From: harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling)
Subject: Re: Is music amoral??
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:56:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.181802.28253@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.175010.9641@uoft02.utoledo.edu> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
>...You say that music in
>and of itself is not a moral agent.  But consider: until music is actually
>conceived, composed and performed, IT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.  Music only exists
>AFTER someone has GIVEN THEIR purpose to it!  When we talk of music, we are
>speaking of something that is already created...until someone actually
>writes a particular song, we are unable to even discuss it because it doesn't
>exist.  Once it does exist, however, we can discuss it, and it is at that 
>point that we can no longer view it as an amoral agent - because it does have
>purpose and intent.

From the perspective of the individual, the sound coming into the
listener's ears does not have any meaning for him until he interprets
it.  In short, we can talk about music in the abstract, but to talk
about a particular example of music, we first have to *hear it*, and
that means we have to *interpret it*.  The same is true for a painting
or a book.

The ideas that were in the author's mind when he wrote the music
stopped at the edge of his skull, and only his skill as a composer
determines how much of that is communicated through the music.  If a
listener gets something completely different out of a song, then the
author failed in his mission to communicate through this medium.

Of course, these ideas are not limited to God vs. Satan, sin vs.
holiness, etc.; they can be as vague as "beauty" or as intense as
"despair".  What these things mean to the listener are completely out
of the composer's control.  All the composer can hope for is that the
music evokes the same things in other people's minds that it does in
his.


>>so what makes an instrument "of the Lord" or not "of the Lord?" i would
>
>I would say to "look at the fruits".  If a particular piece of music is
>being used to glorify God and edify believers, it is "of God".  If it is
>not being used for these two purposes (as proposed by Scripture) it is
>not of God.  Quite simple.

Note that, in II Chron 7:6, it is the priests who are playing these
instruments.  Could it be that these particular instruments have been
consecrated for use in worship only, much as some churches today treat
the communion table?  If this were the case, the *type* of instrument
is less important than its *purpose*.  Naw, that's just too silly...


>>and how does something become Gods? when we -give- it to him. offering
>
>Wrong. God owns everything

Yes, but then why did God demand offerings from Cain and Abel, and why
was He so angry when Cain withheld the best part of his harvest for
himself?


>...For instance, "It is Well With My Soul" can
>be used in a variety of settings - worship, praise, celebration, etc.
>It can not be used (unless, of course, those using it alter it in some
>way)for Satan worship, God's degradation, etc.  By the same token, a
>song done by someone not committed to God CAN be used in different contexts,
>but (and again, unless it is altered) it can not be used to glorify God.  Keep
>in mind, when you alter a piece, you have in effect made a different piece of
>music - it is no longer the same.

I contend that the meaning of a song is largely determined by the
listener, in which case it *can* conceivably be used to glorify God.
In the terms you use above, we all alter the song when we hear it, in
that we interject *our* mental associations and thought processes, not
necessarily those of the author.  In that sense, it is not the same.


>>...do you believe that the -author's-
>>intent is more powerful than the intent of the listener? i would
>>say not.
>
>I would say so.  I guess we'll just disagree on that one.  Unfortunately,
>I don't think there is any Scripture that would back up either assertion.

Why stop there?  If you can't find a dictum about The Way It Is (tm) in
the Bible, you had better start doing some research.  There are plenty
of people to talk to, Christians and otherwise, from whom you can learn
how people operate.  The question of whose intent is more powerful is
not necessarily just a matter of opinion; it is a matter of both
philosophy and human psychology, and thus can be studied both
theoretically and empirically.

The fact that the Bible doesn't directly address the issue doesn't mean
it's not important, or that it has no real answer.  The Bible doesn't
say much about chemistry, but that doesn't mean that it's not a
worthwhile topic of study, and it doesn't mean that chemical reactions
don't have definite processes.


>I didn't say it's God's logic, you don't understand - I said it's God's
>logic, WE don't understand...
>The fact remains that God's logic is not human logic.  It
>seems logical that if we do enough good stuff and are basically a good
>person, we should make it into heaven, whether we've done it in God's
>name or Confucius name or Buddha's name - but God doesn't work that way.
>It has to be HIS way or no way at all.  If you can pretend to know all the
>mysteries and thoughts of God, I guess I can't refute it, just shake my
>head.  If I have misinterpreted what you're saying, please enlighten me.

You're using "logical" to very loosely mean "reasonable".  Knowing all
the mysteries and thoughts of God has nothing to do with logic, and a
lot to do with wisdom.

This isn't a matter of God's *logic* being different from our own; it's
God's *nature*.  God is omnipotent, but he cannot exist and not exist
at the same time, at least not using the simplistic human definition of
"to exist".  Likewise, God is *incapable* of Evil, not because "the
rules" say He can't, but because His very nature says He can't.

This is very, *very* different from saying that the logic that God gave
us to examine and investigate our surroundings just plain doesn't work
for God.  It is much more fruitful to consider how God's Love differs
from human love, and how God's Mercy differs from human mercy.  If you
take that approach, you will find that logic is a perfectly adequate
tool for the task, even though you will still be unable to fathom the
entire girth of even one of God's qualities.


>As for saying that the "God's logic is not our own" as being vastly 
>unfounded, you should take a look at Isaiah 55:8,9 "For my thoughts are
>not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways' declares the Lord, 'For
>as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your
>ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts'".  Saying that we can't understand
>is not a cop-out, it's reality.

As above, we can't understand because we can't fathom God's qualities,
not God's logic.


>>please open your Logic 101 textbook and tell me which one of the
>
>Nah, I'll stick with Scripture.  There's nothing in a logic textbook that
>Scripture can't tell me better.

What is a contradiction?  Does Scripture tell you, or do you bring that
knowledge with you when you read Scripture?  You might be able to argue
that it's a priori knowledge, in which case you could say that God gave
it to you when you were born, but philosophy has had a hundred years to
mull over that idea...  In any case, it's not from Scripture.

Better still, ask Galileo whether the Sun is in the center of the Solar
system.  He recanted that claim when the church leaders of his day
interpreted a passage in Scripture to mean that the Sun revolves around
the Earth.  Maybe you *can* use Scripture as a logic textbook, but I
guess you *can't* use it as an astronomy book.  What other areas of
knowledge do you ignore and/or deem unimportant because Scripture
doesn't directly address it?


>>if Scripture cannot stand in the relatively minor light of man's
>>reasoning then it is not worth the paper it's printed on. 
>
>I think the more important point is, can it stand up to God's reasoning -
>I don't really give a rip if it can stand up to my feeble brain or not.  I
>want to know if it's TRUE and if it's God's mind revealed - and I believe it
>is.

If it is, then when somebody finds an apparent discrepency between
Scripture and observation, either the observation is wrong, or the
*interpretation* (there's that word again...) of Scripture is wrong.

The church authorities who questioned Galileo chose to condemn his
observations rather than their interpretation.  However, anyone who
claimed today that modern astronomy is a sham because the Bible
"obviously" states that the Sun revolves around the Earth would be
laughed off the planet by Christians and non-Christians alike, because
Christians have recognized that in saying "the Sun stood still", the
Bible intends to describe an event, not a fact of astronomy.

If my understanding of Scripture doesn't stand up to objective reality,
I had better have the humility to admit that, perhaps, my
interpretation may be inaccurate.  I too believe that the Scripture is
the inerrant word of God, but I am not so confident of my limited
understanding of it.
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                 PictureTel, but they ought to be!
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian