Question about Christion Rap or Regaeton ?

Not to be argumentative, but music doesn't invoke the same mood in everybody. Some enjoy the sounds of a steel guitar and harmonica. I detest both of them. They don't invoke the same mood in me as they do in someone who loves to hear them. Some hear music with a 'beat" and they find it uplifting - others find the same "beat" revolting. Again, this is all about our own personal opinions.

I can't afford to raise my personal opinion to the lever of Scripture - that would be sin. And I believe it is sin for anyone else to do that either.

Tenor-ette
(A.K.A. SBCPreacher)

 

The ancient Greek thought of musical style, not lyrical content only.

 

mmmm. message must have the proper medium (music)?
i can partly agree with you on that. ok maybe 5% agree.
ok ok ok - i don't agree at all. hehe.

since so many artists (sufjan stevens and moby for example) - put out their songs in so many different mixes - different mediums, same message.

now for the messenger... i'll say this - (i don't know who marsha stevens is, but..) - i do know - that there is a portion of scripture that talks about a few people that are not "fit vessels" (as you have put it) to carry the message of the King of Kings and Lord of Lord's - yet were not rebuked or condemned for doing so (yet corrected eventually i believe.) so - in the end - it doesn't matter who the messenger is, the quality of the seed will not change.

and so many artists do cover songs of other artists... so the message does not need a proper messenger. (i've seen people come to Christ, led by atheists mocking Christ - go figure. praise the Lord!) - the quality of the seed does not change.

yes i do agree that music does bring about emotions - but not actions.
people act on those emotions because we're human.
but music itself does not make a person have pre-marital sex or do a drive-by shooting or start being a habitual liar.
that's the same as saying, if you were in court and being sentenced to jail for the murder of some guy because you shot him... but your plea is - no it wasn't me that killed him! it was the gun! it was the music that made me do it! heh - you know how far that'll go in court.. haha. not far at all.

i guess in my mind i just shot everything you said down... sorry 'bout that... but it's just not logical.

not that i don't believe you aaron - but do you have some references (encyclopedia perhaps?) that can support this further?
sweet deal.

God bless

 

That's not correct. Some music leads some people to have sinful emotions. For example, some music causes people to experience lust. God said it is a sin to lust in your heart, even though you never intend to act on that emotion. Therefore, you shouldn't use music that may cause some people to stumble in church.

And you really think that a message carried by an unrepentent homosexual is suitable for Christians to worship to?? Unbelievable!

love,

Sopranette

 

then i ask you - which music causes you to have sinful emotions?
have you done any studies on this?
do you have any statistics you can provide?
do you have any proof of this?

well... if the song were to be played in your church (hypothetical) - who would sing it? marsha stevens? or the person that leads worship regularly in your church?
if the latter - then yes i do think it suitable. thus the messenger is not marsha stevens but your worship leader.

if marsha is still unrepentant - i'll have to keep her in prayer and pray she becomes so.

 

An unrepentant homosexual cannot produce any Christian music suitable for God's ears. Any music director would quickly reject her music, because you cannot present something unholy to God. We are to worship in the beauty of holiness. That also means nothing angry, hard, dark, etc., either.

love,

Sopranette

 

It's art, not science. The "proof" is in the hearts of the listeners.

love,

Sopranette

 

This is silly. Music is the same regardless. If God could use a harlot in the Bible, he can inspire a lesbian to write a sacred song.

 

It's a synthesis from diverse sources.

First, bible commentators don't deny that different styles are intimated by the terms psalms, hymns or spiritual songs, but they can't say what each was.

Second, the nature of ancient Greek music. Hymns and dithyrambs were both sung in praise to the Gods, but dithyrambs were wildly exurberant odes, bacchanalia. Descriptions which are not used for the greek form of hymn. (The word hymn in our language is much more generic than then.)

Third, the writings of ancients marking a distinction in the musical styles:

Fourth, but actually heading the list, the Scriptures themselves. The manner of interaction through psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs is starkly contrasted with the dithyrambic excesses of drunken banqueters in the Eph. 5 passage.

When an ancient Greek heard the word hymn, he didn't think of noble words in the style of a dithyramb. He thought of something in stark contrast to it.

 

How about support for NT Biblical music instead of Greek? There is far more evidence for that. The evidence is that there was none. Not until about 250 years after the apostles is there any solid evidence that there was any music at all in the early church. As the Church of Christ does today, they sung without instruments. (And I do not belong to the COC).
Yes, there were instruments in the OT. But that has nothing to do with NT worship. If you are going strictly by the NT, and the NT church, you haven't a leg to stand upon when you speak about instruments. In the NT there were none.

If you look at history many of the OT preachers forbad it. C.H. Spurgeon wouldn't allow an organ or other musical instruments in his church. He said he didn't want anything that would distract from the pure worship of God.
We have gathered not to be entertained, but to worship.

 

I'm merely establishing the fact that the phrase "psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" is descriptive of styles.

You're correct that the early church did not use instruments.

 

rather.. anybody that is unrepentant cannot produce any christian music suitable for God's ears.

is that what you meant?

-------

psalms and hymns aside now.
thanks for the history lesson - don't fully understand it yet - but let me read it over a couple more times and i'll get it. heh.

so the composition of spiritual songs is not easily determined - or rather cannot be determined. is that what i'm reading here?
so we're free to interpret the composition of spiritual songs and play these spiritual songs in any way that we are led?

some of you say that hardcore rock (ie. demon hunter - very much a band consisting of christian members and Godly lyrics) - but it's screamo - but you say it's angry music.

i don't actually believe it's suitable for church worship - most people can't sing along with it. hehe.

but if it's angry music for you - doesn't mean it's angry music for others.
the stuff actually calms me down - helps me to relax.

and now let's get back to the 21st century.

styles of music are mixed.
rather - genres.
music for church worship shouldn't be distracting (away from God)
hip-hop in a church - for me, wouldn't be distracting - but for alot of people it would be. i wouldn't mind it really.
same goes for any other kind of music..
well - except for country - and any U2 music. though some country is alright.
wait - i'm getting into personal preferences, i'm sorry.

indeed. i agree we shouldn't have anything that would distract us from God.

but ya know... we don't live in OT times anymore. or 50 years ago anymore.
we're living new times here.
we've come up with new ways to worship (i hope without discarding the ways we've been worshipping)
which includes music - as a form of worship.

now i need to eat breakfast and head out.

God bless!

 

I hate rap with a passion but I've got to admit that some of the rap songs they play on Way of the Master are really good doctrinally, if not musically.

I listen to a lot of Jamaican music, including reggae, and I've got to tell you, there is an awful lot of really bad reggae out there.

On the one hand, you've got Bob Marley, of course, Peter Tosh, Joe Higgs, Desmond Dekker, Jimmy Cliff, etc. On the other, there is the truly awful "white boy reggae" of UB40.

The best Christian reggae band I ever heard was somewhere in the middle.

If you're looking for good Jamaican music, try a genre called rocksteady and check out the Upsetters, the Intruders, the Tradwinds (not to be confused with the American doo wop group of the same name), and the Gaylads (yes, I know you're snickering at their name).

 

But what made their music "Christian reggae"? (Or did you simply mean that the band played reggae, and its members were all Christians?)

 

Typically, within the marketing genre of "Christian _____" (ie. Christian folk, Christian rock, Christian country), it is distinguished by it's use of Christian oriented lyrics.

 

Depends on who you ask. The root of all of this actually started way back in England way before hip hop, R&B, rap, or anything else thought about existing. The slang in many parts of urban communities was to rhyme absolutely everything. If you asked somebody if they were going to the grocery store, it would be in the form of a rhyme, and the response would be in the form of a rhyme. They spoke this way all the time. Obviously this spread and was adapted, but if you want to look at the true roots, it's probably this situation. And really, it's just not illegal/immoral, it was just the way people talked. That's like saying that my Kentucky accent and saying "ain't" and "y'all" is illegal/immoral.

 

Bob Marley really isn't "true" Jamaican music. It is very much Americanized. He only did that to win over fans. He isolated alot of Jamaicans because of this style.

 

We must be talking about two different Bob Marleys because the one I'm thinking of had a long pedigree in Jamaican music and was even a protege of Jamaican hero, Joe Higgs.

Far from isolating Jamaicans, the one I'm talking about was so insanely popular that an opposing political party attempted to assasinate him for fear that he might use his immense popularity to turn the people against him.

Here is a portion of Marley's bio, courtesy of allmusic.com:

 

At the height of his popularity, sure. However, when he first got started and made a recording, their music was kind of experimental. It was not traditional. Alot of Jamaicans really didn't like that.

 

http://www.emusicguides.com/info/Music-Essay/The-Legend-Of-Bob-Marley.html

Bob Marley (1945-1981) was a Jamaican who helped popularize Rastafarianism during the 1970s. He and his musical group (the Wailers) blended traditional Jamaican music with various other forms (e.g., American rhythm and blues) into a style known as Reggae (though some traditional Rastas consider this form of music as a “sellout” to white “Babylon”).


Like I said before, "Bob Marley really isn't "true" Jamaican music. It is very much Americanized. He only did that to win over fans. He isolated alot of Jamaicans because of this style."