Domino Effect not just in the Power Grid

[Eric B]

2. PSUCHIKOS,belonging to the psuche, soul (as the lower part of the immaterial in man), natural, physical, describes the man in Adam and what pertains to him (set in contrast to pneumatikos, spiritual), I Cor. 2:14; 15:44 (twice), 46 (In the latter used as a noun); Jas. 3:15, "sensual" (R.V. marg., "natural" or "animal"), here relating perhaps more especially to the mind, a wisdom in accordance with, or springing from, the corrupt desires and affections; so in Jude 19.

FINALLY, we get a biblical definition of "sensual", but...

Now, the next time somebody tries to say that the term sensuality is merely describing a phenomenon that is discerned with one or more of the five senses flunks the Bible for Beginners class and gets to wear the dunce cap for the remainder of the debate.

Uh, you're the one who first described seusuality in terms of sexual movements, then when that was challenged, you described it as relating to the senses of the body, and criticized us for supposedly making it only sexual. Now you come out with the biblical definition, and accuse us of making it the five senses. Sheesh...
But notice, how sensuality is also associated with the "mind". You always pitted the mind as opposite sensuality (i.e. what is neglected in the "sensual" music. (sometimes the soul is included. Between the soul (mind) and spirit, the text and melody are said to appeal to, and the rhythm, of course appeals to the body). Yet this reference has it right, and this is precisely where the "dualists" got it wrong!

It's impossible for me to reply to every trifle in the verbose posts of multiple personalities.

So I won't even try. I'm sure you understand.

You're sliding all over the place, and people have you nailed. Just face it.
PS

Jude 1:19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

Which side is it that believes in "separating" themselves over this music issue?


[ September 12, 2003, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Aaron]

Travelsong:
by the way I had two lengthy responses in this session, the first is the second last post on the last page, it took me a long time to do all this since I am an awful typist, and much cutting/pasting was involved, and I've been up for 24 hours already, so please if you would, take the time to read them both.

I have read them and will respond. I understand the time it takes to formulate a response. Please look at the times of my posts lately. I haven't been getting to the computer until late in the evening. I intend to respond to each point, but not all at once. I should have made that clear.

Eric,
No, I'm not sliding all over the place at all. I have three very wordy people (I'm wordy too) replying to practically every point I make. It's impossible to reply to each one all at once especially since I haven't been able to get to the computer in a timely matter later.

You'll just have to be patient.

BTW, 10 pages is about long enough. I'm not going to close the thread, but does anyone really read the whole thing? I may start new threads to deal with the main objections you all have stated. I may not. Haven't decided yet.

 

[Aaron]

Responding to Travelsong's post

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000611;p=10#000135

I hope you don't mind, in the interest of brevity and readibility I will respond to the basic premises of your post without quoting your exact words each time.

You keep asking how music can communicate sin, but that's the wrong question. First, it's like asking about the weight of a color. How could one answer that? If someone were to ask me how many pounds the color red weighs, I have to assume that he has a fundamental misunderstanding abou the nature of color. Weight does not even enter into the picture.

So when you ask what sin is being communicated by certain kinds of music, you are still refering to music as a medium, and not as the communication itself. The communication itself is the sin.

Let's look at it another way. If I angrily cuss at you, I haven't communicated a sin to you, the communication was the sin. Not your sin, but mine. It is still an evil communication.

Now think hypothetically here. You don't have to agree with the premises to see my point. Let's say, just for kicks, that there is a sensual style of music, and that music is communication itself—not the medium like paper, ink and symbols are a medium, but the message itself.

If those two premises are true, then it follows that the peforming the music itself was the sin.

This is really where the debate lies. Can certain kinds of music be sensual in and of themselves, and is music communication itself, or merely the medium?

Those are the pivotal questions in this debate.

Now, about the woodpecker. In techno music it is BPM's, as you said, AND duration. You can't have techno music at three second intervals interspersed with pauses of an indefinite length, but I'm sure you know that. I just can't figure out why you would force the comparison. They simply aren't the same thing.

Now rhythms produced by man-made equipment. This is a better examples, but it fails on a critical point. The clackity clack, clackity clack, of a train does have a rhythm, but when moving or speaking to it, we will naturally make the first beats in the rhythms of our movement (like walking) correspond to the more stressed beats of the rhythm.

Look,
Whaddayatalk?
Whaddayatalk?
Whaddayatalk?
Whaddayatalk?
Where do ya git it?
Whaddyatalk?

Ya can talk,
ya can talk,
ya can bicker,
ya can talk.

Ya can talk,
talk,
talk,
talk,
bicker,
bicker,
bicker--

Ya can talk all ya wanna but it's diff'rent than it was.

