Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

OK then...is it good or evil? (I know you're not advocating that position...but we're dialoging and I need a sounding board.

 

My opinion is that certain sounds will incite certain emotions and the music should match the emotions we want to stir up. So I think that like anythings else we can use almost anything to the glory of God or the glory of man. When I decrease and God increases my attention will be more focused on God. The immature will be much more focused on the music and self.

 

Interesting. Aren't you the one who appealed to your apologetics class and your PhD program?

 

Aaron, could you please tell me which emotions are sinful?

 

No. Once more, food is not communication. Music is. I don't care how emotional people get about music, or their pet rocks, or the appearance of a double rainbow. The morality of music does not rest on its emotional impact, but on its nature.

Music is an act of communication. It is human behavior, and there is no such thing as amoral human behavior.

But it isn't a thought.

You don't know what music is, how can I expect you to know what a scheme is? Thoughts are actions. Actions are moral.

That has not been my argument. Not once.

Start with my first post.

 

Depends on what definition of "pseudo-intellectual" you are using. It seems that you mean something like, "Things I have no idea how to answer because I am not familiar enough to know what it means, but I can't admit that so I will simply call it names and say it's not an argument," because that has been about the sum total of your argument in this thread.

Furthermore, I agree with you for the most part that if you have intellect, you don't have to talk about it. It will show up. And it hasn't.

 

I am going to try to quickly respond here to the responses that were offered (which may take several posts due to character limits). I haven't put as much time as I would like to (though fortunately it didn't require much due to the pretty simplistic nature of it), and later I will offer some more thoughts from a positive end.


First to Luke

A couple of introductory points:

1. The idea that I haven’t made a case is so evidently false that it boggles the thinking mind as to why it would even be suggested. I can only conclude that you think a case has been made only if he agrees with the case. There is no conceivable explanation as to why he would continually say that no case has been made, unless he believes that something becomes true by repetition. It may well be a demonstration of your ignorance about the matter that he thinks this is irrelevant or “not a case.” I think I am able to demonstrate that, and I will.

2. The idea that I am being a pope or something is clearly preposterous. It just out right wrong, easily disproved, and a bit humorous. It clearly isn't a serious contribution to the discussion. Just go back and look how many times I have said that I don't care what people listen to or if they disagree with me. That is clearly not popish. I have not declared anything with infallibility. That is not popish. Trying to decide what the Scripture says about something is not wrong, not even if you say it is. The idea that Scripture does not speak to methods and styles of communication is so strange that I hardly think anyone would affirm it. But yet you do for some reason.

You keep trying to say that I am trying to condemn things God hasn't condemned. But that is exactly what we are talking about. The discussion is about what God has condemned. You are assuming you are correct that God has not condemned any style of communication. I disagree. I don't assume that. In fact, I think there are good reasons to disagree with that.

2. The idea that I have not appealed to Scripture is demonstrably false as anyone who reads this thread can see. I have appealed to Scripture, both for principles of how we use Scripture as well as principles about communication. You know that, or at least you should know that. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it is not a good way to discuss.

So now let’s interact on some specific issues:

You return to this argument quite often, but I have to wonder why. It is a silly argument and if you are actually in a doctoral program, then you know that, or at least should know that. Colors and music are two very different entities, two very different classes of things. This type of argument would not pass muster in a high school class, much less a legitimate doctoral program. And that’s what makes it funny when you say I have offered bad arguments.

But how do we know what rebellion against God looks like? How is it expressed in various cultures? Don’t you agree that children express rebellion through voice tone (sarcasm, anger, defiance, etc)? It’s not just words. It’s also the manner of expression.

You say, “whatever is in disobedience to God is worldly,” but you have no means (that I can see) of applying that in the 21st century. What is the worldly use of a cell phone? Or a car? Or the internet? Or a camera? Or instant messaging? Or food production? Or whatever else? Until you have some means to bridge between ancient culture and revelation and modern life, you cannot seriously interact with God’s word.

No it hasn’t because culture has changed. The expressions of worldliness have changed as the ways to rebel has changed. The means of expressing that rebellion have changed.

