Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

[rbell]

I am not a musician, but wouldn't it be similar to the low notes on a harp.

OK then...is it good or evil? (I know you're not advocating that position...but we're dialoging and I need a sounding board.

 

[gb93433]

OK then...is it good or evil? (I know you're not advocating that position...but we're dialoging and I need a sounding board.

My opinion is that certain sounds will incite certain emotions and the music should match the emotions we want to stir up. So I think that like anythings else we can use almost anything to the glory of God or the glory of man. When I decrease and God increases my attention will be more focused on God. The immature will be much more focused on the music and self.

 

[Luke2427]

No they aren't. They're objects.

Food dishes are a conglomaration of things that stimulate the human senses.
Music is the same.
Food dishes affect the emotions- so do types of music.
What is the substantive difference upon the human psyche between the two.
Hint: to make a point, say something more than- "Nah haahhhh" which is basicly all you did with the above quote.

You're getting closer with this. A scheme is not an object, it is an idea—a thought, and it is moral.

A food dish is the product of an idea- a thought.

Who says that schemes are moral. Do you speak ex cathedra?

I wouldn't be so sure. rbell is still smarting from an exchange from a couple years back. But I'm just wondering where it is that my argument was anything like you're saying it is. Where have I said, music affects emotions, therefore music is sinful?

Frankly, you haven't said ANYTHING. You have not formed a single argument for your position that some music is sinful. All you have done is say in essence, "I know you are but what am I..." and "I'm rubber your glue...."

Not only is this a false statement, it's off topic.

It is not a false statement. It is the idea that brings this house of cards of yours tumbling to the ground. And it obviously is on topic since, I suppose your position, though you've been so ambiguous it's hard to pin it down, is that since certain emotions are sinful and certain music stirs up those certain emotions therefore certain music is sinful.

Now if that is not your position then pray tell what is? I'll even be glad to go back to whichever post you would like to refer me back to if you have actually stated a position in this thread.

Go back and read my posts. I've tried to keep my wording at a fifth-grade reading level, so it shouldn't pose too much of a challenge for you, but I've been wrong before.

These kinds of posts are always the product of someone who is back on his heels in a debate. Since you cannot come out on top you try to appear to. No one reads your phraseology and comes to the conclusion that you are endowed with a mighty mind. No one here need be concerned that you could speak over our heads. Whoever has to jostle for the intellectual high ground doesn't occupy it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Whoever has to jostle for the intellectual high ground doesn't occupy it.

Interesting. Aren't you the one who appealed to your apologetics class and your PhD program?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Aaron, could you please tell me which emotions are sinful?

 

[Aaron]

Food dishes are a conglomaration of things that stimulate the human senses.
Music is the same.

No. Once more, food is not communication. Music is. I don't care how emotional people get about music, or their pet rocks, or the appearance of a double rainbow. The morality of music does not rest on its emotional impact, but on its nature.

Music is an act of communication. It is human behavior, and there is no such thing as amoral human behavior.

A food dish is the product of an idea- a thought.

But it isn't a thought.

Who says that schemes are moral. Do you speak ex cathedra?

You don't know what music is, how can I expect you to know what a scheme is? Thoughts are actions. Actions are moral.

It is not a false statement. It is the idea that brings this house of cards of yours tumbling to the ground. And it obviously is on topic since, I suppose your position, though you've been so ambiguous it's hard to pin it down, is that since certain emotions are sinful and certain music stirs up those certain emotions therefore certain music is sinful.

That has not been my argument. Not once.

Now if that is not your position then pray tell what is? I'll even be glad to go back to whichever post you would like to refer me back to if you have actually stated a position in this thread.

Start with my first post.

 

[Luke2427]

Interesting. Aren't you the one who appealed to your apologetics class and your PhD program?

In response to a host of pseudo-intellectual posturings on your part and Aaron's.

 

[Luke2427]

No. Once more, food is not communication. Music is. I don't care how emotional people get about music, or their pet rocks, or the appearance of a double rainbow. The morality of music does not rest on its emotional impact, but on its nature.

What is it's nature? What nature does it possess? What SPECIFICALLY makes it sinful?

Music is an act of communication. It is human behavior, and there is no such thing as amoral human behavior.

Food is an act of communication as much as music. Every culture has it's own type of food (for India it is gloriously full flavored spicy food, for England it is dull bland gray food) through which it communicates it's cultural preferences. Music and food are both products of their culture and they both tell us things about their culture.
Everything communicates for that matter. Rocks tell archeologists things about ancient cultures. Everything says something about something.

That does not make ANY of it moral.

But it isn't a thought.

Music isn't thought either. It is the product of thought. So are food dishes.

You don't know what music is,

I do know what it is and I have with me here a friend who is a piano player of such proficiency that he was offered a job in Nashville making nearly a thousand dollars a day. He played for the New Hinsons years ago. And he thinks your position is malarkey.

Thoughts are actions. Actions are moral.

I think you are right that music does communicate but it only communicates very vague things. It can communicate anger or happiness or peace or fear. What it lacks the capacity to do is be specific enough to moralize itself.

Anger is not sin. You do understand that don't you?

Fear is not sin. I wonder if you grasp this.

Peace is not sin. But it can be as can all things in improper contexts. When one has peace when he should be trembling before God for his sin- his peace is sin.

When one is angry because God is blasphemed and his cause is undermined as Stephen was in Acts 7- his anger is holiness.

What specific things do some types of music apart from lyrics communicate that make those types of music sinful?

That has not been my argument. Not once.

