Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

[Pastor Larry]

The issue in this thread that I started is not appropriateness for the thousandth time.

While you don’t want to talk about it, the issue of morality is the issue of approrpriateness. The fact that you don’t get that shows that you don’t understand the issue.


I know the issue is SIN, as you say. But what makes something sinful? That's a question I think needs a bit more foundational thinking. To apply it to a different field of arts, when does a picture of a woman become sinful? You don't have a clear principle or biblical line. You have to take what we know of the Bible and human life and culture, and make an application. That's my point here. We have to take the Bible and apply it to culture and life.

Nope. You are hung up on it because you are the only one who keeps making an issue out of "explicit". You introduced that term in an erroneous effort to represent my position.

Um, no. You introduced the idea on page 6 of the previous thread and continued to hammer it by accusing those who operate off of musical principles as saying something God didn’t say. You are the one who keeps talking about what God clearly said and didn’t say. My point has always been that such a hermeneutic is deficient. Jesus didn’t use it; you don’t even use it all the time as you admitted. Yet here you want to lean on that.

I am saying to you that you don't have a shred of Bible that teaches your position on music whether in precept or clear principle.

Clearly you are incorrect.

If you have one- present it.

I have given a number of issues and places where you could learn what you are talking about. You are not prepared to have that discussion because it appears that we can’t even agree on the basic idea that music communicates.

I don't think the even a significant percentage of musical experts will say that music is sinful in and of itself.

I don’t think so either, because the most won’t agree with the idea of sin. But they will recognize the idea of morality and communication in music. It is a fairly universal axiom.

I have read extensively on the subject. I read ""Why Knock Rock", "Why I left Christian Contemporary Music", "Satan's Music Exposed" and tons of other literature on the subject and find most of these authors who argue what you argue to have a very similar flaw- they are not logical thinkers.

As I suspected, if this is your bibliography you haven’t done any real work on this topic. Three poorly written and poorly argued books are hardly “extensive.”

Have you done any study of the site I recommended you like at? I am not saying you should go out and buy a bunch of books. You don’t have to. You can familiarize yourself with the issues far more simply. As I said, I don’t agree with everything on that site, but it certainly would help you out this position you are in of not knowing what you are talking about.

He condemns some words. Therefore lyrics are important- not music. Your step from one to the other is a giant eisegetical leap.

So you don’t think God condemns tone of voice, such as one that treats others with disrespect? You don’t think God’s teaching about communicating with grace and love include non verbal communication? You don’t think God’s teaching on communication clearly condemns a tone of defiance out of children? I bet you do. So it’s not an eisegetical leap. It’s one that you actually believe, I imagine. You just don’t want to think about it.

Prove that any emotion is in and of itself sinful.

Please tell me you are not serious. No believer who remotely knows their Bible would ask this question. Of course emotions can be sinful in and of themselves. We have really scraped the bottom when we start arguing this.

I think you made up the phrase "illegitimate anger" willy nilly.

So? We have already established that your thinking is very narrow and legalistic on this topic. The idea of illegitimate anger is an explicit biblical idea. I can’t imagine what kind of thinking questions that. And you accuse others of being illogical. Seriously, Luke, I am not made, but the legalism has to stop man. I really don’t care what others do in their conscience. It doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is two things: (1) the inability to recognize these basic biblical principles of communication, and (2) the inability to have a substantive conversation. I have asked you numerous questions and you have not addressed one of them to my recollection. You have dodged them all.

The point is that anger is not wrong.

So the whole idea about “Be angry and sin not” was unnecessary since anger isn’t wrong anyway? Come on, Luke. Don’t waste our time here with this nonsense. Being angry at the wrong thing (illegitimate anger) is inherently wrong. It’s never right.

Therefore music that stirs that powerful emotion cannot be sweepingly condemned.

Who has said that it can be?

No, I would not say that. Some soft rock in most worship atmospheres is inappropriate. That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not certain types of music are sinful... for about the tenth time.

So it’s not sinful to talk to the Creator God and Redeemer like he’s your girlfriend? If so, I gotta tell you, we have a different view of God. I think it is sinful to talk disrespectfully to God.

I don't think you believe I am in a corner.

If you’re not, then your refusal to deal with the issues is inexplicable. You keep dodging them. There are several issues that, right now, are boxing you in. So you should have addressed them if you can. I don’t think I have dodged any of your questions.

I think you know you are because you cannot support your position biblically

Actually, I can and have.

and you cannot support the notion that any emotion is sinful.

I haven’t made that argument and I don’t believe it.

In fact, I expect to see you backpedaling or quitting real soon because you are in a corner.

I should quit because it is useless to talk to someone who isn’t interacting on issues and refuses to do any serious thinking.

Your "illegitimate" remarks are worthless.

No they’re not. They are a key part of biblical distinctions. For instance, it is built into Christ’s teaching on lust in Matthew 5. The problem with adultery and lust is its illegitimacy. The problem with sinful anger is that it is provoked by wrong things, and is therefore illegitimate.

