Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Is music amoral??
From: steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner)
Date: 23 Aug 92 17:53:19 EST
Distribution: usa

noel@crs.cl.msu.edu (Noel Estabrook) writes:
> steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu (jason "Think!" steiner) writes:
> >>  the Lord should be our music - "The Lord is my strength and 
> >>  song,  and He has become my salvation.." (Ex. 15:2)  The Lord 
> >>  is to be  our music, not a group of unbelieving, unrepentant 
> >>  sinners singing  to their own gods.
> >
> >unless you believe that God physically manifests himself in 
> >harmonic pressure disturbances, it should be quite clear that this 
> >passage is poetic, not literal. God isn't our muscles either. the 
> >Psalmist was making a very good point, that God is our motivating 
> >force. poetic comparisons (and logical statements) aren't 
> >commutive.
> 
> Well, no, I don't have a problem with God manifesting Himself as 
> music.   After all, He's manifested Himself as a cloud, a bush and 
> He's spoken  through a donkey, so I won't restrict what form He may 
> choose to take. In fact, in II Chron 5:10, the music that was 
> played was so powerful that a cloud (the glory of the Lord) filled 
> the entire hall.  In a way, you're right, this is poetical 
> language, but in another sense, it can indeed be taken literally.  
> If all of our musical effort is put forth to glorify Him, then He 
> has, in effect, become our song (or at least the Source of our 
> song).

there's quite a large difference between effect and fact. again,
you're right, God can show himself when we praise him. come to
think of it, that praise can be music. (gasp)

> >> As for the precedent for using music as praise, the Scriptures 
> >> are  replete: Ps 33:1-5,68:25,92:1-5,144:9,Neh. 12:36 and 
> >> IIChron 23:13  to name but a few. My favorite, of course, is Ps 
> >> 150 "Praise God in  His sanctuary, Praise Him in His mighty 
> >> expanse...Praise Him with  trumpet sound,Praise Him with harp 
> >> and Lyre, Praise Him with  timbrel and dancing, Praise him with 
> >> stringed  instruments adn  pipe.  Praise Him with loud cymbals, 
> >> Praise Him with resounding  cymbals.  Let everything that has 
> >> breath praise the Lord"
> >
> >wonderful. we should praise God with our music.
> 
> Yes, and if we can do that with music, why should we even look for 
> another reason for music besides worshipping Him?
> (I know, you'll flame this as escapist, emotional and illogical, 
> but hey, that's life)

no. i won't flame you. it'd be too easy. you see, i agree with you
wholeheartedly. i just don't agree with you that because an author 
didn't necessarily intend their song for praise means that i can't
use it as such.

> >hmm. i wonder if the Israelites invented a whole new style of music
> >for worshiping the calf. i'd be willing to wager that it sounded
> >quite like the stuff they had played before. as i said before, it's
> >our idolatry that God hates, not the object.
> 
> No, I don't believe a particular wave form or rythm pattern is 
> Satanic. However, we have reached an interesting point.  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. 

what's your point? the creation process has nothing to do with 
whether or not something is a moral agent. cars didn't exist before
someone created it either. that says -nothing- about their evilness/
lack thereof.

> 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.  Before man created the wheel, 
> we were unable to talk about it.  The same with music - 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.

music is not living. only living things can be described as having
intent or purpose. non-living things can have -design-, but with
something as malleable as music, that relies on the associations the
-listener- will make that design is easily changed.

> >> Regarding the amorality of music more specifically, though.  
> >> Let's  take a look at a couple more Scriptures Found in II 
> >> Chronicles.  In  7:6, the chronicler refers to "music _of_ the 
> >> Lord" and in 30:21 he  speaks of "instruments _of_ the Lord".  
> >> Now it seems to me logical  (how's that, ME being logical :)) 
> >> that if there is music and  musical instruments OF the Lord, 
> >> then there is  also music and  musical instruments that are NOT 
> >> "of the Lord".
> >
> >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.

and what happens if one person uses it for one thing and another another?

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

in the sense that the universe is his, yes. however, if we have not 
dedicated something to God then it is most definitely -not- being
used for his purposes & is not, in that sense of the word, "his".

