Domino Effect not just in the Power Grid

Ironically, Larson is the one to have lightened up on the universal criticism of the beat and Christian music that uses it as evil. He still acknowledges that the beat can capture people's minds (and this is true among the "impure" who do use it to get sexually charged, as I have been pointing out), but says that there are Christian rock acts and songs that are good. Of course, Watkins, Cloud and the others now criticize him for abandoning their position.

Noebel then claims:

If what they were saying was true, then we would have started seeing this by now, but there is no sign of it starting to happen. The only exception is "Christian strippers", but then they are not accepted as true Christians by anyone I know, and aren't they apart of a cult called "Children of God"?

Well, there is a slight point to some of this. These arguments always have some grain of truth that they take and try to build on. Any group that is a heartthrob to the teens of the opposite sex (with their raging hormones in that age) are to some extent inciting sensuality, and in the case of those "innocent" teen groups, it is very subtle especially compared to the more explicit stuff we see today. But back when it was new, when the culture was shifting (as in the 60's and 70's when the Osmonds were popular), it stood out much more to the old-timers. For once again, to the impure, nothing is pure, and the majority are not walking in the Spirit, so there is a lot of lust. Then, the beat may help further lead these people don the road of sensuality. But it's true that too much focus is being placed on the beat by itslf, as if it causes all of the sensuality (or no, it is an "expression" of sensuality; whatever), and can never be used in a good fashion. There are a whole lot of other factors, especially the hearts of the people. Still, there should be more caution and discernment used by Christians.

 

This doesn't answer the question. I understand perfectly well what you are saying about communication, and I believe you raise some important points about the way people interact, but you haven't come one inch closer to defining how music communicates. Is it at the conscious level like speaking? Is it at the subconscious level like all of the modes of communication that one can't "help but send"? A little of both? How can you tell?

All kinds of beats exist in nature and in society which aren't produced by the "intents and purposes" of man. Are they either good or evil?

You were wrong.

Which it is. Sound is as much a part of God's creation as any other raw material which can be shaped or used by man to produce something.

Speech communicates explicit intent or desire. Not because it uses sound, but because it uses symbols. As you have said there are a million ways that we communicate, some of them are on a level that we "can't help but send", and some are entirely the result of conscious effort. No matter what form communication takes, it employs symbolism. So is Music like the written word or brail, which man can "leave in a certain spot"? Is it like sign language which is a conscious form of body language? Is notation of rock music sinful? Can I read it and comprehend a sinful message?

It is an action, in the same way that building a house is an action or writing words down is an action, it is also like an object in that it is 'created' by manipulating the natural state of creation.

k

Symbolism. How is music a medium which allows communication to occur in the mind?

Just as you have stated that Eric is ignorant about voodoo ritual because his knowledge is limited to what he has seen on television, so your knowledge of music is limited by what you have read about it. There is no question that media, and other authorities have created a whole mythology about rock music which is essentially based on sex, drugs, and fast living. Some people like this Ventura have even developed rather complex philosophies about it, but this is not the whole picture. Heck, if I was to make a moral claim about drama or comedy or other forms of entertainment based on what I have seen on television or at the movies, I would have to conclude that acting is evil too. But then i rememeber that I used to watch television when I was a child, and I loved wholesome shows like "Little House on the Prarie" which don't exist any more.

Once again, you are wrong. My quotes were all subjective observations about the nature of music, as are your quotes. If one of your quotes says "the beat of rock music is sexual", that is a subjective observation. If one of my quotes says "I find that rock n' roll is wholesome music", that includes the beat and is also a subjective observation.

 

Must say I think all three of you are arguing your points quite well here. I'm enjoying reading this discussion and am hopeful that it will continue for a while yet.

Some interesting points for consideration from all sides.

Well done,

Enda

 

What a day! I will reply, but I'm too tired tonight.

