Heavy Rock

[kevinmiller]

Ummm...Proverbs says that "death and life are in the power of the tongue". And it's clear that music is used to influence people and is considered a universal language.

Music is considered to be a universal language in that it transcends cultures, it is not referring to speaking as Proverbs is. You could use that verse for the lyrics, though. It is considered a language figuratively, not literally.

Nebuchadnezzar had folks bow to his image at the sound of music and there is no mention of any lyrics. Lucifer is said to be created with "pipes" and "tabrets" WITHIN him. In the scripture music is ALWAYS in the context of worship. So I don't see how you can say that isn't in the Bible.

Just because they bowed to the image doesn't mean that the music is what caused them to bow to the image. I used to use this argument, as well, but it doesn't really hold water. We don't know anything about the music other then that Nebuchadnezzar used it as a signal to begin worshipping. Music was used in a variety of different ways in ancient times, to keep time for sports, etc. The music that they used was most likely the music of the day, we don't see a mention of a drum set in the instruments that Daniel lists.

The Bible is a spiritual Book, it is to be expected that any reference to music would be connected to worship or God in some way.

As far as the music itself it really is up to the individual Christian. But he or she needs to be wary of how their choices affect other believers. If Casting Crowns edifies you in Christ and you can give thanks than have at it but if it offends a brother maybe you shouldn't listen to it around him.

I agree, if it causes someone to stumble or poses a problem. I think we should be sensitive of other people and their weaknesses. If my listening to Casting Crowns around someone who is weak causes them to stumble, I would abstain around that person.

[Antha Weidman]

Out of curiosity, miss, are you referring to Christian hard rock, Christian contemporary, or just any thing Christian contemporary period?

Or, are you referring to secular rock?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

In answer to this question, I am definitely referring to "Christian" hard rock and secular rock. If "Christian contemporary" just refers to wholesome Christian music composed in these present days, I do not despise any good music, regardless of when it was written. However, if "Christian contemporary" includes any so-called Christian music written in a style that is akin to rock, jazz, blues, and other worldly sounds with overemphasized rhythm, then I do strongly condemn some "Christian contemporary" music.

I will restate that I do not shun any music if it sounds decent, exalts the melody and harmony over the rhythm (that satanic beat characterizes most ungodly music), and honours Christ our Saviour.

[Guest Guest]

In answer to this question' date=' I am definitely referring to "Christian" hard rock and secular rock. If "Christian contemporary" just refers to wholesome Christian music composed in these present days, I do not despise any good music, regardless of when it was written. However, if "Christian contemporary" includes any so-called Christian music written in a style that is akin to rock, jazz, blues, and other worldly sounds with overemphasized rhythm, then I do strongly condemn some "Christian contemporary" music.[/quote']

So, I take this paragraph to mean that (if you are in fact consistent in this belief) you would also condemn any music, regardless of its age, that emulates secular, worldly music?



The only thing that needs to be above the rhythm is the melody or main theme of the song, the harmony is unimportant. There are some tasteless forms of music that IMO, are done improperly and the main theme or melody line is indistinguishable. First, this is just bad musicianship; and second, it does not edify our physical beings in the right order. For these reasons alone, it is wrong. However, just because you can discern the rhythm section or hear a drum - does not necessarily by any means of evaluation make the music wrong. For clarification, is it the beat or the rhythm that you shun? And why?

[Antha Weidman]

So, I take this paragraph to mean that (if you are in fact consistent in this belief) you would also condemn any music, regardless of its age, that emulates secular, worldly music?

Because I am consistent in this belief, I would indeed condemn any music, not regarding its age, if it emulates worldly, secular music.

For clarification, is it the beat or the rhythm that you shun? And why?

The beat and the rhythm are linguistically the same thing. The dictionary's definition for rhythm is "the aspect of music comprising all the elements (as accent, meter, and tempo) that relate to forward movement." By this definition, I do not shun the musical element of rhythm if it is properly used. Without rhythm, there would be no flowing movement in music.

However, for a decent sound, rhythm should not be emphasized over the melody. The melody is the most important part of proper music, and it should be treated thus. In opposition to this rule, the loud beat has the most prominence in rock music, and I believe this devilish sound can be very dangerous. I have read from numerous sources (many are found on http://www.av1611.org) that this evil music can be seriously mind altering and injurious to good health. I have been exposed to these deadly noises in the past (against my will), and the throbbing beat and senseless lyrics caused me to feel depressed, nauseated, and very ill in the stomach. Less noisy worldly music has produced similar effects in me.

