dps@uunet.uu.net ( Dan Smith ) (02/25/90)
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on "Christian Music" (was Re: Petra Praise) ([..]) = Some material deleted . In article <Feb.12.04.49.20.1990.13139@athos.rutgers.edu> (alan i. vymetalik) writes: >In article <Feb.9.02.18.30.1990.17100@athos.rutgers.edu> (Jeff Sargent) writes: >> >>I'd say that different music of each era communicates different meanings. > ([..]) Music such as this was for the "rich." The music was definitely not > meant for the poor, besides that they definitely couldn't afford it. This > is not to say that the less-fortunate didn't have or enjoy music. I was > just different. Also, should a lower class citizen get a chance to listen > to "music of the rich," they probably had some disdainful opinions of the > rich to go along with their commentary on the music. While it is certainly true that the poor could not afford to pay a composer to write music for them, don't make assumptions about how they liked the music! > Now, of course, today, music is one of the most universal aspects of life. > It cuts across all races, creeds, ages, and income levels. Exactly my point! This was just as true in 1200 A.D. as it is today. The only thing that has really changed is the rapid way that the music is distributed all over the world. > ([..]) > > It's really a shame that Kansas couldn't have hung out for another year or > so with Livgren and John Elefante at the helm. Kansas ditched it just > before the big move towards Contemporary Christian music hit its stride. > But, then, maybe the Lord didn't want to have a "big commercial success" of > the past pushing along the music. I don't know. Just commenting. Side note: I was under the impression that Kansas split up because half of the band was Christian and the other half wasn't. They didn't want to go that route and so Livgren and co. started their own thing on the CCM scene. > Be careful in your selections and revel in your discoveries. Just remember > this, and I may just get flamed for it, nearly all music and the > inspiration for that music comes from God no matter if it's blues, reggae, > rock, jazz, etc. God gave us a unique, creative spirit that no other > creature possesses. I personally don't believe that Satan has any real > creative abilities when it comes to music. Oh, he can use, twist, and > distort, but the core comes from God. Amen. You're right! I am going to flame you. Are you not aware of the fact that this whole issue begins with how Satan was created by God, etc...? The Bible tells us that he was the most beautiful of all that God had created. It goes into great detail about not only his appearance, but also about the myriad of instruments that made up his body. Lucifer, as he was then referred to, not only knew how to play instruments but he was a one being orchestra. He was created for the purpose of leading worship in Heaven. Then he saw the praise that the Almighty was receiving and decided that he would like to have that same kind of worship. I think you know the rest of the story. To say that Satan has no creative ability does not mean that all music comes from God. Yes, I did see that you used the word nearly, but I think that as time draws closer to Jesus' return we will see that more and more music is coming out twisted and tainted by Satan's grasp. It's a sign of the times. Therefore I would caution all casual listener's to pay closer attention to what is being worshipped in their music, because something or someone always is. It's at the heart of the very nature of music! --- Laura Smith dps@acd4 uunet!acd4!dps
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (03/01/90)
In article <Feb.24.23.40.43.1990.8353@athos.rutgers.edu> Laura Smith writes: >Are you not aware of the fact that this whole issue begins with how Satan was >created by God, etc...? The Bible tells us that he was the most beautiful of >all that God had created. It goes into great detail about not only his >appearance, but also about the myriad of instruments that made up his body. >Lucifer, as he was then referred to, not only knew how to play instruments >but he was a one being orchestra. He was created for the purpose of leading >worship in Heaven. Then he saw the praise that the Almighty was receiving >and decided that he would like to have that same kind of worship. I think >you know the rest of the story. To say that Satan has no creative ability >does not mean that all music comes from God. Yes, I did see that you used >the word nearly, but I think that as time draws closer to Jesus' return we >will see that more and more music is coming out twisted and tainted by >Satan's grasp. It's a sign of the times. Ack! The OT has about 3 references to Satan total...Genesis, Job, and in, I think Isaiah (or another of the prophets) about "Lucifer". The term "Satan" was a synonym of "tempter"...Jesus refers to Peter as "Satan" in just that context: Peter is expressing an idea which is tempting (in a bad way) to people and must be rejected. The whole idea of music, etc., comes from _Paradise_Lost_, by John Milton. While a wonderful poem, the whole idea of Satan as a fallen angel is extra-biblical. Please tell me where the Bible supposedly "goes into great detail about not only his appearance, but also about the myriad of instruments that made up his body." Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee! [In the RSV, the word Satan appears in I Chr 21:1, several places in the first 2 chapters of Job, Zechariah 3:1-2. No "Lucifer". Gem 2 doesn't use the word Satan. It's just a serpent, though from Gen 3 it seems reasoable to think that there were more implications there. The derivation of Satan as "tempter" has been a useful insight. It protects us from uncritically importing Dante into the Bible. However it's possible to carry this insight too far. The Jewish concept of Satan appears to have developed over time. Even in Job -- where he does sort of look like God's prosecuting attorney -- Satan seems at the very least ill-disposed to humans. By NT times, the concept seems much closer to the present one (though you are certainly right that much of the original posting is from extra-Biblical literary imagination). E.g. Mat 12:26 implies that Satan has a kingdom. --clh]
mtb@cbnews.ATT.COM (mtb) (03/04/90)
In article <Mar.1.03.09.35.1990.28528@athos.rutgers.edu> mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) writes: >Ack! The OT has about 3 references to Satan total...Genesis, Job, and >in, I think Isaiah (or another of the prophets) about "Lucifer". > I haven't got a lot of information on Satanology, but I'm currently taking a class on "Basic Doctrine" and there seems to be at least one other O.T. reference to Satan. In Ezekiel 28:11-19, Ezekiel appears to be describing in detail Satan's pre-rebellion existence, and his rebellion along with its causes and its consequences. Since verses 1-10 refer to a human ruler of Tyre, it seems that the King of Tyre referred to in verses 11-19 is someone different. Cross-referencing this passage with Dan. 10:12,13, it seems that there was a prevalent O.T. belief that certain angels aligned themselves as "spiritual" leaders of certain cities. My understanding is that the King of Tyre referred to in verses 11-19 is Satan. I could not find any mention of music in this passage. Mark Brower ....!att!cblpn!mtb (mtb@cblpn.att.com) [Your overall point is probably right. The OT assumes a world with angelic beings who involve themselves in various ways in our history. Whether one can identify someone as vaguely described as the Ezek. passage with Satan in particular seems to me questionable. The commentaries I looked at think that Ezek. 28:11ff is referring to the king of Tyre as a personification of the power of the city. The angelic overtones could be an ironic reference to the pretensions of the king to divinity, as mentioned early in Chap 28. --clh]