 

My convictions are always on the line, however, I can't think of one post of yours in which you accurately represented my convictions. You are the strawman builder, not I. I use the terms sensual and carnal, and the only thing you can think of is sex. Though I repeatedly say that sensuality encompasses more, you and Scott can only talk of fornicating or "bumping and grinding."

When Jesus was tempted with the lust of the flesh, He was tempted to put the needs of his body before the glory of God. I can say with great confidence, that there is no one on this board who, if he had the power to turn stones to bread, would not have justified misusing the power to satisfy his hunger. After all, our body is the the temple of the Holy Spirit, and we must maintain it yada yada yada.

So, does the music stimulate our bodies more than it stimulates our minds? What part of dancing glorifies God? The whole premise of this free dance project is merely a glorification of the flesh, a celebration of the body. It fails the test of spirituality on that alone. It is sensual.

But you want to see evidence of non-verbal communication that expresses sensuality. Now because you only equate sensuality with a sexual apetite, you will probably miss the more subtle forms. When Jesus was tempted with the pride of life, He was tempted to throw Himself from the pinnacle of the Temple. It would prove to the world that He was indeed the Messiah, the King of the world. But Christ, in His perfect and complete humility would wait until this honor was bestowed upon Him by His Father. Until then He made Himself of no reputation and took on the form of a servant.

So Christ prays, "LORD, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me." Psalm 131:1.

Lofty eyes. "There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up," Prov. 30:13. A sensual gesture, yet one that is not sexual.

A hard expression is another sensual expression which is not sexual in nature. "A wicked man hardeneth his face." Prov. 21:29.

Besides, we know by nature whether one has a proud attitude or a humble one. Though sensual, it is not sexual.

But why this project to begin with? Is not to make a name for themselves?, Gen. 11:4.

So, something does not have to be sexual to be sensual. Eric would fail something on the basis of its sexuality. That's why I posted the quotes I did.

Now part of dance is also the face. If I see a hard look, or lofty eyes can I fail the music on those points as well?

Notwithstanding, your challenge intrigues me. I have no intention of leaving the Baptist Board, so don't even suggest it. I know nothing of Radiohead, or the kind of music they play. I know little of the real arrangement between them and this dance company. You haven't once truly represented any of my stands, how can I have the assurance you really know what's going on here. Let me make a few calls and send a few emails. I'll get back with you.

 

Isn't this the same justification the Episcopal church made for ordaining the gay bishop? "We have the Spirit of God. We know what these Scriptures really mean." In fact, it is the central canon of liberal theology. "Christ is the standard by which the Scriptures are interpreted," which is just another way of saying the Spirit is my criteria. When they say this they don't mean Christ as He really is, but as defined by modern scholarship.

What you are attempting to do is to justify something on the basis of direct revelation from God, a central canon of Charismania and practically any other cult around.

That's not swaying. The movement which comes as a natural response to this piece is first minimal. A slight movement of the head, but no head or shoulder "bopping," and nothing in the waist. How does this compare to anything done in response to rock music?

Sensual movement, and all the Scriptural admonitions against sensuality. The difference is pretty much in the dances inspired by the different styles.

You asked how the Scriptures supported the idea that music was communication.

 

When Paul said, "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing:," he meant his body. This is evident in verse 23 where he speaks of the law in his members that brings him into captivity to sin. And so Paul says,

But there you go again linking physical sensuality with only sexuality. It includes hunger as well. In fact, Paul's relationship with his body is severe. He says,

There is nothing in the body conducive to eternal life, but it's lusts can certainly disqualify us from the race.

 

And there is strict passages against such things. There are no passages concerning types of music in worship. You try to intimate there are, but you haven't been able to show any clear proof of it. Where Scripture is silent, we have the Spirit.

And you didn't answer my question. How do you know when you are truly worshipping as opposed to just singing a song?

Jesus Christ said that the Holy Spirit will lead us in all Truth. I don't know why you don't believe that.