You should go back and read some of the history of the middle twentieth century and read what the people of that time said they were trying to do and say by what they were doing. They contradict you.

Actually Bach is not antiquated. He continues to be very popular. But that doesn’t really answer the question. Why is it hard to imagine the music of Bach as a tool for cultural revolution?

That’s not an argument about why. Again, the people of that time (as I will demonstrate later) say that you are wrong. Now who should we listen to? People who knew what they were doing and what they were trying to say? Or someone who comes along fifty years later, apparently ignorant of history, culture, and meaning and tries to establish his own ideas?

That’s not an answer (showing that you are incorrect when you say that you have answered everything I have asked). They answer was a “why” question, and the historians (people who have actually studied the issue) answer it very differently than you do.

You apparently don’t know what a non sequitur is. A non sequitur means that something is logically disconnected, or does not logically follow. First of all, a premise and a conclusion may both correct, and be a non sequitur. An argument may be totally logical (i.e., logically correct) and still be wrong.

Furthermore, it’s not as simple as you pretend. You are failing to consider whether or not there is causality or correlation. The A number of secular historians of the 60s disagree, as do the artists themselves. They saw more of a connection there. I have to wonder how you know more than they do. Why should we disbelieve the people who lived and participated in it, and the people who have seriously studied it, in favor of the opinions of a guy who has apparently done neither?

So feeling that your spouse exists solely to meet your needs isn’t evil? Feeling lust towards another woman isn’t evil? Feeling jealousy over someone else’s position isn’t evil? I think we can see the problems with that. God specifically condemns certain feelings and emotions. To say otherwise is to deny Scripture.

I seriously doubt that because you do not even appear to understand the argument I am making.

Actually, that’s not what I am doing. The question about movie music was about why it works. The answer is because music communicates without any words. It tells you what to think about what’s on the screen. Movie music without words teaches us what to think. Imagine the scenes at the end of Schindler’s List (where emaciated prisoners are shown) to a carousel style tune. It totally changes the scene because of the teaching capacities of music.

You assume that no emotion is condemned, yet we have shown several that are, like unrighteous anger and lust towards people you are not married to, or the like. So your foundation is in fact incorrect. God does condemn certain emotions. So when it “occurred to you that no emotion is condemned in the Word of God” you actually exchanged the authority of Scripture for the authority of your mind.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume you matured. I would say the evidence points to the idea that you haven’t at least in this area. God expects us to know and understand the times that we live in. He expects us to be able to view culture with discernment, and know what “things like these” are.

As I asked you in another thread, why are you so sure that you are not missing something? I don’t imagine you claim to know it all. Yet you are pretty dogmatic that you know it all on this topic. Is there any chance that your thinking has been corrupted by noetic effects of sin? By cultural biases? By intellectual laziness? By sincere mistakenness?

 

Continued to Luke

But why does music “move” us? What is it about the music that moves us? And why does music generally move a very diverse group of people to do the same thing? I think it is clear that this proves that music has meaning without words, and that is why it “moves” us. And that’s the whole point here. And that is what you seem to be denying. Certain types of music communicate meaning that brings certain types of responses.

So if I understand you correctly, it is fine to speak to people with contempt in your voice? It is fine to speak to people in a tone of disrespect? Does your wife agree with you on that? Or does she take offense and experience hurt when you use certain voice tones with her?

Would you correct your child on his or her tone of voice? If so, on what biblical basis?

Now you are admitting a contradiction. You are willing to admit certain things are wrong it seems, even when you admit the Bible doesn’t say so. You are admitting that we can, through observation and study, draw conclusions about life and the world we live in even when God hasn’t said something.

Here’s the problem: You have no problem admitting that we can learn about the world through observation and use of thinking skills, but you turn around and deny that we can learn about the world through observation and use of thinking skills.

That won’t pass muster in any doctoral program that I know of and with good reason. It is inherently contradictory.

But you are preaching morality without the Bible. It is clear that God has not expressly or clearly condemned everything that’s wrong. He clearly expects us to use our redeemed intellect to evaluate and discern, to “prove all things.”