No it ain't!
No it ain't!
But ya gotta know the territory!

Sh!
Sh!
Sh!
Sh!
Sh!

That's from the first number in Meredith Wilson's The Music Man. The salesmen are chanting this to the rhythm of the train wheels on the track. The stressed syllables of the words fall on the stressed first beats of the train wheels. I've boldened the syllables corresponding to the stress of the beat in the background. Notice that it follows the pattern we would naturally use when speaking. There's no melody to force us to place the beat elsewhere.

That's not a rock beat.

A rock beat places the stresses where nature unstresses the beat. The stresses of a back beat fall where the words, following the rhythm of the melody, are not stressed.

I'll take The Beach Boys Good Vibrations. The boldened portions are where the stressed portions of the back beat land on a syllable. Almost everytime it lands on an untressed portion of the word.

I'm pickin' up good vibrations
She's givin me excitations

Without a melody and/or words to work against there's nothing to make the rock beat backwards. Standing alone, we would naturally associate the stressed beats with the first rhythms (one and three) of our actions or words.

I love to tell the sto - ry of unseen things above.
Of Jesus and His Glory, of Jesus and His love.

As it stands, the natural rhythms of the melody and words work together. Add a rock beat to the piece and you have something that supports neither, but stands alone and works against them.

I love[beat] to tell the sto[beat]ry of un[beat]seen things above.

A rock beat cannot occur in nature, and it can't happen by accident. It isn't in the rhythms of machines. There has to be words and or melody to work against. It is placed there in opposition to the melody on purpose.

The rhythms of machines and nature are better classified as either healthy or unhealthy. I'll have more on that later.

It's late.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
You keep asking how music can communicate sin, but that's the wrong question.

And you keep saying that music is communication. I don't see how my question doesn't logically follow.

Originally posted by Aaron:
So when you ask what sin is being communicated by certain kinds of music, you are still refering to music as a medium, and not as the communication itself. The communication itself is the sin.

Even assuming this is true, one must have the ability to discern the meaning of the communication, yes? Otherwise how could you know if it is good or evil? No matter how you look at it, my question means exactly the same thing.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Let's look at it another way. If I angrily cuss at you, I haven't communicated a sin to you, the communication was the sin. Not your sin, but mine. It is still an evil communication.

Now think hypothetically here. You don't have to agree with the premises to see my point. Let's say, just for kicks, that there is a sensual style of music, and that music is communication itself—not the medium like paper, ink and symbols are a medium, but the message itself.

If those two premises are true, then it follows that the peforming the music itself was the sin.

This is really where the debate lies. Can certain kinds of music be sensual in and of themselves, and is music communication itself, or merely the medium?

You miss a major point here, and that is that it is impossible to communicate anything to someone else without using a medium. There is no possible way for me to express anything without employing the use of some kind of language which is external to my being. It simply cannot be done. Now no matter what medium I choose to communicate (or not choose if it an unconscious communication), it cannot actually be the thing I am trying to communicate. That is why all language is symbolic. Words, gestures, tone, cadence, melody, rhythm-everything that encompasses communication stands for or represents intents, emotional/physical/spiritual state, desires, and thoughts.If I audibly say to you "I am happy", that statement is not happiness in and of itself. Music is no different. While it may be reflective of a person's emotional state, it can't be the state itself.

Let's go back to your original illustration and break it down. If you were to audibly say to me "I hate you", the sin would not be the words themselves, but your intent. Now the evil communication happens because I am able to register each word you have spoken to me and make the proper association. I know that the "I" refers to you, I know from all of my life experience surrounding the word hate that it means a malicious dislike, and I know "you" refers to me. All those words did was serve to fascilitate your intent to me, the communication happened because I correctly interpreted them, and was able to understand that you don't care for me very much. The words did not literally become your hatred and transfer to me. All they were able to do is represent your intent. It's exactly the same with music. even if it were possible for music to communicate sensuality, it could not be sensuality.

[ September 13, 2003, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

[yod]

this reminds me of a sermon...it went like this:


Dippy dippy do, winky winky woo....


If those words have no meaning to you then we have not communicated. With the context of how those words were given, you might understand what I meant but to be accurately understood we have to agree on the method of our communication.

So, if a musician presents a "communication" within the context of being a christian...AND his words communicate accurately what he is trying to say then the music has become the method of communicating a message. The music itself can NOT be inherently evil.

 

[Eric B]

No, I'm not sliding all over the place at all. I have three very wordy people (I'm wordy too) replying to practically every point I make. It's impossible to reply to each one all at once especially since I haven't been able to get to the computer in a timely matter later.

What I meant by "sliding all over the place" was that your definition of "sensual" was constantly changing, not that you were avoiding replying. You called our points "trifle", but they were clearly refuting your arguments.

As for the accents of the beats, it's only the percussion that is accented on the downbeat. Even the "Vibrations" song you mentioned, the vocals are accented on the upbeat, such as the word "good", and ex[citations...] which is the first beat of those bars (the #1 beats were silent right before "I'm" and between "vibrations" and "she's"). The 3rd beat (think, [vi]bra[tions...],giv[ing], [ci]ta[tions...] are also a bit stronger than 2 & 4. Sometimes a lower tone carries "weight" or strength. This is basically the way most pop is. It is only the percussion, and only because 2 & 4 are a harder drum beat, but in many songs, even then, the lighter (odd) beat is accompanied by bass, or some other "heavy" effect, making it debatable which beat the accent is really on. The harder downbeat just complements the rest of the music for dancing purposes. And then the're all the songs that leave off the backbeat. So this "nature" argument really means nothing. Just shows that one has run out of scripture

You keep asking how music can communicate sin, but that's the wrong question. First, it's like asking about the weight of a color. How could one answer that? If someone were to ask me how many pounds the color red weighs, I have to assume that he has a fundamental misunderstanding abou the nature of color. Weight does not even enter into the picture.

actually, since light is energy, and color is simply a higher or lower level of photon energy, this can have an effect that corresponds to the "weight" of mass particles (remember those windvein type things in the glass bulb that are "blown" by light?. Just disputing

 

[Travelsong]

I was hoping that someone would point this out by now, because I think it needs to be addressed, but I was waiting because I'm not at all a Bible scholar, and I think others could state it much better than I can.

In any case I want to draw a distinction between Aaron's concept of sensuality, and what the Bible has to say about it. If we look at how Scripture defines the sensual or natural (PSUCHIKOS) man in the verses that Aaron and Scott referenced we see that he is characterized as a mocker, one who walks in ungodly lusts, and one who can't receive the things of the spirit of God, because they are foolishness to him. The Bible defines the sensual wisdom of man as bitter, envious, filled with strife, not glorifying God, and lying against the truth. The striking thing about these verses is how remarkably consistent they are in applying the word PSUCHIKOS directly to the man, and not to things which are external to the man. Scripture makes it quite clear that this natural or sensual nature is rooted in the very essence of the man himself, not to things which exist outside of him.

1 Corinthians 15:

45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

So Aaron, when you define music as being sensual in and of itself, you are in fact contradicting the Bible, because the Bible only considers the man, his nature, his very heart, as either sensual or spiritual, not those things which are outside of him.

If music can really do any of the things which the Bible describes as being sensual or natural, I have yet to see it.

Okay, that's all I wanted to say.

 

[Aaron]

Replies forthcoming. I've already been on over an hour reading the new posts since Saturday night. Time for bed.

 

[Aaron]

In the interest of brevity and readability, I am going to respond to the basic premises of the arguments against my definition of "sensuality" and not to each and every detail.

The reason I posted the definition of sensual was to cease the constant confusion of sensuality with the faculties of observation, e.g. touching, seeing, smelling, etc. It has been argued more than once that since one can hear music it is sensual. That is not the meaning of the word, and I'm glad that you all have finally come to that realization.

Now to clear up some of the other confusion.

The word carnal is used in the Scriptures as a synonym of the word sensual, much as the word bishop is used for pastor. I have in past exchanges interchanged the terms sensual and carnal as well, and this juxtaposition is supported by Dr. Zodhiates who said that the term carnal:

covers that entire domain of our fallen nature made subject to vanity in which sin springs up and moves (7:18; 8:5). Syn.: psuchikos, soulish, with affinity to natural sinful propensities. The person in whom the sarx (4561), the flesh, is more the ruling principle, even as psuchikos and psuche (5990) is for the animalistic instincts. Ant.: pneumatikos (4152), spiritual.

So the limitations that some have attempted to impose upon the term sensual are done away, springing as they did from incomplete study.

I'll let Dr. Thayer speak this time:

For carnal, sarkikos

fleshly, carnal (Vulg. carnalis); 1. having the nature of flesh, i.e. under the control of the animal appetites...Ro. vii. 14 Rec...governed by mere human nature...not by the Spirit of God, 1 Co. iii.1,3, also 4 RG; having its seat in the animal nature or roused by the animal nature,..., 1 Pet. ii.11; i.q. human: with the included idea of weakness, 2 Co. x. 4; with the included idea of depravity...2 Co. i.12.

I have pointed out before that new Christians, babes, still think with their carnal minds according to 1 Cor. 3:1. Therefore, Scott, Paul does indeed address a Christian community as sensual.