[Guest Guest]

Because I am consistent in this belief' date=' I would indeed condemn any music, not regarding its age, if it emulates worldly, secular music.[/quote']

So, What Child is This? must be out of the old repertoire, huh? What with it sharing the melody from Greensleeves...

[Antha Weidman]

So, What Child is This? must be out of the old repertoire, huh? What with it sharing the melody from Greensleeves...

I do not think that "What Child is This?" should be removed from the repertoire of acceptable music because it shares the "Greensleeves" melody. Though "Greensleeves" was not composed for the purpose of being church music, it is nonetheless a very beautiful folk melody; in fact, it is one of my favorite tunes of all times. When I said that I condemn any music that emulates worldly, secular music, I should have also clarified that I referred to worldly, secular music with an evil or improper sound (overemphasized rhythm, sensual beat). "Greensleeves" and many other English folk tunes do not fit this criteria.

[Guest Guest]

Why not? At the point of its inception (and technically even today), Greensleeves was an immoral folk song that talked about a married man whose lover (adultress) is leaving him. Christians in that time period would never have been walking around singing that song...or any song that sounded remotely like it. What made it right, then? Was it time? Does time allow us to cross secular lines in music, or does it just make it easier on the consciences of those who so adamantly stood against it? Just because you prefer the "beautiful folk melody" doesn't justify it, if your principle is indeed true.

What then, is the difference?

[Antha Weidman]

Why not? At the point of its inception (and technically even today), Greensleeves was an immoral folk song that talked about a married man whose lover (adultress) is leaving him. Christians in that time period would never have been walking around singing that song...or any song that sounded remotely like it. What made it right, then? Was it time? Does time allow us to cross secular lines in music, or does it just make it easier on the consciences of those who so adamantly stood against it? Just because you prefer the "beautiful folk melody" doesn't justify it, if your principle is indeed true.

What then, is the difference?

Of course, I never would have sung the lyrics to that song either, but I do not believe there is anything inherently evil about the melody. The lyrics can be deleted, and only the melody be used. If the melody for "Amazing Grace" or "Victory in Jesus" were chosen for a set of shameful lyrics, would those tunes instantly become evil? I am just attempting to offer reasonable explanations of my beliefs, but, after learning this information about the original lyrics for the "Greensleeves" tune, I almost feel differently about the beautiful folk melody. Maybe all plain, unaccompanied melodies are decent, but if they are performed with a combination of questionable lyrics and unholy beat, they instantly become sinful.

I must also say that I do not believe that time will make right any wickedness condemned by God; I firmly support the unchangeableness of truth. I also do not condone the adultery expressed in the lyrics of "Greensleeves." If those words were immoral in the past, they are also immoral in the present. Ungodly lyrics are never accepted with me, but I do think that some acceptable melodies must exist.

[Guest Guest]

In answer to this question, I am definitely referring to "Christian" hard rock and secular rock. If "Christian contemporary" just refers to wholesome Christian music composed in these present days, I do not despise any good music, regardless of when it was written. However, if "Christian contemporary" includes any so-called Christian music written in a style that is akin to rock, jazz, blues, and other worldly sounds with overemphasized rhythm, then I do strongly condemn some "Christian contemporary" music.

I will restate that I do not shun any music if it sounds decent, exalts the melody and harmony over the rhythm (that satanic beat characterizes most ungodly music), and honours Christ our Saviour.

Thank you for your response; I appreciate it.

If you don't mind my asking, though, why is a beat, per se, Satanic? Or is it a certain kind of beat?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

Of course, I never would have sung the lyrics to that song either, but I do not believe there is anything inherently evil about the melody. The lyrics can be deleted, and only the melody be used. If the melody for "Amazing Grace" or "Victory in Jesus" were chosen for a set of shameful lyrics, would those tunes instantly become evil? I am just attempting to offer reasonable explanations of my beliefs, but, after learning this information about the original lyrics for the "Greensleeves" tune, I almost feel differently about the beautiful folk melody. Maybe all plain, unaccompanied melodies are decent, but if they are performed with a combination of questionable lyrics and unholy beat, they instantly become sinful.