> >sacrifice, but God has made it pretty clear that he'll take -
> >anything- these days, as long as it's done to his glory. (at the 
> >time the issue was meat. hot dogs and pork & beans are easy for us 
> >to consecrate today. "dear god, bless this meal, amen." music just 
> >happens to be the tough point for many of today's Christians.)
> 
> I don't think God will accept "just about anything"  We are to be 
> sanctified, set apart for His holiness.  Else why would Romans tell 
> us to present our bodies a living and HOLY sacrifice?  Possibly 
> because we CAN defile our bodies and offer an UNHOLY sacrifice that 
> is unacceptable?

yup. note that defiling something takes -use-. the use of an object
determines if it is holy or unholy. for example, it's rather hard
to say "bless this food" and then go out and kill someone with the
energy we got from it. same goes for music.

> >would his music have still had the power to lead him astray had he
> >kept his focus where it belonged from the beginning? i doubt it.
> 
> Possibly.  Besides, this is a chicken/egg question.  Did the things 
> of the world cloud his focus, or did his removing his focus cause 
> him to get involved in "worldly" things?

	EXACTLY!
this is one of the things i've been trying to get you to admit all
along: this is a -highly- debatable question, and you have been
giving absolute answers to it, attempting to even claim that "this
is so" because "it's in the Bible." the Bible doesn't -say-.

> >uh-huh. so tell me: when it comes to a particular piece or style of
> >music, do you believe that it can be used in a variety of different
> >ways or not?
> 
> In a limited sense, yes.  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.

how much is enough to alter the music? how limited is your sense?

> >> It is clear, then, that music is NOT amoral.
> >
> >WHA? where'd you suddenly pull this out of? no such thing is clear.
> >what's clear is that our -use- of music, like any other amoral 
> >device that makes it holy or unholy, profitable or unprofitable.
> 
> I didn't think it was sudden at all.  Remember my argument above, 
> once a  piece of music is made (which is the only point at which we 
> can judge it), it DOES become a moral agent, one way or another.  I 

all through this thread we've been talking about USE. the morality
of music does not come into play it is -used-. creation alone is not
enough to make something evil.

> don't even think we can discuss music in a vacuum and somehow 
> separate it from it's uses or intent, because that's not the way 
> music works.  It IS an agent.

yup. when it is -used-. you're agreeing with me noel. scary stuff.

> >so: here's the -REAL- question: 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.

  ******************** HERE IT IS FOLKS! ********************

what i have been trying to get noel to say for the longest of times:
he does not believe music can be separated from its intent. and he
has -no- scripture to back it up. i'll respect his belief, but i
will -not- accept it.

> >> This is a clear point in favor of the fact that the intent of 
> >> the author IS vitally  important.  David made Psalm 150 so 
> >> clear,  that one could not get any  interpretation from it other 
> >> than the  author loved and wanted to praise God.
> >
> >great. and if someone chooses to sing that while mocking the song, 
> >is the intent still there? was the intent in the music (long lost) 
> >or the words? if the words are lost instead of the music, is the 
> >intent still evident?
> 
> Like I said before, if someone sings it as mockery, they are going 
> to have to alter it, thus making it in essence a different song.  

how much is enough to alter a song? the intent of the singer? you've
already said that is not enough. i believe that it is. something
can be mocked merely by repeating it with less respect than normal.
the amount of respect is something that occurs only in the mind of
the person.

> I'm sure that if we heard Psalm 150 played the way David wrote it, 
> it would have much more meaning and impact than when it's simply 
> read aloud.

i would agree with you. because music is a powerful amplifying force
for meaning. what that message -is- is entirely dependant on
the lyrics.

> >AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> >RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY! 
> >
> >noel, it has been my sad experience that whenever this "It's God's
> >logic, you wouldn't understand" argument rears it's ugly head it's
> >because the person stating it is incapable of proving their point
> >using mere "human" logic. the very statement that "God's logic
> >contradicts our own" is nothing more than a vast & unfounded 
> >criticism on par with "well, everyone knows the Bible is full of 
> >inaccuracies."

> I didn't say it's God's logic, you don't understand - I said it's 
> God's logic, WE don't understand.  I defy you to explain in a 
> worldly logical manner why God, being the Creator and Supreme being 
> above all else,  decided to lower Himself to become human, so that 
> He could be ridiculed and killed, in order to save our petty lives. 
> No fair saying "because He loves us".

and why not? you'd better explain just what you mean by "no fair".`
why is it not fair?

