A Verdict That Demands Evidence

In another thread that has gone way too long, Ransom asked me to "prove" that rock music is evil.

I asked him what he accepted as proof.

He said:

Therefore I have begun a new thread.

[ April 04, 2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Okay, Ransom accepts reasoning from the Scriptures as evidence.

One other thing, Ransom, what is music to you?

[ April 04, 2002, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Define the terms, Ransom, and then I will cite chapter and verse.

What is music? Is it communication? Why or why not.

[ April 04, 2002, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

I apologize. I thought you wanted to discuss this issue in good faith. I've always tried to believe the best of people and give them the benefit of the doubt. It's a weakness of mine.

Here I have given you the opportunity to define the terms of a debate and list what you personally would accept as evidence--not that the merits of any evidence depends on your acceptance of it. I did it in good faith, and I think dispassionate observers have to agree I have gone more than the extra mile with you.

All the evidence I have posted stands on its own. Whether Ransom accepts it or not is of no consequence.

[ April 04, 2002, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

I was speaking of multiple past threads. Look them up if you're interested.

 

Ransom,

I have no need to stall, but what has become clear in our exchanges is that we are talking about different things. Either that or you simply change the definitions of the terms mid-debate to fit your arguments.

For instance. The term "sensual." You define it as something that is simply discernible by the five senses. I have repeatedly defined it as something that appeals to our lower, natural apetites. That is the definition of the term as it is used in James 3:15 and Jude 1:19 where sensuality is presented as evil and devilish with no apologies.

In every challenge you have presented I have answered, and every time I have answered you come up with some trifling reason why it doesn't exactly fit your frame of mind.

And again, the term "terms." You have taken it to mean rules. I mean words.

I did not offer you the opportunity to define the rules of the game. Now if I "go to it" as you say assuming that you are using the same definitions of the terms (words) that I am when you're really not, what good will it be?

Now, you have told me what you will accept as proof, though your acceptance of evidence says nothing of the merits of the evidence itself. In good faith I offered to give you what you would accept as evidence. Now by proof, do you mean "evidence?" Or will you, as you have done in the past, switch on this definition?

But lest I be accused again of simply stalling, I will define the terms (words).

Sensual: as defined above.

Music: A pleasing arrangement of sounds with the purpose of evoking specific emotional responses from the listener. The communication of moods, and emotions with sounds.

Response forthcoming.

For the sake of this debate, are there any objections to my asking that all other than Ransom or myself post in this thread?

[ April 05, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Daniel,

You crack me up, brother.

There is a precedent on the BB for having exclusive threads. Joseph Botwinick himself requested exclusive right to post a study on the Book of Malachi in one of the forums on the old BB, and Dr. Bob obliged. I wasn't trying to be a hard case about anything, but I can't carry on a debate with fifteen people at the same time, and if everyone wants to put in his two cents it makes the thread dis-jointed and unreadable.

That was the reason for my request.

As a token of my good faith, I'm leaving your post, since it was on a point of order, and I amended my request in the post above.

Please, everyone, e-mail me or start a new topic with your objections or approvals to allowing only Ransom or myself to post from here on out in this thread. To keep this thread from degenerating into a meaningless hodge-podge of multiple topics I'm afraid I'll have to delete any future discussion on my moderating decisions that might appear in this thread.

[ April 05, 2002, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

Communication is either good or evil. Evil communication will corrupt good character. The converse is also true, good communication will strengthen good manners. And no one is exempted from this principle. Not even Ransom. Evil communication will corrupt Ransom's good manners. Now that's not Aaron saying that. That's St. Paul.

Music is intended to communicate. St. Paul as an ILLUSTRATION for the gift of tongues appeals to the common knowledge that music is intended to communicate something. Now pipes and harps are designed for the playing of not simply one note at a time, but for a melody supported by chords or harmony. So, please, don't offer the lame rebuttal that this could mean the same thing as the door bell or the buzzer in one's car!

But here is the Scriptural evidence of something that everyone really knows, but only lately has been denied by CCM adherents, music is communication. It communicates moods and evokes specific emotions from the listener. (John Williams wanted us to feel tense during the TIE fighter attacks in Star Wars. So the background music had a lot of tension in it. It was not smooth or melodious at all.)

Now, it has already been established that there is such a thing as evil communication (Though Paul did not supply here a criteria by which to discern "evil communication." He just says to stay away from it. And no, he's is not leaving the definition up to us.) It has also been established that music is communication. It therefore follows that there is such a thing as evil music.

Psalms and hymns need no qualification. They define a style which is spiritual already. But any styles used that are not necessarily Psalms or hymns must be spiritual in character, and Paul wasn't just talking about the words. By definition a song has a musical accompaniament, so not only the words, but the style, had to be "spiritual."

Ephesians 5:19 already shows us that Paul was focusing more on the melody, or the music in these verses.

OK, so now it has been established that there is spiritual and carnal music.

Sensuality is not always characerized by sexual impurity, though sexual impurity is sensual. Sensuality is merely being unspiritual, "These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit," Jude 1:19. Sensuality by definition is that which is natural to fallen man. The propensity to act based upon his feelings and desires, and not according to the Word of God, Jude 1:18. It could be a strong desire for anything earthly, James 3:15. This could be food, houses, cars, position, status, occupation, entertainment, music, friends, etc." James goes on to call this kind of thinking "devilish."

Sensual music then is along those lines. It is music which speaks to the body and its apetites. God didn't use the term "Rock," He used the term "sensual."

The next post will describe how rock music is sensual in nature.

Again, for the sake of fluidity, I would ask that all but Ransom and myself abstain from replying in this thread to the arguments.

[ April 05, 2002, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]