Then you ought to be clearer. I think you are purposefully ambiguous and vague to protect your fragile position from scrutiny that will decimate it.

Start with my first post.

What number? There are well over 200 posts in this thread. Have some class and at least post the number where you stated your position clearly or restate it here so that it can be properly vetted. This is the essence of honest debate.

 

[Pastor Larry]

In response to a host of pseudo-intellectual posturings on your part and Aaron's.

Depends on what definition of "pseudo-intellectual" you are using. It seems that you mean something like, "Things I have no idea how to answer because I am not familiar enough to know what it means, but I can't admit that so I will simply call it names and say it's not an argument," because that has been about the sum total of your argument in this thread.

Furthermore, I agree with you for the most part that if you have intellect, you don't have to talk about it. It will show up. And it hasn't.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I am going to try to quickly respond here to the responses that were offered (which may take several posts due to character limits). I haven't put as much time as I would like to (though fortunately it didn't require much due to the pretty simplistic nature of it), and later I will offer some more thoughts from a positive end.


First to Luke

A couple of introductory points:

1. The idea that I haven’t made a case is so evidently false that it boggles the thinking mind as to why it would even be suggested. I can only conclude that you think a case has been made only if he agrees with the case. There is no conceivable explanation as to why he would continually say that no case has been made, unless he believes that something becomes true by repetition. It may well be a demonstration of your ignorance about the matter that he thinks this is irrelevant or “not a case.” I think I am able to demonstrate that, and I will.

2. The idea that I am being a pope or something is clearly preposterous. It just out right wrong, easily disproved, and a bit humorous. It clearly isn't a serious contribution to the discussion. Just go back and look how many times I have said that I don't care what people listen to or if they disagree with me. That is clearly not popish. I have not declared anything with infallibility. That is not popish. Trying to decide what the Scripture says about something is not wrong, not even if you say it is. The idea that Scripture does not speak to methods and styles of communication is so strange that I hardly think anyone would affirm it. But yet you do for some reason.

You keep trying to say that I am trying to condemn things God hasn't condemned. But that is exactly what we are talking about. The discussion is about what God has condemned. You are assuming you are correct that God has not condemned any style of communication. I disagree. I don't assume that. In fact, I think there are good reasons to disagree with that.

2. The idea that I have not appealed to Scripture is demonstrably false as anyone who reads this thread can see. I have appealed to Scripture, both for principles of how we use Scripture as well as principles about communication. You know that, or at least you should know that. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it is not a good way to discuss.

So now let’s interact on some specific issues:

Go back and read the illustration I gave about the color red.

You return to this argument quite often, but I have to wonder why. It is a silly argument and if you are actually in a doctoral program, then you know that, or at least should know that. Colors and music are two very different entities, two very different classes of things. This type of argument would not pass muster in a high school class, much less a legitimate doctoral program. And that’s what makes it funny when you say I have offered bad arguments.

The world is a system of rebels against God. Rebellion against God is worldly.

But how do we know what rebellion against God looks like? How is it expressed in various cultures? Don’t you agree that children express rebellion through voice tone (sarcasm, anger, defiance, etc)? It’s not just words. It’s also the manner of expression.

You say, “whatever is in disobedience to God is worldly,” but you have no means (that I can see) of applying that in the 21st century. What is the worldly use of a cell phone? Or a car? Or the internet? Or a camera? Or instant messaging? Or food production? Or whatever else? Until you have some means to bridge between ancient culture and revelation and modern life, you cannot seriously interact with God’s word.

As to the 60's and 70's remarks you made- worldliness has demonstarted itself the same way since there was a fallen, rebellious world- rebellion against God.

No it hasn’t because culture has changed. The expressions of worldliness have changed as the ways to rebel has changed. The means of expressing that rebellion have changed.

You should go back and read some of the history of the middle twentieth century and read what the people of that time said they were trying to do and say by what they were doing. They contradict you.

Because Bach was antiquated and music changes with time.

Actually Bach is not antiquated. He continues to be very popular. But that doesn’t really answer the question. Why is it hard to imagine the music of Bach as a tool for cultural revolution?

Because they existed at the same time. That's pretty simple.

That’s not an argument about why. Again, the people of that time (as I will demonstrate later) say that you are wrong. Now who should we listen to? People who knew what they were doing and what they were trying to say? Or someone who comes along fifty years later, apparently ignorant of history, culture, and meaning and tries to establish his own ideas?

Why did the early colonial music and the American Revolution rise at the same time? Because they existed at the same time.

That’s not an answer (showing that you are incorrect when you say that you have answered everything I have asked). They answer was a “why” question, and the historians (people who have actually studied the issue) answer it very differently than you do.

To push that any further is non sequitur.

You apparently don’t know what a non sequitur is. A non sequitur means that something is logically disconnected, or does not logically follow. First of all, a premise and a conclusion may both correct, and be a non sequitur. An argument may be totally logical (i.e., logically correct) and still be wrong.

Furthermore, it’s not as simple as you pretend. You are failing to consider whether or not there is causality or correlation. The A number of secular historians of the 60s disagree, as do the artists themselves. They saw more of a connection there. I have to wonder how you know more than they do. Why should we disbelieve the people who lived and participated in it, and the people who have seriously studied it, in favor of the opinions of a guy who has apparently done neither?

But no feeling is evil.

So feeling that your spouse exists solely to meet your needs isn’t evil? Feeling lust towards another woman isn’t evil? Feeling jealousy over someone else’s position isn’t evil? I think we can see the problems with that. God specifically condemns certain feelings and emotions. To say otherwise is to deny Scripture.