> 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.

what seems logical is not always logical. it sounds like you need some
training in basic theology. the argument against the "i'm a good
person, i should go to heaven" is quite reasonable. and i can and will
explain it to you:

1. God is perfect and perfectly just.
2. by 1 God cannot stand sin (by definition, sin is "missing the mark",
	anything less than perfection.)
3. God's perfect justice requires punishment for sin.
4. Therefore: God must punish and put away from himself anyone who
	sins, no matter how little.

(this all goes back to the doctrine that "evil" is not a thing unto
 itself, merely any perversion of perfection.)

Furthermore:

1. God is perfect and perfectly loving.
2. by 1 God cannot stand to see his children separated from Him.
3. God's perfect justice requires separation of sinners from Himself.
4. Therefore, God has decided to pay the penalty himself.

a perfectly logical sequence that boils down to "because He loves us."

and at no time is faith diminished by use of reason. in fact, the basic
premises, that God is perfect, in love and justice, requires a -lot-
of faith. once those premises are made, everything else follows.

> 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 have. i have never claimed to know all the mysteries and thoughts
of God. i merely state that there is no reason for Christians to resort
to "it's a mystery" when we don't have to. such an "I'm a Christian,
i have an excuse to hide my head in the sand" attitude turns a -lot-
of non-Christians off to a wonderful thing that would be even more
wonderful if Christians got off their high horse & learned how to
stand up for what they believed.

> As to your second argument above, try to explain and justify 
> "faith" on human logic.  Pascal tried it, but I doubt if his logic 
> will save him.

i have never said their was not such a thing as faith. however, as
Josh McDowell put it: God wants our faith, but he has never asked for 
"blind faith." if someone puts forth a doctrine that requires blind
faith we should be very very careful, because nothing God has said
requires that we turn our minds off. i doubt he's going to change his
habits now.

> 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.

there are things we cannot understand. that does -not- mean we cannot
understand anything. where we can comprehend, we should. there is -no-
excuse for not doing that.

> >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.

again, HERE IT IS FOLKS. i doubt noel -knows- what logic is, just as
the people who claim the Bible is full of errors don't know what it 
says. noel, you have not taken the time to evaluate what you speak of.
until you do, don't go claiming that logic is in contradiction with the
Bible. you HAVE NO BASIS for that claim, and have said as much. i'll
call you ignorant, if only to goad you into putting your money where
your foot is and learning about what you are missing.

> >yup. we would. fortunately, encountering and contemplating are two
> >entirely different things. have you realized that in writing 
> >Screwtape Letters CS Lewis had to contemplate those very things 
> >that would send us screaming for the exits if we were to encounter 
> >it face-face?
> 
> Yes, in fact, Lewis said that writing that book was one of the most
> unpleasant experiences he has ever had.

i'm not surprised. but he did it. we can do it. there are no excuses.

> >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.

ahh, but God reveals himself through the Bible. of course the Bible
can stand up to the Bible. that's by definition. it's also circular
reasoning.

> >             IN THE NAME OF GOD PEOPLE, WAKE UP AND THINK!
> 
> Hmm, as far as a human CAN think, I've always considered myself a 
> pretty good one.  Sorry if I don't measure up to your standards.  I 
> sure hope I measure up to God's, though.

pardon my saying this, but you don't even know what you're talking about.
you have shown yourself incapable and unwilling to give anyone a rational
explanation of why you believe what you believe. there are people in the
world who's main turn-off toward Christianity are people such as yourself.
call them "unbelieving heathens" all you like, but the fact remains that
they are going to hell because of what they've seen.

i've said it before, and i've said it again:

             IN THE NAME OF GOD PEOPLE, WAKE UP AND THINK!

> One of my favorite sayings because I think it so perfectly reveals 
> our inflated opinions of ourselves is as follows (I saw it written 
> on a  chalkboard somewhere):
> 
> "God is dead" - Neitschke
> "Neitschke is dead" - God
> How true!

that's a silent K i presume? the argument that "one person who used his
mind was against God, so everyone who uses their mind is against God."
is amusing, but also fallacious.

jason "THINK!" steiner

--
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,
`, "Get off the cross. We need the wood." steiner@jupiter.cse.utoledo.edu `,
`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,`,
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian