Domino Effect not just in the Power Grid

[Eric B]

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.

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.

...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.

OK, great observations, but this still does not prove which style is right or wrong, or which are conducive to sensuality. As Scott showed, self can get in the way with hymns as well.

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.

Those aren't "styles" as we refer them today. Many of the hymns we sing today are "paeans". Some may even be considered "dithyrambs". (Many certainly sound like "lamentations" the way some churches play them! ) "Spiritual", while not refering to "any kind", it can encompass various styles and categories.

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.

What do you mean "wild and uninhibited"? Because it is not some marching rhythm, or something that leads you to sit there stiffly and almost emotionless? While harder forms of rock I would agree are wild and uninhibited, most so-called "rock" is very orderly, as is most jazz. Classic jazz shares a lot in common with classical (Beethoven symphonies, etc), and differs maainly in harmony and bass.

 

[Travelsong]

I'm not ignoring you Aaron, I haven't had much time lately to reply. I'll see if I can scrape together a few minutes tomorrow.

 

[Eric B]

(forgot to add: if people are acting wild and uninhibited to it, it is once again, impure to the impure)

 

[Aaron]

Scott:
The marriage bed is undefiled.

I knew that you would scoff at the idea of sex as a spiritual act. I'm not sure what you are trying to say by citing that verse, but the only way it could disagree with anything I posted on the subject is if you meant it in the sense I've seen it cited many times before, to support the idea that in marriage "anything goes" from lewdness to sodomy.

But the true sense of the verse is quite the opposite. We are to esteem marriage as precious and maintain the undefiled state of the marriage bed. It cannot be taken to mean that lewdness between a married couple is now sanctified by the state of marriage.

John Calvin:
Some think this an exhortation to the married to conduct themselves modestly and in a becoming manner, that the husband should live with his wife temperately and chastely, and not defile the conjugal bed by unbeseeming wantonness. Thus a verb is to be understood in the sense of exhorting, "Let marriage be honorable." And yet the indicative is would not be unsuitable; for when we hear that marriage is honorable, it ought to come immediately to our minds that we are to conduct ourselves in it honorably and becomingly.

Matthew Henry:
To purity and chastity, v. 4. Here you have, 1. A recommendation of God's ordinance of marriage, that it is honourable in all, and ought to be so esteemed by all ... It is honourable and happy, when persons come together pure and chaste, and preserve the marriage bed undefiled, not only from unlawful but inordinate affections.

Sex is a holy act and should only be engaged in with the Kingdom of God and His righteousness in view. When one begins to think about what pleases God in sex, it rules out a lot of the lewdness many want to bring to it.

No doubt this is shocking to a lot of people these days who've grown up immersed in worldly thinking about sex and marriage. But as I said before, God did not give any man a woman to consume upon his lusts. He gave the woman to the man for the sake of His Kingdom.

Part of the problem is that many people are thinking with a carnal mind, not understanding that the spiritual mind finds a holy and temperate act full of love and joy and pleasure. The spiritual mind finds it's fulfillment in doing God's will. I cited this verse last time, but I think it needs to be repeated:

It is meat and drink for me to do the will of him who sent me until I have finished his work. John 4:34.

Christ found satisfaction and fulfillment in doing God's will.

The carnal mind is at enmity with God, therefore it cannot find even simple pleasure to be satisfactory unless it is embellished with a host of sensual delights. The "bumping and grinding" terminology which you so loosely tossed about in a previous post is a profane term despite your insistance to the contrary. It describes a hard act, the end of which is only to feed one's lust more than modesty can do.

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.

Quite the opposite. You haven't understood a word I've said. I didn't say everything we do is sinful, I said it was impossible for you to do anything without sinning. There's a big difference, and it was in reply to your absurd question about being able to do anything without sinning. I have maintained that certain styles are sensual in and of themselves, not because of the sin that is present with us when we would do well.

Scott:
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.

If this is your understanding, then you've missed Christianity altogether, and that's tragic. I have receive true blessing and true joy, not blessing and joy as the world gives. The world gives blessing and joy by manipulating one's outward circumstances or by calling evil good. Jesus said, "Blessed are they that mourn." He is not describing natural or worldly sorrow which leads to death, but hallowed, spiritual mourning. Those who are partakers of Christ's Spirit mourn (continuously) because of the sin that reigns in their mortal bodies, and that will reign until this body dies or is changed in the Last Day. The promise is that they "shall be comforted (continuously)."

You can't understand the comfort I feel. The world looked a Jesus and saw a man despised, smitten of God and afflicted. Yet Christ said He gives us His peace and His joy. It doesn't look like peace and joy to the world, because it is not peace and joy as the world gives. The peace and joy you are describing is worldly. It is that springs from calling all kinds of evil from making close friendships with pagans to sensuality in worship to inordinate affection in the marriage bed, good. "It's all good now because I'm a Christian and I'm married!"

No doubt there are some who want to argue with this view, but let's get back on track with the discussion of music.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Aaron:
I didn't say everything we do is sinful, I said it was impossible for you to do anything without sinning. There's a big difference, and it was in reply to your absurd question about being able to do anything without sinning.

And this is your whole philosophy. It's wrong, and abhorrent to the gospel of Jesus Christ, but it's still your philosophy. You're trying to make it a semantics thing, but "a rose is a rose is a rose".

By a logical extension, if we cannot do anything without sinning, then it is impossible for us to please God, since we are in constant states of sinning. Sleeping? We're sinning. Eating? We're sinning. Worship? We're sinning. Loving God? We're sinning.

In fact, by your definition, it is impossible for anyone to continue being saved, according to Hebrews 10:26!

Again, you're missing true joy with this view. And let's not pretend that the joy that I am talking about is some earthly joy - indeed, it is given from the Father, when I realize that I have been liberated from bondage, when I can worship with hands raised praising my Saviour and my God! There is much more to life than mourning - there is a time for that and a time to dance. As for me, Christ has turned my mourning into dancing!

I may also add that it is sad (as I've said before) that you don't want to make friends with non-Christian believers. I am thankful that I have had friends who were not saved - through witnessing and through the conviction of the HOly Spirit, they are not my friends who are saved. Had I shunned them away, I do not know if they would have ever decided to follow Christ. We had a seventh-grader who was saved, because a Christian friend of hers reached out to her when she was hurting.

Of course, if you're sinning by making Christian friends, and you're sinning by making non-Christian friends - what difference does it make?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Here's another passage about the role on sin in the believer:

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free...."I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. John 8:32-36 [NIV]

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, for the law of the Spirit of life has set me free from the law of sin and death. Romans 8:1

 

[Aaron]

1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If you want to discuss the issue of your sinlessness further, I'll be happy to indulge you in another forum. But here, we'll get back to the issue of music.

The discussion of the nature of sin in a believer was a natural outgrowth of this discussion of music and its nature. Generally speaking, there are fundamental doctrinal differences between the CCM camp and others, differences even in the view of man, good, evil and God's redemptive plan.

As Dr. Bob said in the very first post of this thread:

Follow the logic here. Is there a corelation between the RISE of CCM and the exodus from sound doctrine?

I'll post more later. I'm out of time today.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Aaron:
1John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

And keep reading - I John 2:1 - "My dead children, I write this to you so that you will not sin." In fact, read the whole book of I John. Your doctrine is based upon a series of prooftexts! Do we sin? Yep. Do I sin? Everyday, I do things that I want to do that I know that God doesn't do. I never said that I didn't sin, so you're making a straw man argument there.

Do we always sin, even when we worship? God forbid!

There are no real doctrinal issues between the CCM camp and others. The doctrinal issues are between those who are combatitive towards CCM music and everyone else. I believe that the Bible - the whole of it - is squarely on my side. God desires to have His children worship Him. God saves us from our sin, setting us free from the law of sin and death. It is because of this that we can rejoice in the death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
I John 2:1 - "My dead children . .

There are no real doctrinal issues between the CCM camp and others. The doctrinal issues are between those who are combatitive towards CCM music and everyone else.

Scott - Had to chuckle at your freudian typo! But agree that this describes most of the CCM crowd for certain sure!

And no "doctrinal issues"? That is patently absurd. The biggest problem I have with 95% of CCM and 50% of other so-called Christian music is purely doctrinal.

Or lack or misuse thereof.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
I John 2:1 - "My dead children . .

There are no real doctrinal issues between the CCM camp and others. The doctrinal issues are between those who are combatitive towards CCM music and everyone else.

Scott - Had to chuckle at your freudian typo! But agree that this describes most of the CCM crowd for certain sure!

And no "doctrinal issues"? That is patently absurd. The biggest problem I have with 95% of CCM and 50% of other so-called Christian music is purely doctrinal.

Or lack or misuse thereof. </font>[/QUOTE]I assure you, those who worship using praise and worship music truly know what it is like to be alive in Christ! I've been to WAY too many churches who look quite dead when singing hymns. There is no joy in their faces, and merely rote singing. They've missed what it means to be alive in Christ!

 

[Travelsong]

I have been busy as of late and haven't had the time to offer a response, so let's get this in now as quickly and coherently as I can. I am not responsible for miscommunication or Freudian slips

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

Now we're getting somewhere. Sort of. Let's start with riotous. Can music be a riotous thought, feeling or act independant of a communicator? In other words, I might say "That music sounds riotous", but what does that mean exactly? Am I saying that the music is of itself a state of rebellion? How is such a thing possible? If I understand how communication works, I know that music can't be a thought, feeling or act all by itself, these things are tied to the man. Let's say that both of us hear a piece of music that we agree sounds riotous. What about that music are you trying to convince me is evil? Is it compelling the listener to rebel against God? How can you tell? I could score a piece of music to accompany a scene depicting the riots in Los Angeles in 1992. Would you assume that the music is condoning the acts of the rioters, or would you understand that the music is setting the mood and directing the listener to 'feel' the levity of those events? I admit that the practical application for rioutous music is rather limited, but you have quite a long way to go in demonstrating that music can be a state of rebellion all by itself. As for uninhibited, this word, is far too vague to work with. I can feel uninhibited in sharing the Gospel with everyone I meet. I can feel uninhibited in my efforts to help a loved one. Losing inhibition isn't always sinful, so how do you determine the difference between music that might reflect a sinful state of inhibition or a righteous one? Do you understand what I mean when I say that music is incapable of reflecting, or being an expression of explicit thought or intent?

Originally posted by Aaron:
The worship of God is characterized by sobriety, order and self-control.

Absolutely, and joy as Scott added. I never argued that all types of music are appropriate for worship. You're preaching to the choir on this one.

Originally posted by Aaron:
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.

But only the person can be in a mood that is destructive as you say "toward these ends". How can music be a mood all by itslef? The very idea is ludicrous.

Originally posted by Aaron:
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?

What do you mean? Can you give me a specific example of a piece of music that you characterize as wild or uninhibited and explain exactly how it is destructive towards our goals of being virtuous, patient etc. etc?

Originally posted by Aaron:
Or is it orderly and sober?

All music (the way we would define music anyway) is orderly, regardless of what instruments are used.

How can music be sober or drunken?

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

I have many, many times. As I've stated, one of my very few hobbies, is going to live shows. I can't even think of the last show I went to where there was lude crude or sinful behaviour in direct response to the music being performed. It's about time for you to abandon this argument. People are not necessarily compelled to respond to rock music in a sinful manner, and you need to get that through your head. If my own experience can't convince you of this, I'll be more than glad to recommend you to a good show where you will be forced to finally admit that I speak the truth.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Then you mean communication itself. Music is the communication, not the means.

You've been saying this for far too long, and it has never at any point made sense. Communication works like this: I have a thought, intent, or emotion I wish (or may not wish if it is subconcious) to convey to you. I cannot make you understand anything about my thought, intent, or emotion without employing the use of some kind of language as a medium. It simply cannot be done. Now no matter what the medium I choose to communicate my thought, intent, or emotion to you, it HAS to be something external to my being. This is a simple, plain fact of life. Every gesture, facial expression, audible or written word, scent, taste, the whole shabang is external to the man. None of these things are the thought, intent, or emotion in themselves, they can only serve to represent or stand for our thoughts, intents or desires. Music is not some magical noise that becomes a thought, intent, or desire all on it's own, again, the idea is simply ludicrous.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB]And that is simply not true. Otherwise there would be no basis for communication.[/b]

Yes, it is true, and language is the basis for communication.

Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB] 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.[/b]

To some extent yes, but we would still have to employ the use of some kind of language external to our being. There is no possible way for me to express anger and make you know that I am angry or might be ready to attack by standing in front of you motionless, expressionless, and silent. I would have to grimace, growl, charge, etc. etc. in order to get that message across. Certainly our like natures would aid in your successful reception of the message, and you would be able to react accordingly without the two of us ever having to agree that growling or adopting an aggressive stance meant that I was angry, but the fact remains that (1) I must use an external medium to communicate that anger and (2) the medium isn't in and of itself the anger, only a communication of it.

Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB] Likewise Jesus did not take upon Himself the likeness of angels, He took upon Himself the likeness of the sons of Abraham.[/b]

You prove my point. Jesus came among us, and related to men as a man. But Jesus is the only man who does not need to employ the use of an external medium to communicate with us. He knows our hearts inside and out without us ever having to say thing. We can pray to Jesus without ever saying a thing and be certain that He understandes us better than we understand ourselves. We cannot do this with each other.

Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB]If communication was "outside" of man, we would be as successful communicating with one another as we would a bacterium.[/b]

If after reading, everything I just said, you still hold to this silly notion, please reread it. If that doesn't work, you've got some serious studying to do. I thought you held a degree in something related to this field? This is kind of a 101 general knowledge principle of commmunication, and it's odd that you haven't yet grasped it.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB]That's not true either. I've already cited the passage in James which speaks of wisdom which is sensual.[/b]

Think about what you just said. Is Sensual wisdom just floating around aimlessly all over the place? Where does sensual wisdom exist except within the man? Look out how this sensual wisdom is characterized:

But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural (or sensual), demonic.

How can something external to the man be selfish, arrogant or lie against the truth? James is explicitly telling us that this sensual wisdom is in our hearts. It's not some vague, ambiguous sentiment that exists independant of the man.It is not even something that needs to be expressed or communicated.It is the man himself who is sensual or spiritual, period.

Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB]Demons think. They have intelligence. They have wisdom, but their wisdom is sensual.[/b]

Of course we must include all created sentient beings as either sensual or spiritual. For practical purposes I focus on man, but yes, demons certainly have a sensual wisdom.

Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB]There is a sensuality quite outside of man.[/b]

Where? Please don't say demons or I will be forced to laugh heartily at you.

Originally posted by Aaron:
[QB]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.[/b]

I don't act like that, and I've never argued that, would you care to show me how I have?

 

[Aaron]

Travelsong:
Now we're getting somewhere.

It would appear to be so.

Note: To save time in typing, the bold print will signify Travelsong's statements. The light print are mine.

Let's start with riotous. Can music be a riotous thought, feeling or act independant of a communicator?

Well, of course not. Music doesn't exist where there is no listener.

In other words, I might say "That music sounds riotous", but what does that mean exactly? Am I saying that the music is of itself a state of rebellion?

Absolutely

How is such a thing possible?

The rock beat rebels against the melody and the natural rhythms of the words. Igor Stravinsky wrote a horrible, dissonant piece of trash in The Rite of Spring. Music which creates tension and leaves it unresolved is like a troublemaker.

Now, I'm short of time today. Headed to Garden City for choir practice. You have a long post, please give me time to respond.

 

[Travelsong]

TS: Let's start with riotous. Can music be a riotous thought, feeling or act independant of a communicator?

AARON Well, of course not. Music doesn't exist where there is no listener.

TS:I press play on my stereo and walk out of the room. Bingo, music without a listener. I also have a music program for my pc that I can set to randomly generate a rhythm and melody.

TS:In other words, I might say "That music sounds riotous", but what does that mean exactly? Am I saying that the music is of itself a state of rebellion?

AARON:Absolutely

TS:A state of rebellion requires intent. Music cannot have intent, only the performer has intent.

AARON:The rock beat rebels against the melody and the natural rhythms of the words. Igor Stravinsky wrote a horrible, dissonant piece of trash in The Rite of Spring. Music which creates tension and leaves it unresolved is like a troublemaker.

TS:How does a rock beat rebel against the melody or rhythm of the words? What principle from Scripture are you drawing this conclusion from? I couldn't disagree with you more. Consider Bob Dylan's "Subterranean Homesick blues" which likely spawned more slogans than any other rock song in history. The cadence and rhythm of the music are perfect:

Johnny's in the basement
Mixing up the medicine
I'm on the pavement
Thinking about the government
The man in the trench coat
Badge out, laid off
Says he's got a bad cough
Wants to get it paid off
Look out kid
It's somethin' you did
God knows when
But you're doin' it again
You better duck down the alley way
Lookin' for a new friend
The man in the coon-skin cap
In the big pen
Wants eleven dollar bills
You only got ten

Maggie comes fleet foot
Face full of black soot
Talkin' that the heat put
Plants in the bed but
The phone's tapped anyway
Maggie says that many say
They must bust in early May
Orders from the D. A.
Look out kid
Don't matter what you did
Walk on your tip toes
Don't try "No Doz"
Better stay away from those
That carry around a fire hose
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don't need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows

Get sick, get well
Hang around a ink well
Ring bell, hard to tell
If anything is goin' to sell
Try hard, get barred
Get back, write braille
Get jailed, jump bail
Join the army, if you fail
Look out kid
You're gonna get hit
But users, cheaters
Six-time losers
Hang around the theaters
Girl by the whirlpool
Lookin' for a new fool
Don't follow leaders
Watch the parkin' meters

Ah get born, keep warm
Short pants, romance, learn to dance
Get dressed, get blessed
Try to be a success
Please her, please him, buy gifts
Don't steal, don't lift
Twenty years of schoolin'
And they put you on the day shift
Look out kid
They keep it all hid
Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle
Don't wear sandals
Try to avoid the scandals
Don't wanna be a bum
You better chew gum
The pump don't work
'Cause the vandals took the handles

What about music that only offers tension without release is sinful? So you dislike "The Rite of Spring" because it is dissonant, and generally sounds awful. What exactly do you infer by listening to it that it is sinful?