I know because about seven years ago I use the exact same reasoning you are using in an online debate just like we are having.

I seriously doubt that because you do not even appear to understand the argument I am making.

I talked about horror movie music and music that ignites passion, etc... just like you are doing.

Actually, that’s not what I am doing. The question about movie music was about why it works. The answer is because music communicates without any words. It tells you what to think about what’s on the screen. Movie music without words teaches us what to think. Imagine the scenes at the end of Schindler’s List (where emaciated prisoners are shown) to a carousel style tune. It totally changes the scene because of the teaching capacities of music.

But when it occurred to me that no emotion is condemned in the Word of God, that in fact, every one of them is commended at certain times- then I had to reconsider my position.

You assume that no emotion is condemned, yet we have shown several that are, like unrighteous anger and lust towards people you are not married to, or the like. So your foundation is in fact incorrect. God does condemn certain emotions. So when it “occurred to you that no emotion is condemned in the Word of God” you actually exchanged the authority of Scripture for the authority of your mind.

But the main thing that caused me to mature on this matter was this: that if God cared about it he would have said so. He didn't expect us all to be psychologists. Since he didn't say anything about it, even in principle, then it must not have been a bid deal to God.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume you matured. I would say the evidence points to the idea that you haven’t at least in this area. God expects us to know and understand the times that we live in. He expects us to be able to view culture with discernment, and know what “things like these” are.

As I asked you in another thread, why are you so sure that you are not missing something? I don’t imagine you claim to know it all. Yet you are pretty dogmatic that you know it all on this topic. Is there any chance that your thinking has been corrupted by noetic effects of sin? By cultural biases? By intellectual laziness? By sincere mistakenness?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Continued to Luke

They are laughable. That's why you think we are not addressing your arguments. We agree. This only proves that music moves us which NNE denies.

But why does music “move” us? What is it about the music that moves us? And why does music generally move a very diverse group of people to do the same thing? I think it is clear that this proves that music has meaning without words, and that is why it “moves” us. And that’s the whole point here. And that is what you seem to be denying. Certain types of music communicate meaning that brings certain types of responses.

No. He doesn't (condemn certain tones of voice).

So if I understand you correctly, it is fine to speak to people with contempt in your voice? It is fine to speak to people in a tone of disrespect? Does your wife agree with you on that? Or does she take offense and experience hurt when you use certain voice tones with her?

Would you correct your child on his or her tone of voice? If so, on what biblical basis?

For the same reason that Luke knows that ice melts in the sun even though the Bible may not say it does.

Now you are admitting a contradiction. You are willing to admit certain things are wrong it seems, even when you admit the Bible doesn’t say so. You are admitting that we can, through observation and study, draw conclusions about life and the world we live in even when God hasn’t said something.

Here’s the problem: You have no problem admitting that we can learn about the world through observation and use of thinking skills, but you turn around and deny that we can learn about the world through observation and use of thinking skills.

That won’t pass muster in any doctoral program that I know of and with good reason. It is inherently contradictory.

He is arguing that the only authority we have to preach morality is the Bible.

But you are preaching morality without the Bible. It is clear that God has not expressly or clearly condemned everything that’s wrong. He clearly expects us to use our redeemed intellect to evaluate and discern, to “prove all things.”

You are asserting anti-intellectualism—that there is no need to think about the world and act with discernment. When the Bible says, “Do not love the world,” you have no real way of determining what “the world” is because the Bible does not specifically address “the world” as we know it in the 21st century. I reject anti-intellectualism. I think it is an insult to God’s revelation and the image of God as seen in man’s intellect and reasoning capabilities, affected by sin as they are.

No more than it was ok to have several wives like Israel's greatest king did

This was given in response to the question about where was lust okay in the OT. The problem is that God clearly condemned multiple wives in the OT. He did not clearly condemn lust. Yet here you are saying that it was wrong, even though you have no verse for it, right? God may have winked at it then, just like he does now. But if you admit that lust was wrong in the OT (and I think you are, but I am not sure), it seems that you have destroyed your foundation of “God didn’t say anything about it” therefore it’s okay because God did not say anything about lust in the OT, yet it was not okay.

How is that not contrary to what you are arguing?

He could said, "Music that tends to make one sin should be avoided." The reason he did not say this must have been because it is not so; nor was it so in Bible times when they had a plethora of music styles available to them.

Why would that be the reason? What if the reason is that it was self-evident, just like lust? It was built into commands about worship and aesthetics.

The Bible does nothing but encourage music. Often loud music.

No, to the first and yes to the second. It is common but very entry level and inadequate argument to say that this is a “soft sound” or a “slow song.” I remember when I was a music director at a church having a group that wanted to sing and assured me it would be a “slow song.” I had to laugh at the silliness that tempo was somehow understood as the issue. The volume of music isn’t the issue. I prefer music loud. But loud or soft or slow or fast isn’t the issue.

God would have had no trouble saying, "The music of the Babylonians, Philistines and Edomites is iniquity. Therefore, my people should not perform music that sounds like that of pagan kingdoms."

He did tell them not to worship like the pagans right? And furthermore, had he said “The music of so and so is inquity,” what would that have meant us? There are no recordings of it so we wouldn’t know what it sounds like. God instead gave us principles of communication that he expects us to apply, not ignore.

He could have said that, and then we would know to do some serious research on the matter and be careful to play only those styles of music that please Him.

What would you have researched? You think you could have uncovered some ancient recordings? Seriously …

But he never even HINTED that there was any kind of music then or that would ever arise that would displease him. He didn't hint at it in 66 vast books- not once.