Any thing illegitimate is problematic. No one is talking about "illegitimate" emotions.

I am, and you should be. You say that the notion that any emotion is sinful cannot be supported. Yet here you seem to contradict that. If an emotion is illegitimate, it is sinful. You say it’s problematic, but isn’t that sin when it comes to moral issues? There’s no middle ground. It’s either right or wrong.

We are talking about the fact that music and the emotions it incites cannot be sweepingly condemned.

No one is sweepingly condemning anything. That’s my point. I am not sweepingly condemning something. I am arguing for discernment. You are sweepingly approving things without benefit of Christian thinking and the application of Scripture.

Look, Larry. I don't listen to Christian Rock. I don't like the stuff.

So? I don’t either, but that’s hardly the point here.

But I am trying to point out to you a major problem that you and many like you have developed. You don't get to preach against things God has not condemned.

I agree.

When you do, you make yourself a pope, you deny the sufficiency of Scripture, you create confusion in the body of Christ and you hurt the work of God in this world.

I agree. This is exactly what you have done. You have declared yourself to be a Pope, declaring ex cathedra that what is wrong is only what you say. Yet you have no Scripture to support you and in fact you have no arguments to support you. You are hurting the work of God by sending the message that the Bible does not need to be consulted on issues of culture.

You need to humble yourself and meditate on these things.

Wow … just wow. I have tried to be humble here. I have not been dogmatic on hardly anything. I have asked a lot of questions hopefully to avoid being dogmatic. I don’t really care about what kind of music you use or like or listen to or whatever. It doesn’t bother me. I think there are some important principles that need to be discussed. Unfortunately, they are not being discussed here. As so often is the case, we run to easy application without exploring foundations.

I think it is fair to say that, at least based on the evidence here, I have spent a good deal more time meditating on these things than you have. Your conversation here shows that you have not even scratched the service of knowing what the issues are, much less contemplating them in any serious manner. Luke, I am going to try to bail out here I think, unless there are specific issues addressed to me.


I have enjoyed the exchange, believe it or not. It's been a bit frustrating and I put more time into it than I should have probably. I wish it had been a bit more on topic and a bit more willing to explore some of these issues. You asked an initial question which was good, and then refused to interact with possible examples exploring how we might answer that question.

Again, I don’t really care what music people use or listen to. It doesn’t bother me. My point is about the need to apply Scripture to all of life and culture. Not just the easy parts.

Take care, friend.

 

[GBC Pastor]

I won't interact with most of this because, quite frankly, it's to the point of utter nonsense. But I will say this. I know what you my point was because I believe it and I wrote it, and I am eminently qualified to say that you missed it. The problem may be that I miscommunicated or that you misread, or some combination. But when someone who holds the position/point tells you you missed it, you should acknowledge that.

I think you are being intentionally ludicrous to say that a lullaby might fit in any situation that I mentioned above (which wasn't a wedding or elevator music, and intentionally so).

You should have played football. The Cowboys could really use you. You back pedal better than anyone in their secondary.

 

[Don]

Wow. I thought this thread as over.

GBC Pastor - it does you no good to "discuss" with Pastor Larry. And BTW: Yes, culture has a LOT to do with music. As I pointed out in this very thread, colors have different meanings based on which culture you're in (white in another country, for example, is associated with death; black in yet another country is associated with death by martyrdom, but not intended as a "mourning" color). In the middle east, the use of drums in their religious music is quite prevalent...but in no way could be likened to the use of drums in voodoo-related music.

Pastor Larry - 13 pages, and I still have yet to see where you posted any scripture on the subject of music. I may have missed it.

Luke - I think what you intended to start with this thread is actually (finally) addressed by Pastor Larry, either on this page or page 12. That subject is "discernment." Music in and of itself is neither sinful, nor moral. I once started a thread alluding to that same position, likening music to a gun or to any other tool. It is the intent of our heart that indicates the sinfulness of the tools we use to fulfill that intent.

"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." Prov 23:7

 

[Pastor Larry]

You should have played football. The Cowboys could really use you. You back pedal better than anyone in their secondary.

I am not sure what that means. What have I back-pedaled on? I think I was pretty straightforward, though I perhaps miscommunicated somewhere. I will be glad to clarify if you will please tell me where you think I backpedaled. I will try to straighten it out. Otherwise, I am not sure how this post is helpful. It doesn't further the discussion, it seems.

GBC Pastor - it does you no good to "discuss" with Pastor Larry.

And why do you say that? I think if you read this thread, you will see that I am about the only one who has consistently responded to issues and questions asked of me. That's what discussion is: interaction with one another. Many here, such as Luke and yourself, have not answered questions and dialogued on the matter. I am the one here who has actually admitted I don't know it all and have tried to be very careful not to be dogmatic. So when it comes to discussion (asking and answering; responding to questions), I have done that more than anyone here.