AARON: Now, I'm short of time today. Headed to Garden City for choir practice. You have a long post, please give me time to respond.


TS: Don't feel rushed, life is far more important than message boards.

[ September 29, 2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

[Aaron]

Reply forthcoming.

 

[Travelsong]

Refutation to follow.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Reply forthcoming.

*Taps foot impatiently*

 

[Molly]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
I John 2:1 - "My dead children . .

There are no real doctrinal issues between the CCM camp and others. The doctrinal issues are between those who are combatitive towards CCM music and everyone else.

Scott - Had to chuckle at your freudian typo! But agree that this describes most of the CCM crowd for certain sure!

And no "doctrinal issues"? That is patently absurd. The biggest problem I have with 95% of CCM and 50% of other so-called Christian music is purely doctrinal.

Or lack or misuse thereof. </font>[/QUOTE]I assure you, those who worship using praise and worship music truly know what it is like to be alive in Christ! I've been to WAY too many churches who look quite dead when singing hymns. There is no joy in their faces, and merely rote singing. They've missed what it means to be alive in Christ! </font>[/QUOTE]The answer is not change the style,make the worship more upbeat...that just superficially covers up the problem. The problem is the heart of the people...if they are not truly worshipping then that is a heart problem...A new shallow upbeat song may *seem* to help the problem,but the heart is STILL the problem....too many churches seem to not want to really deal with the heart. Making the style more *pleasing* is much easier.

Molly
Molly

 

[OsanOj]

"IF I am inundated (car, work, home) with Country Western music, it will NOT "make me" dip Skoal, buy a pickup, divorce my wife and put on cowboy boots.

But it will affect my mind, my spirit, my thinking, my whole way of life. IF I have given thought to any (of the above), it will seem to be the "norm" or normal thing to do."

So if a guy does dip Skoal, drives a pickup, wears cowboy boots and has divorced his wife does that make him me likely to listen to country music?

No I know where you are going but do disagree with labeling a whole style of music or type, all together. In every sector of music you will find good and bad.

I listen to music which I find comforting or interesting. I listen more for the lyrical content than for the rythm of the song. If you listen to the lyrics to some "country" songs you will find some very insperational and yes scriptual music. Not saying all of it is good, saying that you as an individual must discern the words and yes to some point the intent of the song.

 

[Aaron]

TS:
Communication works like this: I have a thought, intent, or emotion I wish (or may not wish if it is subconcious) to convey to you. I cannot make you understand anything about my thought, intent, or emotion without employing the use of some kind of language as a medium. It simply cannot be done. Now no matter what the medium I choose to communicate my thought, intent, or emotion to you, it HAS to be something external to my being. This is a simple, plain fact of life. Every gesture, facial expression, audible or written word, scent, taste, the whole shabang is external to the man. None of these things are the thought, intent, or emotion in themselves, they can only serve to represent or stand for our thoughts, intents or desires. Music is not some magical noise that becomes a thought, intent, or desire all on it's own, again, the idea is simply ludicrous.

If you an I were mere chemical reactions as the evolutionists say, then you would be correct. But communication employs much more than abstract symbols. We rely on our like natures. How you communicate depends more on your nature than what is available to you outside. Otherwise, we could not correctly interpret the host of non-verbal signals that we constantly send conciously or not, and these signals are universal.

Until you concede this point, there's no need to go on with this discussion.

 

[Travelsong]

How do you know when your cat is hungry?
How do you know when your cat wants to go outside?
How does your cat know when you are angry?
How does your cat know when you are willing to be affectionate?

Apply these and many other examples of communication to the entire animal kingdom. It doesn't matter that a particular growl is a universal symbol of aggression in tigers, a growl is not agression, or anger or anything of the sort all by itself, it is only a symbol, a representation, or an indicator of intent.

On the limited scope that humans and animals can communicate, are you saying we have like natures?

In humans, any indicator or symbol or representation of emotion or intent can be reproduced without feeling the emotion or intent. Why? because the emotion is not the symbol itself. Evolution has nothing to do with the discussion. Sin has it's origin in the heart, and nowhere else.