  [*]Music is intended to communicate a certain idea. (Notice that you have a more limited definition of idea than I do.)
  </font>

  • &lt;font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;1 Cor. 14:7.</font>

  &lt;/font&gt;

  1 Cor. 14:7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?
  
  Once again you incorrectly use Scripture. Paul makes an analogy between a poorly played instrument and the lack of benefit uninterpreted tongues bring the body. There is absolutley no indication that Paul believes instruments commununicate thoughts or ideas. Just look at his direct application of the musical analogy in verse 8: For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? Isn't that interesting? After all of your talk about music coomunicating this and that, Paul concludes his analogy by describe an instrument as a signal for battle. Gee golly whiz, I applied common sense.
  
  

  Originally posted by Aaron:
  

  </font>[*]Creation is certainly engaged in God's purposes.</font>

  • &lt;font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;Gen. 1; Gen 18:20; Rom. 8:22</font>

  &lt;/font&gt;

  Yes I seem to remember you conveniently avoiding my response to that.
  
  With regard to the firsto you think the earth and the waters consciously and willfully obeyed Him? Were they filled with the Holy Spirit and moved to act in righteousness? Could they have been immoral and disobeyed God? Or did they simply just come into existence and do exactly what their creator designed them for?
  
  With regard to the second two: We see this personification of God's creation because it illustrates how it has been subjected to futility as a result of man's fall.There is absolutely nothing in those verses that reveals a moral or immoral nature in creation. The concept is ludicrous.
  
  Wherever the consequences of sin and death as a result of the fall are spoken of in the Scripture they are always in relation to man, not nature (when addressing issues of morality).Nature is unable to act in opposition to God's will. It has simply been subject to futility.
  
  Of course God's creation is constantly engaged in His purposes. That which is without a will is incapable of acting as a moral agent and is therefore unable to be moral or immoral. That's what makes it "very good"
  
  

  Originally posted by Aaron:
  </font>[*]If music is a work it can be classified as good or evil</font>

  • &lt;font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;Ecc. 12:14</font>

  &lt;/font&gt;</font>

Once again I ask you, will the Auschwitz ovens be judged for genocide, or will those who made and utilized them be judged? Where does Scripture indicate that God intends to judge the inanimate?

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
&lt;font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"&gt;
But where is there any appeal to the Scriptures or to any authority in any of the premises that you have set forth? My friend, the only one guilty of not offering any evidence for any of the views he holds is you.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
You may disagree with my interpretations of these Scriptures and say that there is nothing "moral" about all things being created "good," but you may not say that I have not offered evidence.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
(I'm prepared to offer the opinions of recognized authorities on the Scriptures to support my interpretation, but I will not in this thread.)

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
You agree that some created things are either good or evil, but not objects.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
You agree that music is not an object but a work, yet you insist that I argue about the nature of rocks and trees thinking that the nature thereof is related somehow to something that is not an object. Now who's performing "mental and lingual gymnastics"?

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
No in all of this you have not offered any shred of evidence to support your rebuttals of my statements. Up to now you have simply dismissed them, not because you have studied the issue, but because they "don't make a lick of sense" to your own preconceived ideas. If my position is so shakey, then you should have no problem finding evidence to counter my position. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB]

As I said I am not making moral claims. And as you can see, common sense refutes yours.

Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB]

My only point was that music does not require human interaction.

I don't know what to say to this. It's like saying breathing does not require air. How do you figure that music does not require interaction?

</font>

Read, do not skim. I said "human interaction"

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Communication of the kind Paul was speaking of in 1 Corinthians 15:33 most certainly does. Music is irrelavent to this passage

Only if you assert that music does not require human interaction. </font>

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
Music is one of the most intimate forms of human interaction.

Hooray for that.

Originally posted by Aaron:
I can make you feel a certain way with music.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Here, I'll assert it again. Moods and emotions in and of themselves are amoral.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How can I know whether someone's anger is justified or not unless I know what it is he is angry about?

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 ]

 

[Aaron]

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.

That is a false statement.

Second, to think of God's creation as being good or bad in a moral way you must think of it in terms of behaviour.

The word moral is not a Biblical word. The Scriptures always speak of things as either good or evil, right or wrong, righteous or unrighteous, clean or unclean. There is no exception. The only way anyone can classify something as "amoral" is to reject the doctrines of Christ and hold to worldly philosophies and the teaching of men.