By following the Spirit we know:

Again, if the Spirit is behind something, then we know from the Scriptures that it is not sinful. True worship, led by the Spirit, is not of the flesh, but it is of God. What you are saying is that the Spirit can somehow lead a person to do that which is sinful, and that just isn't Biblical. Therefore, we must conclude that people's understanding of the Spirit are wrong, or that you are wrong in saying that the type of music in question is sinful. Again, how do you know when what you are singing is worship and when it is just music?

Oh, it's swaying. It's different than the dancing seen in the clubs and such, of course. But how is this different. You keep saying that travelsong and I take things to extremes. What's the difference? What is the line? What is okay and what is not okay? Let's take your abstract theories and make them a little more concrete.

That which is of the Spirit is not sensual. David, led by God, danced in the streets in joy, even when his wife said he looked like a fool. Was this sensual? Or was it led by God? In the same way, our dancing, our praising, and our worship that is led by God is not sensual.

Perhaps that is the crux of the argument right there. Do you believe that God could lead someone to do something sensual? Do you believe that God inspired David to dance with joy? Do you believe that God can convict someone of sin? Do you believe that God convicts people of listening to music that has the accent on the upbeat?

What is your Scriptural proof for this?


Galatians 5:18 - But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

 

Music communicates to your feelings. As one noted musicologist said, it is emotional shorthand. I have already posted the evidence that says the feelings elicited by music are real and not imagined, (though we already know that by nature), and that the effects are universal. One does not require any education or cultural conditioning to respond in a way that is consisitent with the mood the musician intended to set.

If you mean those things like the "singing" of birds, clicking of insects, and such, it is still communication, but I don't call those things music. They're described in musical terms because that's the best way to describe the effect that these natural sounds have on us. Right now I am sitting in my sunroom (that's where my computer is) with all the windows open. The only sound I hear is the sound of insects, birds, and a gentle breeze through the trees. Somewhere in the distance a dog is barking.

Very relaxing.

Wait. There's the sound of a jet. Ugly.

A car horn honked.

It's quiet again.

Now a train horn.

I don't hear one rock beat.

I do know it can't happen by accident, so where, in nature does a rock beat exist? You tell me. What animal "sings" to a rock & roll beat? What nonmusical machine creates one with its normal operation?

You cannot confuse the symbolism with the message. Look at this:

4

That is not the number four. It is a physical representation of the number four. The number four is an abstract concept.

IV

Again, not the number four. It's a physical representation of the number four.

These symbols are meaningless without education, but we understand by nature the abstract idea of the number four.

Non verbal communication does not require symbols. (Sign language is still verbal communication.) No one needs to learn what proud or humble gestures look like to know that these are proud and humble gestures. Eyes lifted or eyes down are universal and cross-cultural distincitions and mean the same thing. In fact, they are either proud or humble looks in and of themselves. They do not merely symbolize pride or humility.

Music is nonverbal communication. No one needs to learn notation to understand it or get the message. Some folks can play it without the ability to read a single note. The beats, chords and melodies are not symbols of anything. They are the thing, and we respond to them naturally without learning.

A house is still an object. Music is not an object. Written words or notes are symbols. Music is not a symbol.

Music is not matter. There. That's about as plain as I can make it. It is not made of matter, just like meanings, moods and feelings, real as they may be, are not matter, neither are they contained in matter.

Communication is not matter, for meaning must be present for anything to be classified as communication. Though you use your mouth to say things, it is preposterous to assume that these words and meanings existed for even a nanosecond in your mouth.

Meaning and communication require thought. Thought is not an object. It is an action. The root word of music is "muse" which means to think. The word thought is also used to classify a musical "element."

That's all I'll say on it. That's all I can say. Disagree if you must. But we're done with this particular idea.

That's not what I said. For Eric to say that the beats in most rock music are not like the beats in Voodoo require that he have a perfect knowledge of the beats that are used in Voodoo. I certainly do not have perfect knowledge of music. I never claimed to. But unlike my opponents in these debates, I have posted evidence to support all my claims.