You are asserting anti-intellectualism—that there is no need to think about the world and act with discernment. When the Bible says, “Do not love the world,” you have no real way of determining what “the world” is because the Bible does not specifically address “the world” as we know it in the 21st century. I reject anti-intellectualism. I think it is an insult to God’s revelation and the image of God as seen in man’s intellect and reasoning capabilities, affected by sin as they are.

This was given in response to the question about where was lust okay in the OT. The problem is that God clearly condemned multiple wives in the OT. He did not clearly condemn lust. Yet here you are saying that it was wrong, even though you have no verse for it, right? God may have winked at it then, just like he does now. But if you admit that lust was wrong in the OT (and I think you are, but I am not sure), it seems that you have destroyed your foundation of “God didn’t say anything about it” therefore it’s okay because God did not say anything about lust in the OT, yet it was not okay.

How is that not contrary to what you are arguing?

Why would that be the reason? What if the reason is that it was self-evident, just like lust? It was built into commands about worship and aesthetics.

No, to the first and yes to the second. It is common but very entry level and inadequate argument to say that this is a “soft sound” or a “slow song.” I remember when I was a music director at a church having a group that wanted to sing and assured me it would be a “slow song.” I had to laugh at the silliness that tempo was somehow understood as the issue. The volume of music isn’t the issue. I prefer music loud. But loud or soft or slow or fast isn’t the issue.

He did tell them not to worship like the pagans right? And furthermore, had he said “The music of so and so is inquity,” what would that have meant us? There are no recordings of it so we wouldn’t know what it sounds like. God instead gave us principles of communication that he expects us to apply, not ignore.

What would you have researched? You think you could have uncovered some ancient recordings? Seriously …

That’s simply not true.

I don’t buy the premise that God is silent. God expects us to understand his word and apply it to the lives that we lead.

But there are inherent flaws in this, not the least of which is that Jesus himself didn’t believe it, and neither did Paul. I have given very clear biblical illustrations of this, and so your claim that I have made no biblical argument is simply incorrect, and since you know better, it is hard to characterize it as anything other than dishonest. You are knowingly saying something that is not true.

I realize you say that. I say the moon is made of green cheese. What’s the difference? Nothing. They are both statements. The fact that we can say something does not make it true.

Actually it demonstrates quite a bit, which you simply ignore.

Where was that? I think I recall one or two lines and some crack about the American Revolution.

Just to be clear, I am not trying to condemn what God has not and it is dishonest to say otherwise. By this time in the thread, you know that I believe God has condemned certain things and I have shown some simple basis for that. You disagree. Fine. But don’t make up my position. At least debate in good faith.

Historically, Sola Scriptura has never meant that “God didn't say otherwise” is a valid means of deciding things. Go back and read your history on sola scriptura.

I am confident that my belief in sola scriptura is at least as strong as yours is, and is more historically and biblically informed. What you are arguing for is not sola scriptura but a naked wordism that I reject.

[FONT=&quot]

I think I have fairly adequately demonstrated that you have not addressed my arguments.[/FONT]

 

Final post to Luke

There are quite a few you missed, enumerated here as a cut and paste, and you can go back and see that every single one of these questions was previously asked word for word. If you answered them someplace, then please point that out

1. How are fallen values expressed through dress?
2. How are fallen values expressed in art, music, etc?
3. Why is the 60s culture so closely associated with a particular style of music?
4. Why didn't the LA Lakers fill the arena with Pachelbel's Canon in D when the Lakers won the NBA championship?
5. Why is it that mothers instinctively know what kind of lullabies to sing to their children (not words, but style of music)?
6. Why does movie music work?
7. Why are certain types of music associated with ungodly dancing while other types of music are impossible to associate with ungodly dancing?
8. Do you think a lullaby in America might be interpreted as a victory dance in some other culture?
9. Can you imagine a futbol team in Africa getting pumped up for a game listening to a lullaby? Or the Staples Center playing a soft lullaby when the Lakers beat the Celtics for the NBA championship? Or a nightclub in Japan using a lullaby?
10. Why do you think non-English speaking countries play American pop music?
11. Do you think one could demonstrate a lack of grace with his or her tone of voice? That is to say could one say the right set of words, but do so in a tone of voice that contradicts the words?
12. Why is it that people instinctively know when a tone of voice or body language contradicts the words that are spoken?
13. Are you saying it is impossible to sin if we mean well? That the standard of righteousness is intent or desire?