Now as this applies to inanimate objects I would be happy to discuss with you in another thread. I have stated over and over, and I will say one last time, music is not an inanimate object, and the "morality," (I prefer the expressions goodness or evil) of inanimate objects is irrelevant to the discussion of music.

At least here you begin to proffer evidence. I commend you. But what have you gained? Nothing. Your own definition says "moral conduct : VIRTUE." I have stated from the beginning that music is a deed, it is an act, or, in your words, conduct. I have stated that music is communication. Communication is a deed, an act—conduct. It will be judged as either good or evil.

Using a verse doesn't constitute evidence. Try using reason as well, it just might make you more persuasive.

Noted: No Scripture unless it sounds reasonable to Travelsong.

1 Cor. 14:7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?

Once again you incorrectly use Scripture. Paul makes an analogy between a poorly played instrument and the lack of benefit uninterpreted tongues bring the body. There is absolutley no indication that Paul believes instruments commununicate thoughts or ideas. Just look at his direct application of the musical analogy in verse 8: For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? Isn't that interesting? After all of your talk about music coomunicating this and that, Paul concludes his analogy by describe an instrument as a signal for battle. Gee golly whiz, I applied common sense.

I haven't misused it. I understand it. It is obvious by the mention of "flute" and "harp" that Paul is there speaking not of signals, but of melodious sounds, music. Who uses a flute or harp in battle? Therefore verse 8 is not the application of verse seven. Verse 8 is merely another example of "things without life giving sound."

Music is unlike language in that it can be understood without teaching. No one has to be told that a minor key sounds sad. Volumes of research conducted concerning the responses of infants to music have established this. Neither does any culture "find" its own music. Physically speaking, nature forces the Do, Re, Mi Scale into existence. As noted musicologist Robert Fink observed, even the names coined for the different tones (dominant, subdominant and keynote/tonic) were correctly "coined by people without acoustical knowledge," (http://www.webster.sk.ca/greenwich/NATBASIS.HTM).

We understand music by nature. Everyone knows that notes chaotically sounded from any instrument are meaningless and noisy, and certainly NOT music. So here Paul appeals to the proper use of musical instruments, something understood even by babes, because he spoke to them "as babes" (1 Cor. 3:1) to help them see how absurd were their practices with the gift of tongues.

Music is intended to communicate the ideas of sadness, happiness, triumph, etc., and unless it is ordered and intelligently directed, it is not music. That is the point I was making. Paul assumed his audience knew the same thing and used that principle to instruct the Corinthians.

In other words, I am right in my descriptions of the use and nature of music.

[Skipping irrelevant verbage about inanimate objects.]

the burden of proof with respect to this debate is entirely on YOU.

Sez who?

You brought a knife to a gunfight and are simply retreating to a kind of "assumption of innocence." In a debate like this no one is assumed correct or incorrect. Each party has an equal burden of proof. The only party in a debate who can enjoy a defacto good standing without evidence is the defendant in a criminal trial. That's not you. In fact, if we were debating in a college tournament you would have already lost not having offered any evidence for your premises.

You said:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Orginally posted by Aaron
I don't know what to say to this. It's like saying breathing does not require air. How do you figure that music does not require interaction?

Read, do not skim. I said "human interaction"</font>[/QUOTE]You know I meant human interaction, as is evident in my later statement you also quoted directly below this one. Just as you also know that when I say good or evil I mean morally good or morally evil. Not sure what you intended to prove quibbling over these trifles.

I'm sorry but human interaction requires two or more people.

Again, sez who? Have you read anything about interpersonal communication, or are you just making this up?

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

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?

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... [and following verbosity.]

Certainly they are acts. If they were not, anger could not be equated with murder Matt. 5:21-22. "State of being?" Where do you come up with this stuff? Anger is an action of your heart, and it is either good or evil.

Now, to correct your misconception about what I did. I need to see the fruits of something to judge it, of course, but anger is either good or evil because of it's intrisic qualities, not whether one acts on it or not. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. If the root be holy, so are the branches. Sheesh! You talk about emotions like they're floating around in the air until they simply fall into your lap. No, emotions spring from your bowels. They are actions and the fruit of your heart, and you will be judged based on the feelings that you have toward someone, make no mistake about that. Emotions that have their origin in man are evil, those emotions which are the fruit of the Spirit of God in you are good.