That’s simply not true.

When you are able to get back please address the alternative to being silent where God is silent.

I don’t buy the premise that God is silent. God expects us to understand his word and apply it to the lives that we lead.

The "God didn't say otherwise" comment I think DOES represent my position and most others who believe in the sufficiency of Scripture and hold Sola Scriptura in high regard.

But there are inherent flaws in this, not the least of which is that Jesus himself didn’t believe it, and neither did Paul. I have given very clear biblical illustrations of this, and so your claim that I have made no biblical argument is simply incorrect, and since you know better, it is hard to characterize it as anything other than dishonest. You are knowingly saying something that is not true.

I say, "The leap between the bible addressing communication and music being sinful is a giant eisegetical leap."

I realize you say that. I say the moon is made of green cheese. What’s the difference? Nothing. They are both statements. The fact that we can say something does not make it true.

Then you talk about the lullabies and the culture of the 60's and "We are the Champions" at a wedding which prove nothing.

Actually it demonstrates quite a bit, which you simply ignore.

The 60's issue I dealt with clearly in a previous post.

Where was that? I think I recall one or two lines and some crack about the American Revolution.

Then when you can't make sense to ANYONE on this thread how it is anything less than eisegesis you take the position that you can condemn what God has not

Just to be clear, I am not trying to condemn what God has not and it is dishonest to say otherwise. By this time in the thread, you know that I believe God has condemned certain things and I have shown some simple basis for that. You disagree. Fine. But don’t make up my position. At least debate in good faith.

Historically, Sola Scriptura has never meant that “God didn't say otherwise” is a valid means of deciding things. Go back and read your history on sola scriptura.

I am confident that my belief in sola scriptura is at least as strong as yours is, and is more historically and biblically informed. What you are arguing for is not sola scriptura but a naked wordism that I reject.

[FONT=&quot]

Now, if you like, you can keep regurgitating this ridiculous notion that none of us are addressing any of your arguments- but that does not change the fact that we have been doing just that consistently. You must not be thoroughly reading our posts.

I think I have fairly adequately demonstrated that you have not addressed my arguments.[/FONT]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Final post to Luke

I took time to answer every single one of your questions several posts ago.

There are quite a few you missed, enumerated here as a cut and paste, and you can go back and see that every single one of these questions was previously asked word for word. If you answered them someplace, then please point that out

1. How are fallen values expressed through dress?
2. How are fallen values expressed in art, music, etc?
3. Why is the 60s culture so closely associated with a particular style of music?
4. Why didn't the LA Lakers fill the arena with Pachelbel's Canon in D when the Lakers won the NBA championship?
5. Why is it that mothers instinctively know what kind of lullabies to sing to their children (not words, but style of music)?
6. Why does movie music work?
7. Why are certain types of music associated with ungodly dancing while other types of music are impossible to associate with ungodly dancing?
8. Do you think a lullaby in America might be interpreted as a victory dance in some other culture?
9. Can you imagine a futbol team in Africa getting pumped up for a game listening to a lullaby? Or the Staples Center playing a soft lullaby when the Lakers beat the Celtics for the NBA championship? Or a nightclub in Japan using a lullaby?
10. Why do you think non-English speaking countries play American pop music?
11. Do you think one could demonstrate a lack of grace with his or her tone of voice? That is to say could one say the right set of words, but do so in a tone of voice that contradicts the words?
12. Why is it that people instinctively know when a tone of voice or body language contradicts the words that are spoken?
13. Are you saying it is impossible to sin if we mean well? That the standard of righteousness is intent or desire?

So, I will grant that you made a mistake and simply didn’t see all the questions. But quite clearly you are wrong to say you answered “every single one of [my] questions.” Because here are 13 that you apparently did not answer.

Prove this connection between the Bible talking about communication and certain types of music being sinful.

I have, and you have admitted it. Music communicates. The Bible condemns certain types of communication (as I have shown). Therefore music that communicates in a way that is unbiblical is sinful.

Tell me why I can't apply the same logic you are using to condemn certain genres of music to condemn the color red.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and as is obvious, colors and music are two different entities, two very different sorts of things. It works in different ways.

If you can preach against Christian Rock why can't I preach against Christians wearing the color red? What is the real substantive difference?

Because they are two very different sorts of things.

And you guys have used less bible to condemn something than I have ever seen in my life.

For a doctoral student, you haven’t read much then.

Fred Phelps has more Bible for his beliefs than you do. He twists the Scriptures but at least he brings them to bear.

Nicely done there.

I have addressed every one of your arguments. Every single one of them.

We can clearly see that this isn’t true.

You just don't have any except these:

1. Go read my favorite website that I don't fully agree with.

That’s not my argument.

2. There was music in the 1960' and there was sin in the 1960's so the music of the 1960's must have been sinful. Look up non sequitur.

That’s not my argument.

3. "We are the Champions" should not be played at a wedding. Duh!

That’s not my argument.

4. The Bible talks about communication so music can be sinful.

Finally, my argument.

Again look up non sequitur. You need to make a logical connection between the two in order for it to even begin to make sense.

I have.

You throw mess out there that you feel a certain way about and expect everybody to believe it because you say so.

Actually, I probably care less about this than you do, which is evident from your numerous posts and threads on the topic. Furthermore, this is plainly dishonest because I have clearly said on several occasions that I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, and I don’t care if they don’t.

And then you are crushed when some thinking person says, no.