Luke who started this thread, ostensibly looking for answers, has yet to answer the questions that would help to give some direction to the idea of meaning in music. Why he ignores them I have no idea. Why he posted a question if he doesn't want to interact with possible answers I have no idea. But you can't have a discussion unless someone answers back. And so far, I am about the only one who has done that. You yourself Don, haven't answered any of my questions? You have simply popped in here a few times to demagogue the issue, offering no real contribution to the issue itself.

(I am here again, after saying I was going to quit, precisely because I am willing to discuss. I don't have all the answers, and unlike most here, I am willing to admit that.)

So to say it is useless to discuss things with me is simply wrong. It is not based in fact. I am willing to discuss.

As I pointed out in this very thread, colors have different meanings based on which culture you're in (white in another country, for example, is associated with death; black in yet another country is associated with death by martyrdom, but not intended as a "mourning" color).

So it is incumbent on you to show how music and colors are similar. How are they alike, and how are they different?

In the middle east, the use of drums in their religious music is quite prevalent...but in no way could be likened to the use of drums in voodoo-related music.

"In no way"? Again, I think this needs a bit of interaction and support. It can be likened to the use of drums in something like "voodoo-related music."

Pastor Larry - 13 pages, and I still have yet to see where you posted any scripture on the subject of music. I may have missed it.

And where are yours, Don? Isn't it true that you haven't posted any Scripture on the subject of music?

The fact is that I have referenced scriptural teachings probably more than anyone else has here. I have constantly come back to that issue and tried to focus on the fact that Scripture does speak clearly about communication and we are expected to draw principles from that. I am assuming that in this forum, people are relatively familiar with Scripture. I suppose that could be a mistake on my part.

The reality is that for all the talk about using Scripture, I haven't seen anyone on your side use Scripture to support your position. All your side does is argue from culture and analogy. So why is it okay for you to argue without Scripture but not for me? Why can not I appeal to obvious cultural issues.

Music in and of itself is neither sinful, nor moral.

Yes, you are correct, as I have said. Music is a great tool. The issue is the way that music is used. And all uses of music are not equal.

I once started a thread alluding to that same position, likening music to a gun or to any other tool.

Yes, but once music is constructed wrongly, it is dangerous, just like a gun that is constructed wrongly. Once music is used wrongly, it is wrong, just like a gun that is used wrongly. You see, a gun and music can be compared. But a gun cannot be compared to a type or music. The use of a gun can be compared to the use of music. And this was the analogy issue that I addressed earlier and was virtually ignored on the substance of the discussion. In analogy or comparison, you have to compare like entities. As it stands, the gun/music comparison is a comparison between two completely dissimilar entities. It would be like comparing words to apples. They just don't match up.

It is the intent of our heart that indicates the sinfulness of the tools we use to fulfill that intent.

Are you saying it is impossible to sin if we mean well? That the standard of righteousness is intent or desire? I can't imagine that is what you are saying, but I want some clarification before proceeding.

Don, I hope you will do more than make what appear to be snide personal remarks about me (to others that aren't even addressed to me) that aren't based in truth. As I have demonstrated abundantly, I am more than willing to discuss (probably too willing since it takes a lot of time), and I am more than willing to let people disagree with me. I know I don't have all the answers.

So if you are willing to actually engage in the discussion rather than make these seemingly useless types of posts, I would like to see you go back and interact thoughtfully with some of the issues of substance that I have raised.

 

[scocha1]

What's sad is that we're even having this conversation. Pretty sure that Christ came to redeem fallen man, not music.

 

[GBC Pastor]

I am not sure what that means. What have I back-pedaled on? I think I was pretty straightforward, though I perhaps miscommunicated somewhere. I will be glad to clarify if you will please tell me where you think I backpedaled. I will try to straighten it out. Otherwise, I am not sure how this post is helpful. It doesn't further the discussion, it seems.

How is this for back pedaling? For the last 7-10 pages you have declared that somehow certain musical sounds are sinful. Now you post:

Music is a great tool. The issue is the way that music is used. And all uses of music are not equal.

Which is what myself and several others have already stated. Music is not sinful in and of itself. It is the intent of the user that can make music sinful. Yet for page after page you have communicated a belief that the sounds in and of themselves are sinful. If your brother/sister /cousin (I'm not going back to look) who played rock music in a praise and worship band caused you to have a sinful emotional response then that is on you. Their intent was to praise God! They did no wrong. Their music was not sin.

As for furthering the discussion, you have been chasing your tail for the last half dozen pages. Your first thought that has "furthered the discussion" didn't come until this last post.

 

[Pastor Larry]

What's sad is that we're even having this conversation. Pretty sure that Christ came to redeem fallen man, not music.

Do you know of anyone who argues that Jesus came to redeem music?

There is a lot of talk of "redeeming music" but my understanding of that deals with people redeeming certain styles of music for Christian use, not of Jesus redeeming music from slavery to sin in order to reconcile it to God and give it eternal life.