Now, as you are fond of Webster's, let me show you that MEANING includes more than that which is communicated by words.

mean-ing [ME mening, fr. gerund of menen to intend]
2: the thing that is meant or intended : INTENT, PURPOSE, AIM, OBJECT.
3: SIGNIFICANCE &lt;a look full of ~&gt;

Music requires intelligence, therefore there is intent, purpose, aim and an object to music. It has meaning, and communicates it very well.

I hope you were paying attention to that.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Second, to think of God's creation as being good or bad in a moral way you must think of it in terms of behaviour.

The word moral is not a Biblical word. The Scriptures always speak of things as either good or evil, right or wrong, righteous or unrighteous, clean or unclean. There is no exception. The only way anyone can classify something as "amoral" is to reject the doctrines of Christ and hold to worldly philosophies and the teaching of men.</font>

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?

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Now as this applies to inanimate objects I would be happy to discuss with you in another thread. I have stated over and over, and I will say one last time, music is not an inanimate object, and the "morality," (I prefer the expressions goodness or evil) of inanimate objects is irrelevant to the discussion of music.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
At least here you begin to proffer evidence. I commend you.

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".

Originally posted by Travelsong:

Using a verse doesn't constitute evidence. Try using reason as well, it just might make you more persuasive.

Noted: No Scripture unless it sounds reasonable to Travelsong. </font>

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!!!!

Originally posted by Aaron:

1 Cor. 14:7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?

I haven't misused it. I understand it. It is obvious by the mention of "flute" and "harp" that Paul is there speaking not of signals, but of melodious sounds, music. Who uses a flute or harp in battle? Therefore verse 8 is not the application of verse seven. Verse 8 is merely another example of "things without life giving sound."

That's awesome. You are free to pick and choose whatever you want to support yourself. So in your head, not only is Paul explicitly stating that instuments communicate good and evil in this analogy, the conclusion of his analogy isn't even the conclusion. It's something else. Yeah, that's it. Hey, whatever works for you. Just a quick heads up from the real world-you won't be convincing me or anyone that Paul is suggesting instruments communicate good and evil here.

Originally posted by Aaron:

We understand music by nature. Everyone knows that notes chaotically sounded from any instrument are meaningless and noisy, and certainly NOT music. So here Paul appeals to the proper use of musical instruments, something understood even by babes, because he spoke to them "as babes" (1 Cor. 3:1) to help them see how absurd were their practices with the gift of tongues.

I agree completely. You like to pad alot don't you?

Originally posted by Aaron:
Music is intended to communicate the ideas of sadness, happiness, triumph, etc., and unless it is ordered and intelligently directed, it is not music.

Those aren't ideas, they are emotions. Sadness doesn't occur in the head. Neither does happiness. Toss in the feeling of triumph as well. When you hear a sad song, do you think about sadness? Your wheels are turning but you aren't getting anywhere.

Originally posted by Aaron:
That is the point I was making. Paul assumed his audience knew the same thing and used that principle to instruct the Corinthians.

I agree but you misuse this verse repeatedly by suggesting it backs up your claim that music communicates good and evil. There is nothing about this verse that indicates that. In fact, the only specific example of communication with instruments that Paul cites here is using a bugle for battle. But oh wait, that doesn't count. sorry never mind...it's not like that could be um..."evidence". No way.

[ February 09, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
In other words, I am right in my descriptions of the use and nature of music.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
[Skipping irrelevant verbage about inanimate objects.]

You can run but you can't hide.

Originally posted by Aaron:
You brought a knife to a gunfight and are simply retreating to a kind of "assumption of innocence."

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
In a debate like this no one is assumed correct or incorrect.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
Each party has an equal burden of proof.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
In fact, if we were debating in a college tournament you would have already lost not having offered any evidence for your premises.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Here is another fatal flaw in your reasoning. You cannot "make" me feel any way that I don't want to feel with music.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

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... [and following verbosity.]

Certainly they are acts. If they were not, anger could not be equated with murder Matt. 5:21-22.</font>

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?

Originally posted by Aaron:

"State of being?" Where do you come up with this stuff? Anger is an action of your heart, and it is either good or evil.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:

Sheesh! You talk about emotions like they're floating around in the air until they simply fall into your lap.