Now Eric, you are all hung up on this mind/body thing. There is a carnal mind, of course. I never intimated that there wasn't. However, though Paul was speaking of a spiritual mind when he said he served the law of God with his mind, there is never anywhere that our bodies and its desires and needs are referred to as spiritual. Though the dust of which our body is made is not evil in and of itself, our bodies are made subject to vanity as Zodhiates pointed out (and St. Paul before him, Rom 8:20) and sin resides in their members. Therefore we give no thought to our bodies, what we shall eat or what we shall put on, for after all these things do the unbelievers seek.

I also need to point out to you that in the natural world we are presented with types and shadows of heavenly and earthly things. When the children of Israel lusted for the things of Egypt they thought fondly of the fish, the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick, Numbers 11:5. These all grow under the water, under the ground or right on top of it. But the fruit of Canaan was grapes, pomegranates, and figs, Numbers 13:23. All these are suspended above the ground. The food of Egypt represents earthly delights, and those of Canaan heavenly. It is the same when I speak of mind and body. It would perhaps be better phrased, mind and belly, for as the heaven is above the earth, the mind is above the belly. Paul speaks of sensual people whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things, Phil. 3:19. So when I say mind, I am not speaking of the depraved mind that is focused upon the desires and appetites of their flesh.

I also need to correct a false statement you made. I nowhere referred to sensuality as pertaining to the "senses" of the body. I have consistently referred to sensuality as that which appeals to the lusts/appetites of the flesh.

And music can appeal to the lusts of the flesh, just as sex and eating can do. Music feels good. Eating feels good. In fact, many people are having love affairs with food. Sex feels good too. Yet nowhere are we given license to eat and hook up as we please. How is it that we think God gives a green light like Nebuchadnezzar to all kinds of musick? God has placed limitations on all things, especially in the area of our appetites. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Here, "things" refers to activities not objects. That would include music as well.

What did your paragraph on the beat say that I did not say? I said,

The stresses of a back beat fall where the words, following the rhythm of the melody, are not stressed.

You said,

As for the accents of the beats, it's only the percussion that is accented on the downbeat.

Which is exactly what I said, except that 1 and 3 are downbeats, 2 and 4 are upbeats. That's why rock music is referred to as upbeat music.

Why did I even mention this? It was to counter the argument that the rock beat exists in nature, and if you think appeals to nature are weak arguments, then I guess St. Paul was just chomping his bubble gum when he said, "Doth not even nature itself teach you"? Or:

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

or

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

And of what of Job? "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?"

Paul again, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

You might think appeals to nature are weak arguments, but you're thinkin' wrong. That which can be gleaned from nature is enough to hold one accountable. If the savages who never saw a missionary are without excuse because of what they should have known by nature, how much more is one who had the Scriptures and still missed it?

But back to the point. You're right in saying it's the percussion, or bass sometimes, which come in and are just there. It does not support the rhythm of the melody or the words. It works quite independently of them and is simply there by itself. That might seem like a trivial thing, but the responses which that technique elicits are telling. I'll refer again to the difference in the audience response to the traditional Messiah and Young Messiah. Absolutely antithetical to one another, Scott's farcical account notwithstanding.

 

[Aaron]

Travelsong:
...one must have the ability to discern the meaning of the communication, yes? Otherwise how could you know if it is good or evil? No matter how you look at it, my question means exactly the same thing.

You're asking how one picks up on the message of the music. Music communicates moods, and these are discerned with the heart, which includeds not only the mind, but the will and emotions. It doesn't matter that we are taught that our whole consciousness is contained in the brain. That's not true. You know that by experience and by the Scriptures. Where is it that you feel emotions? Where is the feeling that you get when you see or hear something beautiful "located"? Where do you "sense" justice and truth?

In your head? No, in your chest and gut. So the disciples on the road to Emmaus said, "And did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?"

Psalms 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

Song of Solomon 5:4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.

Colossians 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

The meaning of music is discerned with those faculties that discern virtue or baseness, spirituality or carnality.

If we are thinking of a math problem, however, we feel the work going on in our heads, but not so when we take in art. I have already posted the evidence which demonstrates that the cognitive and emotional responses to music are completely separate.

Travelsong:
You miss a major point here, and that is that it is impossible to communicate anything to someone else without using a medium.

You're still saying that music is the medium and not the message. The air is the medium for music. The air is to music as the page and ink is to the printed word.

Travelsong:
Let's go back to your original illustration and break it down. If you were to audibly say to me "I hate you", the sin would not be the words themselves, but your intent. Now the evil communication happens because I am able to register each word you have spoken to me and make the proper association. I know that the "I" refers to you, I know from all of my life experience surrounding the word hate that it means a malicious dislike, and I know "you" refers to me. All those words did was serve to fascilitate your intent to me, the communication happened because I correctly interpreted them, and was able to understand that you don't care for me very much. The words did not literally become your hatred and transfer to me. All they were able to do is represent your intent. It's exactly the same with music. even if it were possible for music to communicate sensuality, it could not be sensuality.

Now you're just splitting hairs. Was it right or wrong for me to tell you I hated you? You got the message. Now, was it right or wrong for me to say that?

Whether you got the message or not, I know what I was saying. Was it right or wrong for me to say it?

I could say "I hate you" in a style that really means "I love you." It would depend very much on my facial expressions, tone of voice, volume and rhythm. But you would get the message. In fact, if we were friends you would laugh at the inconsistency between the actual words and the "music" behind them. You would know that I was making a joke. You would know that I don't hate you because the mood communicated non-verbally said I love you.

Like I have said over and over. Music is the message itself.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Quick question:

You said eating is carnal. Does this mean that eating is sinful? Is it possible to eat and not sin?

You said that sex is carnal. Does this mean that sex is sinful? Is it possible to have sex and not sin?

You said that specific types of music is carnal? Does this mean that these types of music are sinful? Is it possible to worship using these types of music and not sin?

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Travelsong:
...one must have the ability to discern the meaning of the communication, yes? Otherwise how could you know if it is good or evil? No matter how you look at it, my question means exactly the same thing.

You're asking how one picks up on the message of the music. Music communicates moods, and these are discerned with the heart, which includeds not only the mind, but the will and emotions. It doesn't matter that we are taught that our whole consciousness is contained in the brain. That's not true. You know that by experience and by the Scriptures. Where is it that you feel emotions?</font>[/QUOTE]When I say that music is only capable of expressing emotion, you say that I miss the more subtle forms of communication. Now you say that music communicates moods, so how can it be evil? Can you give me an example of a sinful mood that music communicates? How can I communicate a sinful mood without context and intent?

Originally posted by Aaron:
The meaning of music is discerned with those faculties that discern virtue or baseness, spirituality or carnality.

How does virtue and baseness apply to music? How can I tell if a piece of music is virtuous or base?

Travelsong:
You miss a major point here, and that is that it is impossible to communicate anything to someone else without using a medium.

Originally posted by Aaron:
You're still saying that music is the medium and not the message. The air is the medium for music. The air is to music as the page and ink is to the printed word.

When I use the word medium I am defining the means by which our thoughts, intents, and desires are communicated. The word medium as you use it simply describes what makes it possible for soundwaves to travel. I use the spoken, or written word, gestures, facial expressions and so on to communicate my thoughts, desires, intents etc etc. Language is the medium by which all people interact. What you are basically saying is that music isn't a medium by which people communicate, it is the intent, thought, or desire all by itself.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Now you're just splitting hairs.

No I am not at all. I am making a very important distinction between the external and the internal. Everything that language encompasses exists outside of the man, and therefore is not a part of his person. The Bible doesn't refer to things outside of the man as sensual or carnal or spiritual. The concept doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Was it right or wrong for me to tell you I hated you? You got the message. Now, was it right or wrong for me to say that?

Whether you got the message or not, I know what I was saying. Was it right or wrong for me to say it?

First of all it was wrong for you to hate me period, secondly it was wrong for you to communicate that hatred. And you are right, it is wrong for you to communicate hatred regardless of whether or not I get the message. This doesn't negate the fact that the medium you chose to communicate your hatred (i.e. spoken word,pitch, tone, volume, body language, facial gestures etc. etc.) can't be evil in and of itself. The medium of language requires intent to make any sense. In this case, your intent was to hurt me. Now it isn't the medium of language that literally hurts me, it's the intent that the language represents. It is that intent to hurt that is the sin.

So you tell me, how is it that music can communicate a sinful intent, thought, desire, concept, whatever you want to call it, without there being an intent behind it?

[ September 16, 2003, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

[Eric B]

Though the dust of which our body is made is not evil in and of itself, our bodies are made subject to vanity as Zodhiates pointed out (and St. Paul before him, Rom 8:20) and sin resides in their members. Therefore we give no thought to our bodies, what we shall eat or what we shall put on, for after all these things do the unbelievers seek.

Now you look like you're saying that feeding and dressing ourselves is "carnal". What that scripture is talking about is worrying about those things, and not trusting God (this is how the 'unbelievers' "seek" those things).

It would perhaps be better phrased, mind and belly, for as the heaven is above the earth, the mind is above the belly. Paul speaks of sensual people whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things, Phil. 3:19. So when I say mind, I am not speaking of the depraved mind that is focused upon the desires and appetites of their flesh.