It seems to me that this comparison, like some others that were attempted, fails the basic premise of a comparison, namely that the entities compared need some basis of similarity.

 

[Don]

Are you saying it is impossible to sin if we mean well? That the standard of righteousness is intent or desire? I can't imagine that is what you are saying, but I want some clarification before proceeding.

Upon re-reading my statement, I agree that I should clarify it more. Good intentions do not make sinful things "good"; murdering someone because in your heart you believe it to be the right thing to do, is still murder, which is condemned.

How we use tools, how we construct things, is a reflection. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

 

[Don]

And why do you say that? I think if you read this thread, you will see that I am about the only one who has consistently responded to issues and questions asked of me. That's what discussion is: interaction with one another. Many here, such as Luke and yourself, have not answered questions and dialogued on the matter. I am the one here who has actually admitted I don't know it all and have tried to be very careful not to be dogmatic. So when it comes to discussion (asking and answering; responding to questions), I have done that more than anyone here.

Most of the rest of us already knew that we "don't know it all"; you're the one who requested credentials, identifying that only those that have some sort of background have the only opinions worth paying attention to.

If you still don't understand how high-falutin' that came across as, I can't help you.

Luke who started this thread, ostensibly looking for answers, has yet to answer the questions that would help to give some direction to the idea of meaning in music. Why he ignores them I have no idea. Why he posted a question if he doesn't want to interact with possible answers I have no idea. But you can't have a discussion unless someone answers back. And so far, I am about the only one who has done that. You yourself Don, haven't answered any of my questions? You have simply popped in here a few times to demagogue the issue, offering no real contribution to the issue itself.

Whatever.

(I am here again, after saying I was going to quit, precisely because I am willing to discuss. I don't have all the answers, and unlike most here, I am willing to admit that.)

Is that really why you keep coming back?

So to say it is useless to discuss things with me is simply wrong. It is not based in fact. I am willing to discuss.

On your terms.

So it is incumbent on you to show how music and colors are similar. How are they alike, and how are they different?

They're analogous.

"In no way"? Again, I think this needs a bit of interaction and support. It can be likened to the use of drums in something like "voodoo-related music."

What, exactly, is "voodoo-related music"???

I make such statements using the authority of having personally interacted with the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan over the last few years. From what position of authority do you contradict my statement?

And where are yours, Don? Isn't it true that you haven't posted any Scripture on the subject of music?

Nope, not true. If you go back and re-read, you'll see where I supported GB and pointed out certain scriptures to Luke.

The fact is that I have referenced scriptural teachings probably more than anyone else has here. I have constantly come back to that issue and tried to focus on the fact that Scripture does speak clearly about communication and we are expected to draw principles from that. I am assuming that in this forum, people are relatively familiar with Scripture. I suppose that could be a mistake on my part.

What scriptures?

The reality is that for all the talk about using Scripture, I haven't seen anyone on your side use Scripture to support your position. All your side does is argue from culture and analogy. So why is it okay for you to argue without Scripture but not for me? Why can not I appeal to obvious cultural issues.

As mentioned above, at least one individual referenced scripture.

And what, exactly, is "our side"? What position do you think we're arguing?

Yes, you are correct, as I have said. Music is a great tool. The issue is the way that music is used. And all uses of music are not equal.

This is NOT what you originally started this thread saying.

Yes, but once music is constructed wrongly, it is dangerous, just like a gun that is constructed wrongly. Once music is used wrongly, it is wrong, just like a gun that is used wrongly. You see, a gun and music can be compared. But a gun cannot be compared to a type or music. The use of a gun can be compared to the use of music. And this was the analogy issue that I addressed earlier and was virtually ignored on the substance of the discussion. In analogy or comparison, you have to compare like entities. As it stands, the gun/music comparison is a comparison between two completely dissimilar entities. It would be like comparing words to apples. They just don't match up.

Your argument is incorrect. Most people do not "construct" music, just as most people do not construct guns. Most people are not composers.

Further, your argument about "types" is incorrect. There are different types of guns, with different uses in mind. One could argue that there is one overall use for any type of gun: killing things. But the same argument can be made for any type of music: To entertain, to elicit a response. Thus, your niggling about the "definition of is" merely prolongs the basic discussion, instead of simply answering the questions.

Don, I hope you will do more than make what appear to be snide personal remarks about me (to others that aren't even addressed to me) that aren't based in truth. As I have demonstrated abundantly, I am more than willing to discuss (probably too willing since it takes a lot of time), and I am more than willing to let people disagree with me. I know I don't have all the answers.

So if you are willing to actually engage in the discussion rather than make these seemingly useless types of posts, I would like to see you go back and interact thoughtfully with some of the issues of substance that I have raised.

Fact of the matter is, PL, that I've had the same impression of you (regarding snide remarks). We've both demonstrated that we're unwilling to discuss, because we both believe we have the right answers; and we're both too prideful to admit that we're both acting in an un-Christianlike manner.