I must also say that I do not believe that time will make right any wickedness condemned by God; I firmly support the unchangeableness of truth. I also do not condone the adultery expressed in the lyrics of "Greensleeves." If those words were immoral in the past, they are also immoral in the present. Ungodly lyrics are never accepted with me, but I do think that some acceptable melodies must exist.

Ah, good answer. I agree with you. It seems our only area of dispute would be on exactly how much beat is "overbearing". Hey, we can't agree on everything.

[Guest Guest]

This is a question for anyone who wishes to answer:
Do you believe listening to Christian contemporary music will cause one to have sinful emotions/desires/etc. because of their listening to it?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

[Guest Guest]

This is a question for anyone who wishes to answer:
Do you believe listening to Christian contemporary music will cause one to have sinful emotions/desires/etc. because of their listening to it?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

No. No more than seeing a woman in open-toed shoes would cause one to. They may have sinful emotions or desires, but they existed long before the stimulus of CCM...or open-toed shoes in my weak analogy.

[John81]

This is a question for anyone who wishes to answer:
Do you believe listening to Christian contemporary music will cause one to have sinful emotions/desires/etc. because of their listening to it?
God bless,
Crushmaster.

That would depend upon the individual and what exactly they were listening too. I've heard some CCM that's very God-honouring and I've heard some that to this day I have no idea why it's considered Christian.

Certain styles of music effect people differently. For some folks, hearing certain styles of music can indeed tempt their flesh in various ways (lust, anger, rebelliousness, etc.).

CCM is such a broad category that I don't think anyone could make a blanket statement about all CCM. Those who write modern, Christ-honouring hymns find their music classified as CCM right along with those who pound out heavy metal or rap that sounds virtually identical to their secular counterparts.

To really discuss contemporary music properly, one would have to discuss individual artists and groups whether Casting Crowns, Amy Grant, Gettys, Stryper, Twila Paris, etc.

[Wilchbla]

Music is considered to be a universal language in that it transcends cultures, it is not referring to speaking as Proverbs is. You could use that verse for the lyrics, though. It is considered a language figuratively, not literally.

You honestly believe that music doesn't speak to or influence people in a certain way? If this is the case then why have music? Let's just chant words. Or let's put some Nine Inch Nails music to Handel's Messiah and see how it effects the Oratorio. Paul says to make a melody in your heart clearly showing that music does speak.

Just because they bowed to the image doesn't mean that the music is what caused them to bow to the image. I used to use this argument, as well, but it doesn't really hold water. We don't know anything about the music other then that Nebuchadnezzar used it as a signal to begin worshipping.

I realize this but the Bible speaks of things for a reason. If the playing of the music was insignificant it wouldn't have mentioned it. The music was symbolic of worship as is EVERY CASE in the Bible. Nebuchanezzar was basically using the music to say that he was a god.

I agree, if it causes someone to stumble or poses a problem. I think we should be sensitive of other people and their weaknesses. If my listening to Casting Crowns around someone who is weak causes them to stumble, I would abstain around that person.

This is the the bottomline for the believer.

Bill

[kevinmiller]

You honestly believe that music doesn't speak to or influence people in a certain way? If this is the case then why have music? Let's just chant words. Or let's put some Nine Inch Nails music to Handel's Messiah and see how it effects the Oratorio. Paul says to make a melody in your heart clearly showing that music does speak.

Music is a medium and it is a powerful one. Music can help you memorize something that you would otherwise quickly forget. It delivers a message in a way that most other mediums cannot. That being the case, it can deliver a message that is secular in nature, or Christian. It depends on what lyrics are being written for it.

I'm not sure how the beauty of Handel's Messiah being ruined by a Nine Inch Nails song proves anything. Handel was a musical genius to a degree that I doubt most people in contemporary times or in the future will never come to close to amounting to. Certainly it wouldn't be nearly as beautiful but Nine Inch Nails is not Handel.

I realize this but the Bible speaks of things for a reason. If the playing of the music was insignificant it wouldn't have mentioned it. The music was symbolic of worship as is EVERY CASE in the Bible. Nebuchanezzar was basically using the music to say that he was a god.

I think it was showing that the music was a signal, nothing more. When the people heard that signal, everyone bowed but Shadrach, Meshach and Abednago. It's just the facts of the case and the Bible is a factual, as well as spiritual, book. If Nebechadnezzar had used his voice as the signal to worship, the Bible would've said, "at the time you hear my voice, bow down and worship my image." But that wasn't the case and the Bible tells us what actually happened.