Where was I crushed? And what’s your definition of thinking? You have yet to respond to most of the “thought” questions that I asked.

I have taken and am taking courses on apologetics and Argument and philosophy. I am pursuing a doctorate in philosophy and apologetics. And I am telling you that you don't know beans about debate.

As you can probably imagine, this is rather unconvincing given your arguments in this forum. You are wrong, and if you are actually in this program, you will soon learn that.

Your arguments are riddled with faulty logic and non sequitur.

Then feel free to show it using my actual arguments.

And when you repeatedly say things like "you obviously don't comprehend..." that is ad hominem.

Um, no. You need to look up the definition of ad hominem. You clearly do not give evidence of comprehending my argument. That’s not ad hominem. It is a statement that appears to be true.

Your 1960's argument is also "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Not if you understand my argument. Which shows my above statement to be true. If you understand the argument about the 1960s, then you know it is not post hoc ergo propter hoc (FYI, it is proper to use italics for foreign phrases, not quotes).

So really, I cannot think of a single rule in argument that you do not shatter in nearly every post you make.

Then you apparently do not know much about argument.

This is ad hominem, I know. But since you won't listen to reason...

I am more than willing to listen to reason. Feel free to offer some.

 

[Pastor Larry]

To Don

What particular values are you talking about having fallen? Specifically, what scriptural values “fell”?

All values. Values are the thoughts, feelings, attitudes etc, that man is responsible before God to have. Because of sin in all its expressions and power, those values are fallen. We would put it this way: Man shows his rebellion against God by ____________.

In sexuality for instance, we would say that “Human express their rebellion against God by pornography, by sex outside of marriage, by immodesty, by illicit flirting, etc.”

Are you talking about the 1350's? 1450's? 1850's? Or specifically referencing the twentieth century? And why just start with the 50's? Swing/Big Band started around the 1930’s; wasn’t that considered a “worldly” genre, and guilty of “fallen values”? Please clarify what exactly the particular time frames you’ve chosen have to do with the argument; or, alternatively, address the historical influence through the ages, since each age of music has been accused of the same thing: detracting from morality and value systems

Obviously the 1950s and 60s. Yes, many would make the case that it starts well before then, but I was simply using one illustration to explore your thinking on this.

So what exactly do you mean by this question?

I mean Why is it hard for us to picture the cultural revolution taking place to the music of Bach? I am not sure how else to ask that. Picture the 60s to Bach and describe the disconnect that we probably all experience. Go find some pictures or movie footage of Woodstock and put on a CD of the Brandenburg Concertos and you will see that is just doesn't fit. That kind of music doesn't fit with what is going on in the pictures. It's pretty self-evident.

Are you talking about the sub-culture? Because during the 1360’s (or did you mean the 1960’s?), you stil had the primary culture of the region in place, while many sub-cultures existed in various forms. For that matter, we still have that today.

That doesn’t really answer the question though. Why did they coincide? Is there anything more significant there? I think there was. The people of the 60s think there was. The historians, academics, and cultural commentators think there was. Now, they are divided on whether or not that continues to this day (which I have already addressed by saying I am not prepared to say the meaning in the music is universal and inherent but it is at least cultural and associative).

Well, the 1460’s had the re-birth of classical learning, and a gradual change from feudalism to the modern state; as well as a change in people’s views about the earth and the universe. Thus, renaissance music was born.

We are not talking about the 1460s, which I am sure you know. But interesting how you suggest that certain learning and changes brought about certain music. I actually agree, and that is part of my point.

Do-able. In fact, it actually seems fitting, if you understand what I mean.

Not fitting and not honoring to marriage.

Just as I previously mentioned about singing “Amazing Grace” while running – speed up the tempo, add some woofer effects, and that cheesy electronic piano effect they do while playing “Take Me Out to the Ballgame”….

Now you are getting my point and making my point. The point is about style, and you are admitting that by changing the style you change what the music communicates.

Oh, wait; you mean a nightclub where they normally play a different type of music?

Obviously. I appreciate the attempts at humor, as feeble as they are. But isn’t it obvious that nightclubs choose certain music on purpose.

Dude, people get married wearing “Star Wars” outfits. One man’s “laughably absurd” is another man’s “style.”

But culturally, wearing Star Wars outfit to get married is considered strange and out of place. It is the exception.

Actually, it’s not. I could gin up a composition based on “Stars and Stripes Forever” which, played at the correct time of the movie, would disturb you to no end…which is the point of a horror movie, isn’t it?

Again, you make my point. You would have to gin something up, and even then, whether the melody would work is questionable. I would be very interested to hear a “gin” of the Stars and Stripes Forever that fits a horror scene.

You lack imagination and creativity.

Probably not. Again, I would be interested in an arraignment of the Canon in D that fits an NBA championship.

Not just mothers; “music soothes the savage beast.”

Excellent. How? When you answer that question, I think you will be making my point.

Timing.

Partially, but not entirely. The wrong music at the right time makes something a joke. Think of the end of Schindler’s List with the music from Indiana Jones. The timing of it can be exactly right and end up being totally wrong. Or try to imagine the end of Schindler’s List to the Washington Post march, or the national anthem. It just doesn’t work (unless perhaps you change the style, which would be making my point).

The bigger point is that movie music works because it teaches us what to think about a scene. Go back to the silent movie era, when an organist played live music to the movies. The reason they did that is because movie music teaches us what to think about what’s on the screen.

Have you not listened to the national anthems of other countries? Yikes, how some of those put me to sleep…but their athletes have grown up being told that such music represents their country, and should give them pride as they represent their country, so while it puts me to sleep, it hypes them up. Go figure.