 

[Pastor Larry]

How is this for back pedaling? For the last 7-10 pages you have declared that somehow certain musical sounds are sinful. Now you post: Music is a great tool. The issue is the way that music is used. And all uses of music are not equal.

So where's the backpedaling?

Which is what myself and several others have already stated. Music is not sinful in and of itself.

Music as an entity isn't sinful in and of itself. No one argues that, GBC Pastor. Come on, now. It is the use of music in terms of its construction that gives it meaning that is the problem.

It is the intent of the user that can make music sinful.

That as well, but particular constructions of music are incompatible with Christian thinking and are therefore sinful. That's the point.

If your brother/sister /cousin (I'm not going back to look) who played rock music in a praise and worship band caused you to have a sinful emotional response then that is on you. Their intent was to praise God!

So I ask you what I asked Don: Are you really saying that sin in a matter of intent? That so long as a person means well, it is impossible to sin?

They did no wrong. Their music was not sin.

Based on what? You are simply pulling this out of thin air. You are not offering any Scripture to support you. You are not offering any interaction with culture and cultural communication to support you. Why not?

As for furthering the discussion, you have been chasing your tail for the last half dozen pages. Your first thought that has "furthered the discussion" didn't come until this last post.

How is that possible? I have been saying the same thing. If you actually read what I said, you can see that the same themes and even the examples are used time after time. I can only assume you haven't read closely.

 

[Pastor Larry]

How we use tools, how we construct things, is a reflection. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

We agree on that, Don. Thanks for your clarification.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Originally Posted by Pastor Larry
Yes, you are correct, as I have said. Music is a great tool. The issue is the way that music is used. And all uses of music are not equal.

Don:

This is NOT what you originally started this thread saying.

Thank you Don. I was pretty sure I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

So I ask you what I asked Don: Are you really saying that sin in a matter of intent? That so long as a person means well, it is impossible to sin?

I am saying that the sinfulness of MUSIC is determined by intent absolutely.

particular constructions of music are incompatible with Christian thinking and are therefore sinful.

Wrong. Now you're backpedaling back the other way.

I have been saying the same thing. If you actually read what I said, you can see that the same themes and even the examples are used time after time. I can only assume you haven't read closely.

Isn't it interesting that others have read what you wrote and we all keep coming to the same conclusion about what you are trying to say? Yet you continue to imply we aren't reading your words correctly?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thanks Don for your response. Let me try again here.

Most of the rest of us already knew that we "don't know it all"

I am not sure about that. There are some here making dogmatic statements (e.g., “No type of music is sinful”) without admitting any possibility that they might be wrong about that.

you're the one who requested credentials, identifying that only those that have some sort of background have the only opinions worth paying attention to.

If you still don't understand how high-falutin' that came across as, I can't help you.

I completely understand how high falutin that might sound, but that’s irrelevant to the issue. There is nothing “high falutin” about me, and that certainly wasn’t intended to be high falutin.

It is a simple matter that we recognize in every area of life … that we trust the opinions of people who have reason to know what they are talking about, and we distrust the opinions of people who don’t have reason to know what they are talking about. Why do you think the medical boards verify that you have a certain amount of knowledge and experience and training prior to saying you can set up a doctor’s office? Why are the ASE certified mechanics where knowledge and skills are tested? Because everyone recognizes my point. Before you trust someone’s opinion, you want to know if they know what they are talking about.

Whatever.

I presume that means you are still unwilling to answer the questions in order to give us some idea of how you explain these things? Honestly, Don, that’s the frustrating part of this. I have asked the same basic questions time and time again and can’t get a response to them from most, and no substantive response that I can recall from anyone. “Whatever” doesn’t help me understand how you think about these issues.

Is that really why you keep coming back?

Yes, I keep coming back to discuss. As you note, I quote people and respond to their comments.

On your terms.

Not sure what that means. I don’t have terms for discussion. I respond to what people say and would like you to respond to what I say. (In all the time you wrote this, you could have simply given us your perspective on some of the issues I have brought up.)

They're analogous.

That’s not discussion Don. I asked a question (actually two): How are they alike, and how are they different? Saying “They’re analogous” doesn’t help my understanding of your point.

What, exactly, is "voodoo-related music"???

Let me apologize here because I misread your original statement. I misread the reference to Middle East music. You are correct that my experience of Middle East music is not similar to voodoo cultures. However, you are the one who first used the term. I put it in quotes because I am not entirely sure what you mean by it.

What scriptures?

Numerous scriptures on the topic of communication. Again, I assume that you know your Bible well enough that when we speak of scriptural topics, you don’t need me to give exact references. Do you really need me to cite specific Scriptures about biblical communication? Generally, the tack taken is that music doesn’t communicate. It’s not questioned that the Scriptures talk about communication. Take for instance, “Let your speech be with grace, seasoned with salt.” Or “Speak truth.” Both of these apply not just to words, but to tone and the manner in which we communicate. And therefore it applies to music. It is possible to say one thing with our words and say something completely different with the music.