Your side has no evidence to present. Don't blame me because the vast body of evidence readily available supports my arguments better than it does yours.

 

I already acknowledged that it is not just sexual (in the same post you are quoting from), and that it is your side that places so much emphasis on sexuality.
You continue:

, but on the other hand, tell Scott:

So on one hand, "sensuality" is anything associated with the body and its senses, even if not sexual. Yet now, you are saying a little movement is OK, as long as it is minimal and not the waist. But the waist is associated with sexuality, so clearly, that is what you are saying makes it "sensual". But I say, moving the waist is not always sensual, but then you counter than I am assuming sensual is only sexual, and any music inspired movement is "sensual", just because it is "stimulation" of the bodily senses.

It is true that Christ's temptation was "the flesh", but note it involved "putting the needs of the body before the glory of God". The whole point of the temptation was for Christ to resist Satan's challenges. This was a special circumstance, but otherwise, meeting that bodily need is not wrong. Likewise, dancing in worship can be glorifying God in the body, not putting the body "before" God. This would assume once again, that God is only worshipped in stiff, robotic posturing and lack of all emotion. Anything else, therefore, would come "before" His will. Even marching, which is said to be good and spiritual, is a bodily response to rhythm, and in that case is just as "sensual". This is why Baptist In Richmond earlier said "ALL music is sensual". But you keep shifting the definition of sensual back and forth across the line of sexual. Of course, many people in churches do put the body before God, neglect the mind, etc. But you can not accuse everyone of falling into this, just because you witness some radical charismatics doing it.

This is just using "body" the same was as "flesh", as a metaphor for our sinful nature. It is not the body itself that is bad. Just how our SOULS (or minds) react to its desires, so the tendency of our souls to cater to the bodily desires at any cost, is what "lust" is, and will disqualify people, not simply the body having desires in itself. The Church's long confusing of the two is precisely what I have been talking about, and why the world has so many misconceptions of Christian teaching. Paul in Colossians states that "bodily excercise profits little", because the Gnostics focused on the physical body as being the cause of sin, rather than the soul. If they just deny all physical pleasure, then they would get it under control. That's precisely what this insistence that any rhythm pleasant to the body must be avoided, but marching is OK because it is "sober" is saying. Paul tells us the true "bodily excersize" is concerned with the mind/soul/spirit.

[ September 10, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Your "evidence" is also based on what others say, and how do you know that even they have a "perfect knowledge" of voodoo? On the other hand, I can listen to forms of voodoo worship, and compare them to rock beats, and I can tell, regardless of what anyone else claims, that there is only a very small association between the two. It is not enough to say, "those beats are only good for demon worship, so they CANNOT ever be used for Christian worship, and THAT is the point, despite all of these "he says, she says" distractions.

 

Eric, you've mentioned that false teaching is typically based on a kernal of truth. I'd like to add to that list of characteristics. I'm not sure where the page for Peter Master's rant against music is located, but you will notice that it includes a ton of jargon, or new terminology. When one has to create new meaning for words, or new words altogether in order to describe something they are trying to push as truth, you can generally bet that it is false teaching. A couple examples used in that article (the same I've seen Aaron parrot) are 'sensual' (which doesn't mean sensual), and 'ecstatic worship' (which includes a heck of a lot more than what common sense dictates is ecstatic). There are plenty more but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

But in my opinion the most important characteristic of false doctrine is that it always raises more questions than it answers. I have been to a lot of churches, in my life. I've lived all over the country and seen both extremes of the Christian spectrum and everything in between, and I can say that the most invaluable tool in determining whether something it true or false, is that axiom right there. If someone tells me some thing is true, and it immediately spawns a ton of common sense objections, and all their answers lead to more and more and more questions, until finally the rabbit trails are indistinguishable from the highway, I know with certainty that this is unscriptural teaching.

So later tonite, I will give a detailed rebuttal to you Aaron, and then in order to give you the oppurtunity to live up to this statement here:

I shall compile a list of all the unanswered questions in this thread.