I understand, but consider the argumentative fallacy here. You are suggesting that because certain types of music doesn’t affect you in certain ways, that there is no universal meaning or communication. That doesn’t logically follow. Let’s consider, for the sake of argument, three categories: (1) Music that is good, (2) music that neutral, and (3) music that is bad. Making an argument that some music fits in #1 or #2 does not disprove the existence of #3. What you have done here is essentially argue that since there is #2 (to you), there is no #3. I would not make that argument. It is not only logically fallacious, it also operates off a wrong premise.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Not necessarily. How much time have you spent overseas in other countries?

A fair amount. I have been on 4 continents, enough to know that there is a reason why certain types of music bring similar responses all over the world.

Define “very few.” Because there are literally millions in America who turn on the radio to rock music as they and their families go to sleep each night.

Depending on how you define rock, yes. But isn’t there a reason why programs like “Love Songs” come on in the late hours and not during the working hours?

Millions of American kids go to sleep listening to rap, hip hop, and death metal. So this statement is effectively nullified, and no longer valid to this discussion.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Define “ungodly dancing.”

Seriously?

David danced in such a way that his wife rebuked him for it, basically told him it was unfit for a king to be dancing in such a way. He then told her it was for God, and that she basically needed to shut up.

I addressed this elsewhere, but the ability to say something is for God does not mean God accepts it.

If we use no other scripture, that principle alone might end this discussion….

Again, no. There is nothing definitive that can be drawn from this occasion.

“American” pop music? Most of those countries are playing British pop music.

American pop music is quite popular around the globe. But the point is that it is not music in which they typically understand the words. They are listening to it for the sake of music.

Ephesians 4:29 – corrupt communication
Proverbs 15:1 – a soft answer versus harsh words

How do either of those address voice tone in a way that Col 4:6 does not? What makes communication corrupt? What makes an answer soft? You have to go outside of the Bible to define that. And once you do, you have to admit the principle that I am appealing to, namely, that Scripture gives us teaching that we are expected to apply based on the culture that we live in.

But Psalm 144:11 shows us that soft answers and non-corrupt communications may not be acceptable, either.

I don’t see anything there about soft answers or non-corrupt communication, but your point is not in dispute. But it partakes of the same fallacy as above. The fact that someone can answer contemptuously or ungraciously with soft words and non-corrupt communication proves nothing about the alternative.

Wow, did I ever miss this one, and cannot for the life of me see the correlation with the topic of discusson.

As I explained the correlation is that Jesus condemns lust on a principle about adultery. There is no verse in the to condemn lust. Yet Jesus shows that lust is clearly condemned by another command. So in the same way, we don’t need specific verses about types of communication. Commands about certain types communication are built into commands about communication.

So we’re only talking about one particular genre of music? As this turns back to the first question, I reiterate my need for clarification. There were people in the 1400’s who absolutely did not like the turn from Middle Ages music to Renaissance, and complained about how it was eroding away at values. The same around 1600 with the change to Baroque music. And again around 1750 with the advent of Classical, and again in the early 1800’s with the rise of Romantic music.

I think your history is a bit flawed on two fronts. But again, the argument is flawed in this way: The fact that people object wrongly to A does not mean that all objections to A are therefore wrong. So you say that people in year X objected to music as eroding values and they were wrong. Fine. But that doesn’t mean that people who object to certain types of music in year Y are wrong>

In other words, the argument against particular genres of music (or, to put it another way, constructions of sounds), is an historical one, that has been played out over and over for the last 2,000 years.

Yes and no. See above.


Thanks for the interaction Don. I am fine with disagreement, but I think I have shown that you actually admit my principles on several fronts and you just don’t apply them as I do (which I think is inconsistent on your part).

 

[Aaron]

Food is an act of communication as much as music. Every culture has it's own type of food (for India it is gloriously full flavored spicy food, for England it is dull bland gray food) through which it communicates it's cultural preferences. Music and food are both products of their culture and they both tell us things about their culture.
Everything communicates for that matter. Rocks tell archeologists things about ancient cultures. Everything says something about something.

That does not make ANY of it moral.

And with that glittering jewel I will take my leave.

 

[Winman]

For thousandth time no one, that I know of, is denying that MUSIC AFFECTS THE EMOTIONS.

We can't get anywhere in this discussion because the "bad music people" keep regurgitating this, their only point.

What they don't seem to be able to do is answer this question-
SO WHAT???

There is not a single emotion that does not have it's place and is not wholesome in appropriate circumstances.

Fear is extraordinarily appropriate when considering the severity of God.

So music that is terrifying is appropriate in a Judgment House Drama and it is appropriate in a thousand other venues as well.

Consider this- Happiness is evil if it is the atmosphere of an evil deed.
Those who make a mock at sin are filled with happiness and Mary Poppins' zippity doo da music might be played as evil people bash innocent people across the head.

EVERY SINGLE EMOTION CAN BE GOOD AND EVIL DEPENDING ON ITS MOTIVE.

Peace is evil if it exists in a state where there should be no peace. There is no peace saith the Lord unto the wicked.
They cried peace, peace when there was no peace...

So is the case with EVERYTHING. Music, chocolate, cinnamon, color schemes, words, EVERYTHING.

But what is extrabiblical is this idea that ANY OF IT is sinful in and of itself.


Chocolate, music, fear, anger, happiness, peace and every thing else that is or affects the emotions is not in and of itself sinful.

To preach that any of it is, is to preach an extrabiblical doctrine.