And what, exactly, is "our side"? What position do you think we're arguing?

You appear to be arguing that there is no type of music that is sinful. Am I missing your point? Do you actually agree with me?

This is NOT what you originally started this thread saying.

On this you are simply wrong. I can assure you that I haven’t changed my position one iota since I began participating in this thread. I may have poorly communicated, but I think most have understood it pretty clearly.

Your argument is incorrect. Most people do not "construct" music, just as most people do not construct guns. Most people are not composers.

Not sure how that makes my argument incorrect since I don’t think I said anything about most people constructing either music or guns. Perhaps you misread.

Further, your argument about "types" is incorrect. There are different types of guns, with different uses in mind. One could argue that there is one overall use for any type of gun: killing things. But the same argument can be made for any type of music: To entertain, to elicit a response. Thus, your niggling about the "definition of is" merely prolongs the basic discussion, instead of simply answering the questions.

Again Don, it seems too simple to have to be mentioned yet again, but music and guns are too completely different types of entities. They are different classes of things, philosophically. That’s why you can’t compare them as you have.

But there are several issues of concern here. First the overall use for any type of gun is not “killing things.” BB guns for instance are not generally intended to kill things. I have two guns, neither of which are intended to kill things.

Furthermore, music is not intended primarily to entertain. It has a number of functions including worship, teaching, instructions, etc.

Fact of the matter is, PL, that I've had the same impression of you (regarding snide remarks).

I haven’t made any snide remarks to you that I recall. If so, I should not have and I didn’t intend to. (And that means I didn’t really do it right??? Of course I jest … But it does help make the point about communication, that it’s more than just words.)

We've both demonstrated that we're unwilling to discuss, because we both believe we have the right answers

I have in fact said I am not sure I have the right answer here, Don. And to the best of my heart and knowledge of my heart, I haven’t acted unChristianly. I have tried to keep my comments on the topic. I have tried to treat you and others who disagree with me with respect and grace. And I intend to continue to do that.

And I don’t think you have been particularly unchristian aside from a few comments where you turned a bit personal and made some accusations and where you said some things that aren’t exactly true. I am willing to accept that, in this forum, it is easy to be unclear both in writing and reading, and I chalk up the misunderstanding to both. I misread you earlier and I apologize for that. I certainly don’t take anything here personally. AS I said, I don’t really care what people do. I think there are some interesting and important issues to discuss and I think we should discuss them, which has been the point of my participation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thank you Don. I was pretty sure I wasn't the only one who felt this way.

As I pointed out to Don, I haven't have changed.

I am saying that the sinfulness of MUSIC is determined by intent absolutely.

But on what basis are you able to say that? Because I disagree. And the reason is obvious. If someone intends to create a NBA celebration with Pachelbel's Canon, it won't work. It won't matter what their intent is. The music itself communicates apart from intent. And I think there is no valid reason to think that that principle gets checked at the church door. It applies in every arena of life, not just outside of church.

Wrong. Now you're backpedaling back the other way.

Now you're getting me dizzy. You were wrong about me backpedaling before. I haven't changed, friend. I still believe what I have said all along.

Isn't it interesting that others have read what you wrote and we all keep coming to the same conclusion about what you are trying to say? Yet you continue to imply we aren't reading your words correctly?

I don't think "we all" have done that. Several don't seem to be confused by it. They responded exactly to what I was saying. Yes, I think you are not reading my words carefully. I am trying to be very precise in what I am saying. So that is why I distinguish between "Music" and "types of music" or "uses of music." Music isn't inherently wrong. Music can be used in sinful ways.

Again, let me try to be clear: Some types of music unequivocally have cultural and associative baggage that make it sinful for use in Christian worship and probably in the development of Christian thinking (and in fact, may be harmful to sound thinking generally speaking).

Some types of music may be inherently sinful, though I am not prepared to argue that because I am not sure.

That's been my position from the beginning, and it was clarified around pages 6-7 or so.

 

[Don]

Larry, the fact that more than one person says the same thing about you, means the problem is not everyone else.

This thread should be closed, or re-started in another fashion.

 

[GBC Pastor]

Again, let me try to be clear: Some types of music unequivocally have cultural and associative baggage that make it sinful for use in Christian worship and probably in the development of Christian thinking (and in fact, may be harmful to sound thinking generally speaking).

Some types of music may be inherently sinful, though I am not prepared to argue that because I am not sure.

Now who is dizzy?

As I pointed out to Don, I haven't have changed.

Keep telling yourself that.

Take for instance, “Let your speech be with grace, seasoned with salt.” Or “Speak truth.” Both of these apply not just to words, but to tone and the manner in which we communicate. And therefore it applies to music.