So, I will grant that you made a mistake and simply didn’t see all the questions. But quite clearly you are wrong to say you answered “every single one of [my] questions.” Because here are 13 that you apparently did not answer.

I have, and you have admitted it. Music communicates. The Bible condemns certain types of communication (as I have shown). Therefore music that communicates in a way that is unbiblical is sinful.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, and as is obvious, colors and music are two different entities, two very different sorts of things. It works in different ways.

Because they are two very different sorts of things.

For a doctoral student, you haven’t read much then.

Nicely done there.

We can clearly see that this isn’t true.

That’s not my argument.

That’s not my argument.

That’s not my argument.

Finally, my argument.

I have.

Actually, I probably care less about this than you do, which is evident from your numerous posts and threads on the topic. Furthermore, this is plainly dishonest because I have clearly said on several occasions that I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, and I don’t care if they don’t.

Where was I crushed? And what’s your definition of thinking? You have yet to respond to most of the “thought” questions that I asked.

As you can probably imagine, this is rather unconvincing given your arguments in this forum. You are wrong, and if you are actually in this program, you will soon learn that.

Then feel free to show it using my actual arguments.

Um, no. You need to look up the definition of ad hominem. You clearly do not give evidence of comprehending my argument. That’s not ad hominem. It is a statement that appears to be true.

Not if you understand my argument. Which shows my above statement to be true. If you understand the argument about the 1960s, then you know it is not post hoc ergo propter hoc (FYI, it is proper to use italics for foreign phrases, not quotes).

Then you apparently do not know much about argument.

I am more than willing to listen to reason. Feel free to offer some.

 

To Don

All values. Values are the thoughts, feelings, attitudes etc, that man is responsible before God to have. Because of sin in all its expressions and power, those values are fallen. We would put it this way: Man shows his rebellion against God by ____________.

In sexuality for instance, we would say that “Human express their rebellion against God by pornography, by sex outside of marriage, by immodesty, by illicit flirting, etc.”

Obviously the 1950s and 60s. Yes, many would make the case that it starts well before then, but I was simply using one illustration to explore your thinking on this.

I mean Why is it hard for us to picture the cultural revolution taking place to the music of Bach? I am not sure how else to ask that. Picture the 60s to Bach and describe the disconnect that we probably all experience. Go find some pictures or movie footage of Woodstock and put on a CD of the Brandenburg Concertos and you will see that is just doesn't fit. That kind of music doesn't fit with what is going on in the pictures. It's pretty self-evident.

That doesn’t really answer the question though. Why did they coincide? Is there anything more significant there? I think there was. The people of the 60s think there was. The historians, academics, and cultural commentators think there was. Now, they are divided on whether or not that continues to this day (which I have already addressed by saying I am not prepared to say the meaning in the music is universal and inherent but it is at least cultural and associative).

We are not talking about the 1460s, which I am sure you know. But interesting how you suggest that certain learning and changes brought about certain music. I actually agree, and that is part of my point.

Not fitting and not honoring to marriage.

Now you are getting my point and making my point. The point is about style, and you are admitting that by changing the style you change what the music communicates.

Obviously. I appreciate the attempts at humor, as feeble as they are. But isn’t it obvious that nightclubs choose certain music on purpose.

But culturally, wearing Star Wars outfit to get married is considered strange and out of place. It is the exception.

Again, you make my point. You would have to gin something up, and even then, whether the melody would work is questionable. I would be very interested to hear a “gin” of the Stars and Stripes Forever that fits a horror scene.

Probably not. Again, I would be interested in an arraignment of the Canon in D that fits an NBA championship.

Excellent. How? When you answer that question, I think you will be making my point.

Partially, but not entirely. The wrong music at the right time makes something a joke. Think of the end of Schindler’s List with the music from Indiana Jones. The timing of it can be exactly right and end up being totally wrong. Or try to imagine the end of Schindler’s List to the Washington Post march, or the national anthem. It just doesn’t work (unless perhaps you change the style, which would be making my point).

