From: hill@spot.Colorado.EDU (Michael Hill)
Subject: Re: Is music amoral??
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:08:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug24.203304.8174@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>In article <86875@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>>I agree.  But does "of the Lord" necessarily mean "directly _about_ the 
>>Lord"?  In other words, if I wrote a love song to my boyfriend, could that
>>not be "of the Lord", even though it doesn't necessarily mention God?
>
>Sure, it could.  Like I said before, it appears that, Scripturally anyway,
>the two good uses that music is put to is either worshipping God and 
>edifying believers.  I think the above falls in the latter.
>>
>>Wait.  What about songs written to entertain our children?  Like "Row,
>>Row, Row Your Boat"?  A song written from a husband to a wife?  Again,
>>these songs are written with, you could say, godly motives (expressing love
>>or educating or telling a story or creating a fun atmostphere -- all of
>>which could definitely be said to be "of God").  None of these songs
>>praise God in a direct way, but neither are they "meant for selfishness."
>
>See above.

And what if I claim to find edification in well-produced music, even if
it's by 'heathens'?  What if a particularly skillful guitar riff enables
me to praise God for the gift of music, for the gift of human creativity?

>>I disagree.  Music can be used in a way that is right and wrong; I agee.
>>But music itself is like sculpture.  It can be _used_ for good or evil;
>>in and of itself, it is neutral.  I would say that _songs_, like sculptures
>>(i.e., idols) can definitely be good or evil, and that depends on the intent
>>we employ when we listen to them.  Or on the effect they have on us.  .  .
>
>I would have to disagree with this.  For instance, take a sculpture of say,
>a well-endowed nude woman in a sexually suggestive pose.  Can this be used
>for good?  I doubt it.  Granted, some of the lumps of clay that some 
>abstractionists call sculpture could be neutral (if you could even figure out
>what they were).  But when we take an extreme, we can see that there are 
>indeed examples of absolutely bad (or good) art of any form.

*I* would have to disagree with this.  The trouble with such a statue or
sculpture is in the associations it evokes within the viewer, not with
anything intrinsically "evil" about the statue.  By itself the statue
does not do, and is not, evil.  If a man sees it and uses it to fuel his
lusts, then the evil comes from the way *it was used*!  But I doubt (don't
nitpick, this is an example!) that a woman would experience the same urge
to sin upon seeing it.  The evil therefore cannot be inherent in the
statue itself.

			--Michael

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hill   <><  Isaiah 9:6 | "What is this that gives me hope in the middle
hill@spot.Colorado.EDU         |  of the night/ And makes me turn to You/
Ball Aerospace Systems Group & |  What is this that lights my way through the
University of Colorado@Boulder |  hours of the day/ Tell me what to do"
$ mv net.flames /dev/null      |                    --King's X, "What is This?"
-------------------------My boss is a Jewish carpenter!------------------------
Did you ever notice that everybody in favor of abortion has already been born?!