OK, that's much better when you clarify it that way.

I also need to correct a false statement you made. I nowhere referred to sensuality as pertaining to the "senses" of the body. I have consistently referred to sensuality as that which appeals to the lusts/appetites of the flesh.

That's based on when you said music was sensual because it elicited a physical response. Unless all physical responses (and the senses connected with them) are evil in thesmselves, you cannot say this in itself makes music sensual, unless it is specifically a sinful response, such as sexual movements. This is the charge you and others commonly level at the music, and that's why sensuality became so associated with sexuality earlier in this discussion.

And music can appeal to the lusts of the flesh, just as sex and eating can do. Music feels good. Eating feels good. In fact, many people are having love affairs with food. Sex feels good too. Yet nowhere are we given license to eat and hook up as we please. How is it that we think God gives a green light like Nebuchadnezzar to all kinds of musick? God has placed limitations on all things, especially in the area of our appetites. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Here, "things" refers to activities not objects. That would include music as well.

Once again, you have to prove that the pleasure people get out of the music is [always] intemperate, or sinful as overeating and illicit sex. This is an assumption, and you dismiss the people's testimony that God has shown them that what they are doing is not outside of God's limitations.

What did your paragraph on the beat say that I did not say? I said,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The stresses of a back beat fall where the words, following the rhythm of the melody, are not stressed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is exactly what I said, except that 1 and 3 are downbeats, 2 and 4 are upbeats. That's why rock music is referred to as upbeat music.
But back to the point. You're right in saying it's the percussion, or bass sometimes, which come in and are just there. It does not support the rhythm of the melody or the words. It works quite independently of them and is simply there by itself.

OK, I missed that point on the words. My point was that overall, the music is usually more accented on the odd beats, and it's only a louder drum beat that people are hung up on (I had said, the bass falls on the odd, even overshadowing the louder 2/4 drum beat).

Why did I even mention this? It was to counter the argument that the rock beat exists in nature, and if you think appeals to nature are weak arguments, then I guess St. Paul was just chomping his bubble gum when he said, "Doth not even nature itself teach you"?
You might think appeals to nature are weak arguments, but you're thinkin' wrong. That which can be gleaned from nature is enough to hold one accountable. If the savages who never saw a missionary are without excuse because of what they should have known by nature, how much more is one who had the Scriptures and still missed it?

I don't think arguments from nature are weak in themselves; only by themselves, without adequate scripture backing, but instead, as in this case, used to read a teaching into scripture that the scripture does not author itself. Ths stuff the unevangelized should have known is stuff we can still find in scripture. The accents of the beats are not mentioned in scripture, so then your side digs up some argument from nature and applies it to the morality or spirituality of scripture, which it really has nothing to do with. Nothing that man put together with his hands (cities, machines, etc) occurred naturally in nature, and opponents of progress could always make similar arguments that God never wanted them to exist.

 

[Aaron]

Replies forthcoming. I'm expecting calls tonight and my little girl wants to play Magic Artist.

She's sitting here waiting patiently. Everyone wave at Abigail! (She's three.)

 

[Travelsong]

Mine's going on 2.

Someone asked me not too long ago whay dads have so much obvious affection for their little girls. I thought about it for a minute and said "because there's finally a female in their life that they can understand".

 

[Aaron]

Now that's funny!

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Quick question:

You said eating is carnal. Does this mean that eating is sinful? Is it possible to eat and not sin?

You said that sex is carnal. Does this mean that sex is sinful? Is it possible to have sex and not sin?

You said that specific types of music is carnal? Does this mean that these types of music are sinful? Is it possible to worship using these types of music and not sin?

My statement was that eating can appeal to the lusts of the flesh. I did not say all eating was carnal. Certainly the observance of the Lord's Supper is a spiritual act. By it we show the Lord's death till he come. We are not satisfying the lusts of the flesh, nor is our goal to strengthen the body. Look at how it is usually observed, a crust of bread and a drop of wine, not even enough to wash the crust down.

I can't say this appeals to my apetites, and that's the reason it is observed so. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?

Neither did I say sex was carnal. I said sex can appeal to the lusts of the flesh. Even between a married couple, if the act is engaged in for the satisfaction of self, and not for the other and the Kingdom of God, then it's adultery. WHOSOEVER looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

No doubt some will read the above paragraph and scoff, so let me digress a little to elaborate.

No, I am not a perfect man. Sin is present with me. In the acts mentioned above, self is always there thinking of self and of how much self is satisfied and ignoring others and God's Kingdom. I can't help it, and I will never be totally free from this body of sin until death sets me free. If any man here will say that he knows what it is to be as Adam and Eve, naked and not ashamed, I will say of that man that he is liar or a lunatic.

No doubt some will accuse me of hangups when, in actuality I am simply accepting the truth of my fallen nature. Who could be more free of hangups than he who has accepted the truth about himself?

Paul has stated indisputably that my body is not mine, but Christ's and the woman to whom He gave it. Therefore, it can be nothing but selfishness for me to engage in this act for the simple reason that I desire it. Paul also said that the woman's body is not hers, but mine, but it is not mine to consume my lusts upon. She is not there for the satisfaction of my flesh. She is mine for the sake of God's Kingdom.

So my reply to the question...

Is it possible to have sex and not sin?

...is this. Is it possible to do anything and not sin? Even preach? Where is it that you go that sin is not present with you?

Nowhere.

What is it that you do that self somehow doesn't get in the way?

Nothing.

So, you see, eating and sex are perfect examples of activities that Christians engage in everyday, in which it is easy to point out where the sensuality lies. All one must do is describe the sinless performance—the one in which nothing is in view except the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work, John 4:34.

But there are those things that are less conducive to sensuality.

Preaching is one.
Praying.
Fasting.
The giving of alms.

Unfortunately, it's all too easy to slide into sensuality with food, sex and music. Therefore, in the life of the Christian, these things are closely governed.

Paul spoke of Psalms, Hymns and spiritual songs in the day-to-day life of a Christian. This is not an endorsement "all kinds of musick." Certainly there were more than Psalms and Hymns. What of Lamentations, Dithyrambs and Paeans— styles well-established in Paul's day? The adjective spiritual in front of "songs" doesn't mean "any kind." It means spiritual as opposed to carnal.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Aaron:
My statement was that eating can appeal to the lusts of the flesh. I did not say all eating was carnal. Certainly the observance of the Lord's Supper is a spiritual act. By it we show the Lord's death till he come. We are not satisfying the lusts of the flesh, nor is our goal to strengthen the body. Look at how it is usually observed, a crust of bread and a drop of wine, not even enough to wash the crust down.

BUT, in the original partaking of the Lord's Supper, it was, indeed, a supper. Not a drop of wine or grape juice and a small piece of bread. It was a supper. Yet it was still a spiritual act. The body and blood of Christ was served immediately after they had received their fill of food.

I can't say this appeals to my apetites, and that's the reason it is observed so. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?

I don't think that is the reason that it is observed now, and the burden of proof would be on you to prove this.

Neither did I say sex was carnal. I said sex can appeal to the lusts of the flesh. Even between a married couple, if the act is engaged in for the satisfaction of self, and not for the other and the Kingdom of God, then it's adultery. WHOSOEVER looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The marriage bed is undefiled. Here's a website for you:

[deleted link to profane site]

In your previous post, I know understand your whole philosophy on why certain music is sinful. It comes from your basic understanding that everything we do, even with the blood of Christ covering our sins, is sinful. You've missed the whole "new nature" part, and that's sad, because I think that you're missing the joy that is to be found in Jesus Christ. You really are.

Is it possible to do anything and not sin?

Yes.

Even preach?

Yes.

Where is it that you go that sin is not present with you? Nowhere.

As a Christian, we desire to become Christ-like. As a result of this, we desire not to sin. While no one is perfect, with God's help we sin less and less.

What is it that you do that self somehow doesn't get in the way?

Nothing.

So how is this not true when singing hymns? By the same argument, even hymns are somehow placing yourself over God, so it is sinning.

So, you see, eating and sex are perfect examples of activities that Christians engage in everyday, in which it is easy to point out where the sensuality lies. All one must do is describe the sinless performance—the one in which nothing is in view except the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

There is nothing wrong with eating - it sustains us and when we sustain our life, it pleases God. When we eat inappropriately, well, we have problems. Sex within marriage is not a recommendation - it is a command. Sex between two people bonded in marriage is a pleasing thing to God. This baffles me that you would say that Christians eating a meal or coming together with his or her spouse would be unpleasing to God.

Preaching is one.
Praying.
Fasting.
The giving of alms.

Why not add praising Him?

Unfortunately, it's all too easy to slide into sensuality with food, sex and music. Therefore, in the life of the Christian, these things are closely governed.

You've casually inserted music here. Why are four-part hymns not exempt from sensuality, as such music was not around when Paul wrote his instructions about psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Why are your hymns not sensual, but mine are? Where is the dividing line, if no matter what we do, we cannot separate ourselves from sin?

Paul spoke of Psalms, Hymns and spiritual songs in the day-to-day life of a Christian. This is not an endorsement "all kinds of musick." Certainly there were more than Psalms and Hymns. What of Lamentations, Dithyrambs and Paeans— styles well-established in Paul's day? The adjective spiritual in front of "songs" doesn't mean "any kind." It means spiritual as opposed to carnal.