 

okiedoke, here we go. Taking it from the top:

I'm the one who can only think of sex? I'm not sure you're reading what you say let alone what I say. Let's review. I initially asked you:

"what is it exactly that makes these evil rhythms evil? What is this supposed "sensuality" that is being expressed?"

To which you directly replied: "What makes the beat sensual is its nature. I can discern that nature by the physical responses to it. The dancing that the beat invariably inspires is sexual and enticing to the lusts of the flesh."
I then responded by saying: "Why is it that I am not inspired to dance in a sexual or enticing manner when listening to rock music? If a beat truly can be evil in and of itself, should I not feel at least some compulsion to thrust my hips or strip to my birthday suit?"

Then your response: "Let's say you're assigned to choregraph a dance to the rock beat? Or perhaps your coaching a dancer to move to rock music. What would the characteristic actions be?"

Now I understand that you are saying the 'sensual' responses that music elicits can be more than just sexual, but let's get one thing straight, you are the one who said the danicing that music inspires is invariably sexual, not I. In fact I understand this concept so much that when I issued my challenge to you regarding the free form interpretive dance, I chose my words carefully. If you had actually read what I said, you might recall my words as being: "I promise that if any of those dancers makes a rude, lewd, crude, or otherwise obviously sinful gesture while dancing, I will never listen to rock n' roll again. Could I have left it any more open?

And yet even after that, you are saying all I can focus on is sexuality? If there is anyone who is obsessed with sex here, it's you! Don't try and push your hang ups on me. I have been more than accomodating in my efforts to find out how you believe music can communicate evil (or good for that matter). Now why is it that despite my best efforts to engage you in a meaningful dialogue, you refuse to extend the same courtesy to me? How about a little reciprocity here?


Now let's break this down to a more easily digestable line of reasoning.

When I asked you what this sensuality is exactly that you feel evil music expresses you effectively said that you deterimine the sensual nature by the physical response it elicits. Now this may come as a surprise to you, but there are leagues and legions of people who view rock music to be just as much of a legitimate form of artistic expression as you might think of a classical symphony or opera. This is evidenced by the fact that when you attend a concert by the majority of the artists I enjoy, you will find the audience to be motionless, quiet, and attentive to the musicianship of the performers. When You go to a Mogwai, Sigur Ros, or GYBE show, you will find behaviour no different from that of an audience at a more "refined" classical venue. I'm not even talking about music which is strictly at a slow pace, I'm talking about a wide array of styles.If you were in the least bit interested it knowing the truth, it wouldn't take much effort to find this out.

But regardless of this fact I wanted to continue your line of reasoning which says that you can discern the 'sensual' (whatever that means) nature of music by the physical response it elicits. Okay, so if I was to choreograph a dance to the beat of rock music what would it look like? I'm game. So I give you this challenge which involves dancers (who are artists), performing a spontaneous interpretive dance to the music of Radiohead and Sigur Ros, and I guarentee you that it will not be sinful in nature. SO what's your response? In essence you say It doesn't matter how they dance, the fact that they dance at all is a celebration of the flesh and therefore rock music is evil



If this doesn't define circular reasong, then what does? I don't even want to get into a debate about whether or not dancing is "a celebration of the flesh" or not, I've got far too many rabbits to chase as it is. The fact is, if I use your line of reasoning, there can be no such thing as good music, because where there is music, there is an oppurtunity for dance, and when one can dance, it is a celebration of the flesh, therefore all music is evil. So your question was not only misleading, it was purposely deceptive. You aren't interested in whether or not rock music can inspire dancing which isn't sexual or sensual (again, whatever that means), you are looking for any oppurtunity at all to shout "EVIL! I TOLD YOU SO!" without offering any kind of explanation.


I am at a total loss here as to how I should continue. Can you help me? What question do I have to ask in oder for you to explain how music can communicate evil, and what the essential message of that evil is? Is there a magical password or something?

onward:

I'm not sure to what extent and at what ratio the various parts of my being are stimulated by music. I do know that I am at all times intellectually alert, and following the music.