Really? I would argue that this applies very specifically to words. Stretching that to music unless you are talking about lyrics is eisegesis.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Keep telling yourself that.

Having the benefit of knowing what I believe, I can say with no fear of contradiction that I haven't changed. I can't imagine what kind of world you are living in to think you know what I believe better than I know what I believe.

Really? I would argue that this applies very specifically to words. Stretching that to music unless you are talking about lyrics is eisegesis.

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? (Often we call that sarcasm, and many people recognize it but some miss it. Sometimes it's not sarcasm. I quite frequently find myself doing that to my wife, saying "Yes I will do that" but doing in a tone of voice that clearly communicates that I don't want to do that. I am increasingly aware of this because of God's work in my own life.)

We see this in children when they say the right words ("yes sir") but do so in a tone of voice that contradicts the obedience and rather shows disrespect.

So surely you don't think it only applies to words do you? Don't you correct your children's tone of voice?

 

[GBC Pastor]

I can't imagine what kind of world you are living in to think you know what I believe better than I know what I believe.

I don't claim anywhere to know what you believe. However, myself and others do seem to be in agreement about what you have stated. Even though you choose to ignore your contradictions. It may make perfect sense in your mind, but your position is not coming across clearly in written form.

Do you think one could demonstrate a lack of grace with his or her tone of voice?

Certainly. But this is not about what I think, as you have made abundantly clear. This is only about what the text you mention speaks to. And you sir are practicing eisegesis to stretch the text to say something it is not to fit your own preconceived notions.

So surely you don't think it only applies to words do you? Don't you correct your children's tone of voice?

Yes I certainly do think your quotes specifically apply to spoken words.

 

[Luke2427]

While you don’t want to talk about it, the issue of morality is the issue of approrpriateness. The fact that you don’t get that shows that you don’t understand the issue.

Larry, anything inappropriate is problematic for the second time. No one here is saying or has said that ll music is appropriate at all times in all circumstances. You continue to assault straw men.

The point of this thread is that you cannot prove biblically that any type of music is sinful. You keep saying you have provided scripture but I have not found a single verse that you have provided in our exchanges.

I know the issue is SIN, as you say. But what makes something sinful? That's a question I think needs a bit more foundational thinking. To apply it to a different field of arts, when does a picture of a woman become sinful? You don't have a clear principle or biblical line. You have to take what we know of the Bible and human life and culture, and make an application. That's my point here. We have to take the Bible and apply it to culture and life.

Then where's your bible?

Um, no. You introduced the idea on page 6 of the previous thread and continued to hammer it by accusing those who operate off of musical principles as saying something God didn’t say. You are the one who keeps talking about what God clearly said and didn’t say. My point has always been that such a hermeneutic is deficient. Jesus didn’t use it; you don’t even use it all the time as you admitted. Yet here you want to lean on that.

Um, no. You introduced the term explicit misrepresenting my position and have done so ad nauseum ever since. The point is that clear bible principles are applicable to contemporary problems. But you don't have one for your position. I hope I don't have to repeat this again. Take time to meditate on this before you respond so we can make some progress.

Clearly you are incorrect.

Powerful argument

I have given a number of issues and places where you could learn what you are talking about. You are not prepared to have that discussion because it appears that we can’t even agree on the basic idea that music communicates.

Not to me. All you've done to me is say, "Go and read my favorite literature on the matter. I don't agree with a lot of it but it's the best I've got to support this unbiblical position I am purporting."

I don’t think so either, because the most won’t agree with the idea of sin. But they will recognize the idea of morality and communication in music. It is a fairly universal axiom.

Music with lyrics is a moral issue because the Bible has a lot to say about our words. Music without them is not a moral issue because the bible is silent on that subject even in principle.

As I suspected, if this is your bibliography you haven’t done any real work on this topic. Three poorly written and poorly argued books are hardly “extensive.”

I made it clear that was not an extensive bibliography with the phrase, "tons of other literature". And yet you said... oh, never mind...

Have you done any study of the site I recommended you like at? I am not saying you should go out and buy a bunch of books. You don’t have to. You can familiarize yourself with the issues far more simply. As I said, I don’t agree with everything on that site, but it certainly would help you out this position you are in of not knowing what you are talking about.

No Larry. You don't even agree with it- why should I. I have been preaching for 15 years and have devoted hundreds of hours studying the subject. I doubt that your pet site is will provide any thing new. I am debating you- not your web site. Share your strongest arguments from that website but don't ask people to read your favorite website.

So you don’t think God condemns tone of voice, such as one that treats others with disrespect? You don’t think God’s teaching about communicating with grace and love include non verbal communication? You don’t think God’s teaching on communication clearly condemns a tone of defiance out of children? I bet you do. So it’s not an eisegetical leap. It’s one that you actually believe, I imagine. You just don’t want to think about it.