To the contrary. It was you who said "The emotions created by music are not imagined. They are real." If anyone acts like emotions are some abstract idea separate from our being, it is you.

Originally posted by Aaron:

Music requires intelligence, therefore there is intent, purpose, aim and an object to music.

With you there for the most part..

Originally posted by Aaron:

It has meaning, and communicates it very well.

Music is incapable of conveying anything beyond emotion. I suppose this is the one statement beyond all that you are completely powerless to illustrate or explain in any capacity.

Originally posted by Aaron:

I hope you were paying attention to that.

As I always do. By the way, you're leaking like a sieve

[ February 09, 2003, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

[Aaron]

Of 1 Cor. 14:7
I agree but you misuse this verse repeatedly by suggesting it backs up your claim that music communicates good and evil.

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

So in your head, not only is Paul explicitly stating that instuments communicate good and evil in this analogy...

That's not what I said at all. Go back and read it again. Read, don't skim.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
In a debate like this no one is assumed correct or incorrect.

Translation: I am completely absolved from providing a rationale for my moral claims.</font>[/QUOTE]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.

Despite your insistence to the contrary, I have constantly backed up my claims, and when I pinned you down on it you said:

And as I already said I am not interested in your links.

You won't consider the evidence and then you falsely accuse me of not providing any. Again, beyond reason.

You tell your son he must clean his room before he goes out to play. He willfully disobeyes you ...blah, blah, blah...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.

Since when did having a choice in the matter determine our accountability? An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Choice is not even in the picture. It is nature.

To answer this further, I will simply copy and paste from what I've already said:

"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.

"The same thing with sorrow. Someone may be sorrowful that his house burned down. The motivation is irrelevant. The sorrow of the world worketh death. Why someone is angry or sorry isn't what makes the anger or sorrow unrighteous or deadly, (though it is a good clue as to whether the sorrow is godly or worldly) it is the inherent nature of the anger or the sorrow that makes it good or bad.

Is it the anger of man or of God? Is it the sorrow of the world, or of God? That's the real question. Not why is this man angry?"

What kind of anger is directed toward a man's brother without a cause? The wrath of man, or the wrath of God? So the kind of anger that Christ equated to murder is the anger of man.

But lest you persist in the erroneous notion that emotions will not be judged, take a look at the list of the works of the flesh given in Gal. 5:19-21, and see how many there are listed that are emotions (notice the phrase "and such like").

Notice also the fruit of the Spirit in the succeeding verses. How many of those are emotions?

And let's not neglect Paul's next statement, "And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

Christians do not merely "redirect" carnal emotions, they crucify them. The Spirit gives us a new heart. He doesn't merely do repair work on the old one.

The repentant sinner does not pray, "help me redirect the amoral emotions and passions that you have placed in my heart," he prays "create in me a clean heart," Psalm 51.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
Sheesh! You talk about emotions like they're floating around in the air until they simply fall into your lap.

To the contrary. It was you who said "The emotions created by music are not imagined. They are real." If anyone acts like emotions are some abstract idea separate from our being, it is you.</font>[/QUOTE]Not at all. I have in this debate also used the word elicit. This is just some more of your quibbling over common usage. I can "create" a picture in your mind with words, but that doesn't mean I think the picture was somehow "separate from your being." The same thing when I say music "creates" emotions.

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

Well, that's the last straw. I'm done with this debate. Claim victory if you want. I can't debate with someone who refuses to consider the evidence I offer and then falsely accuses me of somehow manipulating the situation in an attempt to make him look foolish.

You did it to yourself.

I merely answered as much as I did for the benefit of the reader.

Below are the PM's we exchanged before starting this debate. The reader can decide whether your characterization is accurate:

-----------------------------------------------
Travelsong: As I said there is quite a bit we both agree on.

Where I think we have fundamental differences might best be categorized as "the nature of music" or something along those lines. If I can safely make the assertion that you believe that there are certain kinds of music (and instruments?) which are sinful, then I believe that would be a good starting point for the both of us.

I've never engaged in a formal debate before so bear that in mind

Aaron: Please bear with me, too. These last few days I have had little time to give to the BB.

I'll try to help you word your resolution, or, if you prefer, Ransom has studied rhetoric. He might be able to help you out.