I don't know really I've never been much of a dancer, and I've never really had the inclination. There is no question that it's a liberty one is free to excersise if one chooses to. I don't see how it's any different than a casual stroll in the park, chocolate sunday, or your daughter playing with her paint program on the computer. Again, I'm not interested in chasing this rabbit, as I fear you are a little too willing to run with it in order to divert attention from the real argument.

I always thought that the purpose of interpretive dance was to translate emotions, feelings, conditions and the like into dramatic movement. This is evil? Does this communicate evil as well? I mean after all one doesn't even need music to dance, there is rhythm in our breath, there is rhythm in our heart beat, does this make a state of musical absence evil as well?

Absolutely! I am screaming for it already! Learn me real good, I am your sponge, let's have at it!

All I am asking for is that you demonstrate music communicating any form of sin whatsoever. Or music being a state of sinful communication, or however the heck you want to describe it. You. Show me. Evil music. Please.


I'm editing the tempation of Jesus out, because you don't show how it relates to music communicating evil. Or music being evil communication, however you want to put it.

Can music communicate this? If so, how?

So if someone who is by nature proud plays the drums, will you know it by the rhythm? If so, how? How about humble?

I don't doubt that's a part of it. In fact I don't doubt that the sin of pride taints every area of every man's life, whether he be save or unsaved. This has nothing to do with whether or nor music can communicate sin, or whether the physical response of the dancers communicates sin (assuming no obvious sinful gestures are involved of course)

You could if you were able to determine that the physical response to the music is 1) universally sinful, and 2) everyone that hears the music is at least inspired to physically respond in a sinful manner. But what you are actually saying is in essence: "dancing is a celebration of the flesh, and therefore, because someone might be inspired to dance at all, music is sinful".

I never asked you to leave. I said that under my terms, if the dancers did not perform in a sinful manner, you must agree to stop trolling these boards. Don't you find it amusing that you eqaute that with leaving? I know I do.

[ September 11, 2003, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

Go ahead - ask Aaron about that part of Psalm 150 that commands the reader to praise Yahweh with dancing. See what happens.

 

Even if it is true that music communicates exactly the same "message" universally, you are still left with the burden of proving that the message can be sinful. But I disagree regardless. Take for example my current favorite band Sigur Ros. If you were to spend any time on a fansite message board, you would find that people are affected in a variety of ways by their music. As one popular review of their international debut album put it: "Children will be conceived, wrists will be slashed, scars will be healed, and tears will be wrenched by this group. They are the first vital band of the 21st Century." Now why would a person, a professional critic at that, describe their music as having such a wide variety of effects on listeners if the effects are universal? Keep in mind we are talking about an essentially instrumental band, because although they have a singer, his voice is treated strictly as an instrument, the words he uses are a made up language that supposedly only he understands. In any case, there is no way anyone can make anything intelligible out of the words. My point is, I believe music can in fact affect people differently. It's a rabbit trail I created on my own, but it is a little pet philosophy of mine none the less. I think there is some sort of copyright infringement thingy that forces me to link that review I just quoted, so HERE it is. Quite a good review I might add.

This demonstrates that music can communicate sin how?

I already mentioned the wood pecker. if you have never heard German industrial techno, I can assure you, it's all about the BPM's. I am sure that techno is music you would consider sensual. So is the beat of a wood pecker pecking sensual? Or is it good? How can you tell?

Have you never had the pleasure of working in a factory? How about a printing press? How about the shave, trim, trim, snap of an edge bander? You're joking right? I remember reading an article with Bjork where she said that she was fascinated by the sound and rhythm of factory machinery, and that is why she incorporates so much of it into her music. In fact, if you listen to the soundtrack (or watch the movie for that matter) of "Dancer In the Dark" you will hear a song where the beat comes from a sheet metal machine as it shapes and cuts pots and pans. So my question is, is the rhythm of machinery either good or evil?

Look at this:



This is not happiness. You can insert a picture of a person smiling and it still is not happiness.Happiness, like any state or thought or desire or whatever is something that requires symbolism to communicate. I can put on a happy face, and pretend to be happy, and still not be happy. Have you ever seen someone who was so angry they were actually smiling? How did you know they were angry? Certainly not by the look on their face. I used to work with a guy who did that all the time, and when I saw that look, I knew he was angry about something. There is no possible way that you can ever be truly, fully certain of my state by the look on my face or gestures I make. The reason for that is because we don't have perfect communication.Now you can be relatively certain of my state by the various gestures and communications I make, but none of those gestures or communications are the thing itself. Follow me? In fact there is ony one person in all of existence who doesn't need these expressions, gestures, communications etc. etc. to know your heart, and that is the man who is God, Jesus Christ. It is only with Him that we can have perfect communication, without any doubt that our thoughts and our hearts and our entire being are completely understood without us having to express anything. Do you see now how all of these things are symbols, and not the actual "thing"?

Yes but if music can be sinful, it must be sinful because it reflects the sinful state of the one playing correct? Or not? You still haven't ever defined why or how exactly music can be sinful. In any case as I said just above, nusic is not the state itself. I can play a piece that sounds happy without being happy, and even if I am happy, the music isn't actually happiness all by itself. it can only be a symbol which communicates that emotion.

I never said music was an object, I said it was like an object such as a building or other man made thing because it is 'created' by ordering the natural state of creation. It's a very simple concept to grasp.Watch this simple illustration: Is a single drum tap a rhythm? no of course not, it requires a succession of beats. Likewise music is not made by plucking a string once. you need a succession of notes, chords etc etc. Do you understand how I am not saying that music is an object, but it is as much a part of creation as everything else, and that music is like a man made object in that it is 'created' by ordering the natural state of creation will extreme redundancy get the message through? Will extreme redundancy get the message through? And yes, music is a symbol.MUSIC CAN ONLY STAND FOR OR REPRESENT SOMETHING ELSE It can't actually be happiness, or sadness, or anything else. Do you get it yet?

It's so weird how such an obviously intelligent man such as yourself can say so much without saying anything at all, and then is so proud that the point has been proved.

I know I promised a list of unanswered questions that are in this thread for you, but it is crazy late, and I need to get to bed. If you actually bother to read my posts, you will find that many of the questions are restated anyway, so you can work on those if you have the inclination.

Good night.

An exhaustive list will appear at a later date, hopefully tomorrow.

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

[ September 11, 2003, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

Please, We've seen that already. Earlier in this thread, in fact. Postapostolic church fathers said the early church banned instruments as just the carnal worship allowed hard hearted Israel, so they were banned by the New Testament.

 

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

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

I see that despite my best efforts to put it in simple terms, you all still kick at the Scriptural concept of sensuality. So I will post the two verses in the NT where the term is used, and Vine's definition thereof.

Here is what Dr. Vine says about the word sensual:

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

I'll respond more later. Right now, it's late and I'm tired.

 

Let's look a little closer at the two passages. First from James 3:

And the Jude passage:

and for the record, let us also look at the three other verses that have psuchikos, translated here as "natural."

The striking thing about these verses to me is that there are two completely separate kinds of people: Those who are spiritual and those who are natural, or sensual. Jude seems to indicate that a required characteristic of sensuality is not having the Spirit! Nowhere does Paul (or anyone else) address the Christian community as being sensual. Only those who do not know Christ are sensual.

What does that mean for us? Could it possibly mean that for Christians, there is no such thing as "sensual music?" Honestly the evidence points MUCH strongly to that than to Aaron's assertion. Nowhere is music described has having natural or sensual values, and from taking a look at the contexts of when the word "natural" or "sensual" is used, we see that Christians have no worry about sensuality - as we have accepted the Spirit, we are no longer natural. Our very character has changed!