The bigger point is that movie music works because it teaches us what to think about a scene. Go back to the silent movie era, when an organist played live music to the movies. The reason they did that is because movie music teaches us what to think about what’s on the screen.

I understand, but consider the argumentative fallacy here. You are suggesting that because certain types of music doesn’t affect you in certain ways, that there is no universal meaning or communication. That doesn’t logically follow. Let’s consider, for the sake of argument, three categories: (1) Music that is good, (2) music that neutral, and (3) music that is bad. Making an argument that some music fits in #1 or #2 does not disprove the existence of #3. What you have done here is essentially argue that since there is #2 (to you), there is no #3. I would not make that argument. It is not only logically fallacious, it also operates off a wrong premise.

 

A fair amount. I have been on 4 continents, enough to know that there is a reason why certain types of music bring similar responses all over the world.

Depending on how you define rock, yes. But isn’t there a reason why programs like “Love Songs” come on in the late hours and not during the working hours?

Do you have any evidence for this?

Seriously?

I addressed this elsewhere, but the ability to say something is for God does not mean God accepts it.

Again, no. There is nothing definitive that can be drawn from this occasion.

American pop music is quite popular around the globe. But the point is that it is not music in which they typically understand the words. They are listening to it for the sake of music.

How do either of those address voice tone in a way that Col 4:6 does not? What makes communication corrupt? What makes an answer soft? You have to go outside of the Bible to define that. And once you do, you have to admit the principle that I am appealing to, namely, that Scripture gives us teaching that we are expected to apply based on the culture that we live in.

I don’t see anything there about soft answers or non-corrupt communication, but your point is not in dispute. But it partakes of the same fallacy as above. The fact that someone can answer contemptuously or ungraciously with soft words and non-corrupt communication proves nothing about the alternative.

As I explained the correlation is that Jesus condemns lust on a principle about adultery. There is no verse in the to condemn lust. Yet Jesus shows that lust is clearly condemned by another command. So in the same way, we don’t need specific verses about types of communication. Commands about certain types communication are built into commands about communication.

I think your history is a bit flawed on two fronts. But again, the argument is flawed in this way: The fact that people object wrongly to A does not mean that all objections to A are therefore wrong. So you say that people in year X objected to music as eroding values and they were wrong. Fine. But that doesn’t mean that people who object to certain types of music in year Y are wrong>

Yes and no. See above.


Thanks for the interaction Don. I am fine with disagreement, but I think I have shown that you actually admit my principles on several fronts and you just don’t apply them as I do (which I think is inconsistent on your part).

 

And with that glittering jewel I will take my leave.

 

I wouldn't agree with you that every emotion is good. Some music is extremely carnal and should not be listened to inside or outside church.

I don't watch a lot of TV anymore, simply because I have realized that TV leads me to sin. I see some very beautiful woman in a sexual scene or even just an implied or suggestive conversation and the next thing I know I am having improper sexual fantasies. I have caught myself at this many times and examined where these sinful imaginations originated, and often it had to do with a sexual scene or sexual conversation I heard on TV a few minutes earlier.

Job 31:1 I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?

Job understood this and kept his eyes (and mind) off young women.

And music can do this also. I spent many years playing rock music and I know from experience the effect this can have on ourself and others.

Worship music should emphasize first the melody, secondly the harmony, and last the rhythm or beat. All very sensual or sexual music emphasizes rhythm. Listen to rap music and notice how immoral it is. In many rap songs there is absolutely no melody or harmony, but complete rhythm or beat. And look at the effect on the listeners. It is not mere coincidence that rap music incites very immodest and immoral behavior in the listeners. It is the effect of the strong beat.

Have you ever noticed the effect music has on a baby? It is not learned behavior. I have seen little babies rock back and forth and spin in circles listening to music. No one has to teach a baby this, it is natural.

It is not a coincidence that heavy metal rock bands emphasize the flatted fifth interval. Musicians for centuries have known the effect of this particular sound.

So, I do not agree with you that all emotions are acceptable, nor all forms of music.

 

Thirty pages is enough for this tired old topic.