I wouldn't agree with you that every emotion is good. Some music is extremely carnal and should not be listened to inside or outside church.

I don't watch a lot of TV anymore, simply because I have realized that TV leads me to sin. I see some very beautiful woman in a sexual scene or even just an implied or suggestive conversation and the next thing I know I am having improper sexual fantasies. I have caught myself at this many times and examined where these sinful imaginations originated, and often it had to do with a sexual scene or sexual conversation I heard on TV a few minutes earlier.

Job 31:1 I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?

Job understood this and kept his eyes (and mind) off young women.

And music can do this also. I spent many years playing rock music and I know from experience the effect this can have on ourself and others.

Worship music should emphasize first the melody, secondly the harmony, and last the rhythm or beat. All very sensual or sexual music emphasizes rhythm. Listen to rap music and notice how immoral it is. In many rap songs there is absolutely no melody or harmony, but complete rhythm or beat. And look at the effect on the listeners. It is not mere coincidence that rap music incites very immodest and immoral behavior in the listeners. It is the effect of the strong beat.

Have you ever noticed the effect music has on a baby? It is not learned behavior. I have seen little babies rock back and forth and spin in circles listening to music. No one has to teach a baby this, it is natural.

It is not a coincidence that heavy metal rock bands emphasize the flatted fifth interval. Musicians for centuries have known the effect of this particular sound.

So, I do not agree with you that all emotions are acceptable, nor all forms of music.

 

[Luke2427]

First to Luke
1. The idea that I haven’t made a case is so evidently false

No it isn't, and saying it is doesn't make it so. I represented your arguments quite well in a previous post.

-We are the champions at a wedding....
- Sin and music in the 1960's are of necessity related... which doesn't follow.
-You all should read my favorite website that I do not concur with ...
-You don't know what you're talking about only I know anything...
- and then a bunch of other ambiguity that never makes a point- much less a defensible one.

That pretty well sums up the substance of your arguments on this thread.

2. The idea that I am being a pope or something is clearly preposterous. It just out right wrong, easily disproved, and a bit humorous.

I suppose saying it is easy to disprove is your way of avoiding disprobving it because it is too hard for you... because you certainly have not disproved it as anyone can clearly see.

The idea that Scripture does not speak to methods and styles of communication is so strange that I hardly think anyone would affirm it. But yet you do for some reason.

Music communicates- so do rocks and trees. So do paintings and decorations. None of these are moral. This is not that hard Larry. Why can't you get this?

You keep trying to say that I am trying to condemn things God hasn't condemned. But that is exactly what we are talking about. The discussion is about what God has condemned. You are assuming you are correct that God has not condemned any style of communication. I disagree. I don't assume that. In fact, I think there are good reasons to disagree with that.

No. There are types of communication that are evil. But they must be specific- taking God's name in vain is sin, filthy communication is sin, but music does not take God's name in vain because it cannot communicate things specifically.

It can only communicate feelings which are not in and of themselves sinful. They are only ever sinful when pointed in the wrong direction. This is where you house of cards crumbles.

2. The idea that I have not appealed to Scripture is demonstrably false as anyone who reads this thread can see. I have appealed to Scripture, both for principles of how we use Scripture as well as principles about communication. You know that, or at least you should know that. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it is not a good way to discuss.

You haven't in our exchanges. And looking through you used very little in other exchanges and they were all abused usages.

You return to this argument quite often, but I have to wonder why. It is a silly argument and if you are actually in a doctoral program, then you know that, or at least should know that. Colors and music are two very different entities, two very different classes of things. This type of argument would not pass muster in a high school class, much less a legitimate doctoral program. And that’s what makes it funny when you say I have offered bad arguments.

You don't address the argument here- you just once again engage in ad homenim. This is your modus operandi.
You don't understand that a debate is about addressing arguments not just saying- "Uh UUhhh!! 'Cause you're a stupid head!" That is what the above amounts to.

But how do we know what rebellion against God looks like?

This is pretty simple. If someone is obviously doing something God said don't do- it is rebellion. How hard is that to understand?

What do you think it looks like?

And why does it matter how it LOOKS?? It only matters what it IS.

How is it expressed in various cultures?

By not doing what God said to do or by doing what he said not to do- the same as it is expressed always and forever in every culture.

Don’t you agree that children express rebellion through voice tone (sarcasm, anger, defiance, etc)?

Sure. but the same tone of voice is perfectly appropriate when resisting some kid on the play ground who says there is no God.

The tone is not moral Larry. For heaven's sake, you've got to be able to see this. The motive of it- how it is aimed is what is moral. But that would make it a matter of the heart... wait a second!!! That's exactly what Jesus said sin came from!!! Imagine that!

It’s not just words. It’s also the manner of expression.

No, Larry. It's not the manner- it's the motive. Plain and simple. Why can you not get this?

You say, “whatever is in disobedience to God is worldly,” but you have no means (that I can see) of applying that in the 21st century.

Yes we do. When people are unfaithful to their wives today it is the same as when they were unfaithful 3,000 years ago.

When people are greedy and selfish they treat God and others the same way today that greedy selfish people treated them 3,000 years ago. It was worldliness then- it is worldliness now.

Prediction: you will avoid the last two arguments I made because you have to. You have no way of debating the idea that motive not manner is sinful. And you have no way of sensibly debating that rebellion is the same in every age regardless of the clothing it wears; and you has no way of debating that rebellion against God is the sum total of worldliness.

Stubbornness and the unquenchable desire to save face is the only thing that keeps you on this thread.