And you have been unsuccessful in showing how a four-part, organ-accompanied hymn is spiritual, whereas a praise song with the guitar is somehow not. Why would David Crowder's "Make a Joyful Noise" NOT be a spiritual song? After all, both of them are going to be laden with sin anyway, right?

[ September 21, 2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[Aaron]

Travelsong:
When I say that music is only capable of expressing emotion, you say that I miss the more subtle forms of communication. Now you say that music communicates moods, so how can it be evil? Can you give me an example of a sinful mood that music communicates? How can I communicate a sinful mood without context and intent?

Again, the sensual moods are the evil ones. The riotous and uninhibited moods. The worship of God is characterized by sobriety, order and self-control.

St. Peter says we are to add to our faith, virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance, and to temperance patience, and to patience godliness, and to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity.

Any mood that is destructive toward these ends is evil. You can tell if a piece of music is virtuous or base by the character of the music itself. Is it wild and uninhibited like much of jazz and rock? Or is it orderly and sober? And if you have trouble discerning this by just listening to the music, observe the character of the responses to it.

Travelsong:
When I use the word medium I am defining the means by which our thoughts, intents, and desires are communicated.

Then you mean communication itself. Music is the communication, not the means.

Travelsong:
Everything that language encompasses exists outside of the man, and therefore is not a part of his person.

And that is simply not true. Otherwise there would be no basis for communication. We depend upon a common reference and that reference is our like natures. Because you and I are alike in nature we can communicate, and we would be able to do so without a common tongue. Likewise Jesus did not take upon Himself the likeness of angels, He took upon Himself the likeness of the sons of Abraham.

And because we are partakers of the divine nature the cross is no longer foolishness to us. We have communion with the Father through the Son.

If communication was "outside" of man, we would be as successful communicating with one another as we would a bacterium.

Now consider the phenomenon we call music. We all know music when we hear it, and we all understand it, and we can do so by nature. We need no teaching in order to recognize and enjoy music.

Travelsong:
The Bible doesn't refer to things outside of the man as sensual or carnal or spiritual. The concept doesn't make any sense.

That's not true either. I've already cited the passage in James which speaks of wisdom which is sensual. Demons think. They have intelligence. They have wisdom, but their wisdom is sensual.

There is a sensuality quite outside of man.

We need to stop thinking like man is the standard of all things. There is a spiritual warfare going on and our eternal destinies are at stake.

For still our ancient foe
Doth seek to work us woe.
His power and craft are great
And armed with cruel hate.
On earth is not his equal.

Travelsong:
So you tell me, how is it that music can communicate a sinful intent, thought, desire, concept, whatever you want to call it, without there being an intent behind it?

Am I not the one who insisted long ago that music cannot occur without intent? I agree. Without intent, there is no music.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Again, the sensual moods are the evil ones. The riotous and uninhibited moods.

Praise and worship music is not riotous. It is, by its very definition, quite focused upon God. One need only examine its lyrical context to understand that. Therefore, your argument falls.

The worship of God is characterized by sobriety, order and self-control.

And showing unspeakable joy (I Peter 1:8). Is there a time for sobriety? Yes! Is there a time for excitement? Yes. Interestingly enough, where does it say that worship should always be characterized by sobriety?

St. Peter says we are to add to our faith, virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance, and to temperance patience, and to patience godliness, and to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity.

And praise and worship does not disqualify any of these.

Any mood that is destructive toward these ends is evil.

And praise and worship is not unvirtuous, it is not take away from knowledge, it is not distemperate, it is not ungodly, it is not unking, and it is not unloving. Therefore, it is not evil.

You can tell if a piece of music is virtuous or base by the character of the music itself.

I've heard several organ preludes that would initially strike me as base. Gaudy, if you were.

Is it wild and uninhibited like much of jazz and rock? Or is it orderly and sober?

I've never heard quality praise and worship that was disorderly. In fact, the students at our church are more inclined to be orderly and in one accord when we are worshipping together - with praise and worship music, I may add.

And if you have trouble discerning this by just listening to the music, observe the character of the responses to it.

Raising holy hands in worship. Check. Tears of joy and repentence. Check. Clapping. Check. Singing with their whole hearts to God. Check.

Compare with hymns (in this specific population). Yawns. Check. Mumbling the words. Check. No hands being raised and very few hearts being turned to God. Check.

Yes, let us examine the responses to the music. Which is the one that is not glorifying to God? Merely ask the students who have discovered what it means to worship in Spirit and in Truth. If you'd like, come down to Ocala and ask them yourself.