No. And your arrogance here is frustrating. SHOW ONE PLACE IN THE BIBLE THAT GOD CONDEMNS TONE OF VOICE. GOD HIMSELF RAISES HIS VOICE. Jesus Christ lambasted the Pharisees and others. God is ANGRY with the wicked every day. For you to say that any emotion is sinful that God and Christ display is for you to accuse God of sin.

Anger is often appropriate so music that may carry and angry tone is often appropriate.

Rage is even appropriate at times of war and judgment of child molesters and rapists and so on... hence stoning.

Please tell me you are not serious. No believer who remotely knows their Bible would ask this question. Of course emotions can be sinful in and of themselves. We have really scraped the bottom when we start arguing this.

ANYTHING CAN BE SINFUL.

But no emotion is in and of itself sinful. You don't know the Bible from Adam if think that it condemns any emotion outright. Every emotion that God gave us is appropriate at certain times in certain circumstances, Larry.

So? We have already established that your thinking is very narrow and legalistic on this topic. The idea of illegitimate anger is an explicit biblical idea. I can’t imagine what kind of thinking questions that. And you accuse others of being illogical. Seriously, Luke, I am not made, but the legalism has to stop man. I really don’t care what others do in their conscience. It doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is two things: (1) the inability to recognize these basic biblical principles of communication, and (2) the inability to have a substantive conversation. I have asked you numerous questions and you have not addressed one of them to my recollection. You have dodged them all.

You haven't established anything Larry, honestly. Everybody who has been following this exchange knows it. The only thing you have established is that you are very stubborn at misrepresenting my position.

So the whole idea about “Be angry and sin not” was unnecessary since anger isn’t wrong anyway? Come on, Luke. Don’t waste our time here with this nonsense. Being angry at the wrong thing (illegitimate anger) is inherently wrong. It’s never right.

BE ANGRY, Larry. That means there are times when you SHOULD be angry. Just don't let that anger drive you to sin. This verse proves the opposite of what you are purporting by using it as a proof text. But at least you brought a Scripture into the discussion. I'm glad for that much even if it is misrepresented.

So it’s not sinful to talk to the Creator God and Redeemer like he’s your girlfriend? If so, I gotta tell you, we have a different view of God. I think it is sinful to talk disrespectfully to God.

It is a sin to talk to God like he is anything but God.

If you’re not, then your refusal to deal with the issues is inexplicable. You keep dodging them. There are several issues that, right now, are boxing you in. So you should have addressed them if you can. I don’t think I have dodged any of your questions.

Then answer this. What Scripture do you bring to bear that in principle condemns any genre of music. And what Scripture do you bring to bear that condemns ANY emotion? - not "illegitimate" emotion.

What Scripture says that passion is sinful? What scripture says fury is sinful?

Actually, I can and have.

Not with me you haven't. You have been speaking ex cathedra with me using no Scripture and demanding that your word is law because you read a website that you don't even agree with to a large degree.

I should quit because it is useless to talk to someone who isn’t interacting on issues and refuses to do any serious thinking.

As predicted. This is not my first rodeo. I've debated people like you before. I knew this was coming.

No they’re not. They are a key part of biblical distinctions. For instance, it is built into Christ’s teaching on lust in Matthew 5. The problem with adultery and lust is its illegitimacy. The problem with sinful anger is that it is provoked by wrong things, and is therefore illegitimate.

I'm glad that you recognize this. Now how do you leap from this to declaring that any music is sinful?

No one is sweepingly condemning anything. That’s my point. I am not sweepingly condemning something. I am arguing for discernment. You are sweepingly approving things without benefit of Christian thinking and the application of Scripture.

You are the only one who is arguing that the Bible teaches that certain types of music is sinful. That's sweeping.

 

[Luke2427]

Pastor Larry I agree. This is exactly what you have done. You have declared yourself to be a Pope, declaring ex cathedra that what is wrong is only what you say. Yet you have no Scripture to support you and in fact you have no arguments to support you. You are hurting the work of God by sending the message that the Bible does not need to be consulted on issues of culture.

No Larry. I am saying that you don't have authority to condemn what God has not. That doesn't make me a pope. That is reproving you for making yourself a pope. If you came out and said, "The color red is sinful. I read a website that I don't fully agree with that said so and I am convinced. There can be no denying that red has a powerful effect on the emotions and God did say some things about what you look at in the Bible so that means that "red" is sinful." -And if I came along and heard you spewing that ridiculous nonsense I would challenge you to prove it. And I would say, I don't think the color red is sinful because God said no where in his word that it is even in principle...
That doesn't make me a pope. That makes me the adversary of a pope.

That's what's happening here. Replace the word "red" with "music" and that summarizes our discussion quite well.

I think it is fair to say that, at least based on the evidence here, I have spent a good deal more time meditating on these things than you have. Your conversation here shows that you have not even scratched the service of knowing what the issues are, much less contemplating them in any serious manner. Luke, I am going to try to bail out here I think, unless there are specific issues addressed to me.

As predicted.