What is the worldly use of a cell phone?

Could be a thousand- how about blasphemy on a cell phone or gossip which is the same as writing it on papyri 2,000 years ago.

Or a car? Or the internet? Or a camera? Or instant messaging? Or food production? Or whatever else? Until you have some means to bridge between ancient culture and revelation and modern life, you cannot seriously interact with God’s word.

Covered above.

No it hasn’t because culture has changed. The expressions of worldliness have changed as the ways to rebel has changed. The means of expressing that rebellion have changed.

Covered above.

You should go back and read some of the history of the middle twentieth century and read what the people of that time said they were trying to do and say by what they were doing. They contradict you.

I think you are full of bologna here. I don't think you can site reputable historians who will say that music did anything but express frustration with the status quo in the day. Not one of them will say that music is a moral force in and of itself. Not one. If so, site one.
All you can provide is sources of people who will say what all of us already agree about- that music affects the emotions; that it communicates emotions. But you cannot logically make the connection from that to music being moral because emotions are only sinful when they are misdirected.
Music cannot aim emotions at one target or the other. It can only stir them.

Actually Bach is not antiquated. He continues to be very popular. But that doesn’t really answer the question. Why is it hard to imagine the music of Bach as a tool for cultural revolution?

Many antiques are popular. That is beside the point.

I don't think that the music stirs that particular feeling.

Why don't you tell us why Bach could not have been used to stir a cultural revolution?

But the music of the 60's might have been very useful and appropriate during the American Revolution when we overthrew the culture to which we had been bound.

That’s not an argument about why. Again, the people of that time (as I will demonstrate later) say that you are wrong.

I bet you won't. The best you can do is quote these people saying that music communicated feelings- what you cannot do is find an expert to condemn any of these feelings. You alone do that. And I doubt your expertise.

Now who should we listen to? People who knew what they were doing and what they were trying to say? Or someone who comes along fifty years later, apparently ignorant of history, culture, and meaning and tries to establish his own ideas?

Ad hominem again. And a telling one. Because we often accuse others of things we are actually doing ourselves. Romans 2 and the old saying "Takes one to know one" bear this out. And the last sentence in the above quote states exactly what you are doing.

That’s not an answer (showing that you are incorrect when you say that you have answered everything I have asked). They answer was a “why” question, and the historians (people who have actually studied the issue) answer it very differently than you do.

I absolutely cannot wait for you to provide these sources who are going to say that music is sinful. I can't wait.

Furthermore, it’s not as simple as you pretend. You are failing to consider whether or not there is causality or correlation. The A number of secular historians of the 60s disagree, as do the artists themselves. They saw more of a connection there. I have to wonder how you know more than they do. Why should we disbelieve the people who lived and participated in it, and the people who have seriously studied it, in favor of the opinions of a guy who has apparently done neither?

You have put all of your remaining eggs in this basket. This is the third or fourth time in this thread you have appealed to these mysterious historians. When it becomes clear that they are not saying what you are saying- will you do the honorable thing and admit that your position is indefensible and erroneous?

.

 

[Luke2427]

So feeling that your spouse exists solely to meet your needs isn’t evil?

What do you call this particular feeling? You need to be more specific. Because there is no music that will make one believe his wife exists to serve him. You do know this don't you?

Feeling lust towards another woman isn’t evil?

Lust for another woman is evil. FEELING lust is not evil- the lust is evil. The Bible does not condemn FEELING lust- it condemns LUST.

This is a really weird argument on your part.

Feeling jealousy over someone else’s position isn’t evil?

FEELING jealousy is not evil- JEALOUSY is. the Bible does not condemn FEELING covetous- it condemns COVETOUSNESS.

Once again, this is a strange argument- unique to you. I bet you can't get even Aaron on board with you on this weird little argument.

I think we can see the problems with that.

Yea, I think we just did. It is weird.

music communicates without any words. It tells you what to think about what’s on the screen.

It doesn't tell you WHAT to think. It tells you how to feel. Totally different. And, once again, I cannot wait for these great historians to confirm this idea that music tells you what to think.

ovie music without words teaches us what to think. Imagine the scenes at the end of Schindler’s List (where emaciated prisoners are shown) to a carousel style tune.

Yea, the feeling would not match the music. I have indicated that since the beginning. But the music does not tell you- "Think that Nazism is bad." It simply sets the tone for what the director wants you to feel.
This weird "music tells you what to think" point is terrible. It only sets the tone and atmosphere.

You assume that no emotion is condemned, yet we have shown several that are, like unrighteous anger and lust towards people you are not married to, or the like.

Unrighteous ANYTHING is evil. That's like saying, "Evil men are evil." But ANGER is not evil. Music does not have the power to make the anger righteous or unrighteous. It only has the power to stir the anger. Whether that anger is righteous or unrighteous is totally in the power of the one in whose heart it is stirred. It depends on what he is angry about and why.

If the music stirs anger in the heart of a man and that man becomes angry at genocide- the music nor the anger is evil.

Music cannot make "unrighteous anger" or unrighteous peace for that matter. It can only set the tone and atmosphere for the emotion. Whether that emotions is used properly or not is in the heart of the one who has the emotion

 

[Luke2427]

And with that glittering jewel I will take my leave.

As predicted.

I predict these things knowing that they are about to happen but hoping that my prediction will keep you going just to keep my prediction from being accurate.

When people who purport that music carries some moral quality begin to be decimated they retreat. This isn't my first rodeo. That's why I can predict it accurately.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Thirty pages is enough for this tired old topic.