Travelsong:If you could give me just a basic idea of what you are looking for I'll be happy to get this thing started. After all, I could very easily misrepresent your views here before we even agree on the topic to be discussed. Like I said, I think starting with something general like "the nature of music" would be excellent.

Aaron:This is just for starters. It will have to be revised. It is a little clumbsy right now. Look this over and see what you think.

Resolved: Music is a neutral medium by which to communicate ideas defined by words.

We would need to define:

Music
neutral
medium
communicate

Travelsong: Ok, now we have something to work with

I would have to change the resolution from this:

Resolved: Music is a neutral medium by which to communicate ideas defined by words.

to this:

Resolved: Music is a morally neutral medium by which to communicate feeling, thought, or information.

If this is my assertion which you are to challenge I would want the following definitions:

Music n./ vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony

neutral adj./ not engaged on any side

medium n./ a channel of communication; a mode of artistic expression or communication

communicate vb/ to transmit information, thought, or feeling

Aaron: Good 'nuff. You go first.

Travelsong: Good. I'm in the same boat with a limited amount of time to devote to this. I will start up a thread tomorrow.

See you in the ring

-----------------------------------------------

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Of 1 Cor. 14:7
I agree but you misuse this verse repeatedly by suggesting it backs up your claim that music communicates good and evil.

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

So in your head, not only is Paul explicitly stating that instuments communicate good and evil in this analogy...

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> In a debate like this no one is assumed correct or incorrect.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Despite your insistence to the contrary, I have constantly backed up my claims, and when I pinned you down on it you said:

And as I already said I am not interested in your links.

You won't consider the evidence and then you falsely accuse me of not providing any. Again, beyond reason.</font>

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!

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

You tell your son he must clean his room before he goes out to play. He willfully disobeyes you ...blah, blah, blah...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.

Since when did having a choice in the matter determine our accountability? An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Choice is not even in the picture. It is nature.

To answer this further, I will simply copy and paste from what I've already said:

"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.

"The same thing with sorrow. Someone may be sorrowful that his house burned down. The motivation is irrelevant. The sorrow of the world worketh death. Why someone is angry or sorry isn't what makes the anger or sorrow unrighteous or deadly, (though it is a good clue as to whether the sorrow is godly or worldly) it is the inherent nature of the anger or the sorrow that makes it good or bad.

Is it the anger of man or of God? Is it the sorrow of the world, or of God? That's the real question. Not why is this man angry?"

What kind of anger is directed toward a man's brother without a cause? The wrath of man, or the wrath of God? So the kind of anger that Christ equated to murder is the anger of man.

But lest you persist in the erroneous notion that emotions will not be judged, take a look at the list of the works of the flesh given in Gal. 5:19-21, and see how many there are listed that are emotions (notice the phrase "and such like").

Notice also the fruit of the Spirit in the succeeding verses. How many of those are emotions?

And let's not neglect Paul's next statement, "And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

Christians do not merely "redirect" carnal emotions, they crucify them. The Spirit gives us a new heart. He doesn't merely do repair work on the old one.

The repentant sinner does not pray, "help me redirect the amoral emotions and passions that you have placed in my heart," he prays "create in me a clean heart," Psalm 51.</font>

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:

Well, that's the last straw. I'm done with this debate. Claim victory if you want. I can't debate with someone who refuses to consider the evidence I offer and then falsely accuses me of somehow manipulating the situation in an attempt to make him look foolish.

Yeah ok. I'm sorry, the evidence was what exactly?

Originally posted by Aaron:
I merely answered as much as I did for the benefit of the reader.

What a true humanitarian. I'm sure "the reader" has been enlightened by all the volumes of "evidence" you have provided.

Originally posted by Aaron:

Below are the PM's we exchanged before starting this debate. The reader can decide whether your characterization is accurate:

Of course my characterization is accurate. Just becuase I was initially happy to get the debate started under your terms doesn't make your motives for having me start the debate any less spurious. Now I see the whole point of having me start was to take the burden of accountability off of you. if you are so eager to show that music communicates evil and good, all you have to do is provide the evidence.Again, I assert that you have not presented one single solitary stinking shred of evidence to suggest that music in and of itself can be evil or good. It is on that fact alone that you lose this debate and no other.

[ February 09, 2003, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]