Good catch.1 peter 5:8
Though wouldn't it appear that the song is pointing out Hosea's reference?
Good catch.1 peter 5:8
Interesting. I would say that all aesthetics are of God. He being present in all that is good and all that is beautiful. I'm still not sure how I feel about liturgical music though.We ought to remember that there is really no such thing as "Christian music." An inanimate thing cannot be Christian in itself. I'm a Christian and I'm eating lunch right now, but it doesn't mean that I'm having a "Christian lunch."
But I understand that Christian music means "music with Christian lyrics." The style of music (the music itself) cannot be Christian. Granted, I do not think that music that has a modernist sound belongs in the liturgy, but that's for sacramental reasons, not taste.
Interesting. I would say that all aesthetics are of God. He being present in all that is good and all that is beautiful. I'm still not sure how I feel about liturgical music though.
That would depend on who is defining 'good' and 'beautiful'.Interesting. I would say that all aesthetics are of God. He being present in all that is good and all that is beautiful. I'm still not sure how I feel about liturgical music though.
Then you think that goodness and beauty are subjective. Interesting thought.That would depend on who is defining 'good' and 'beautiful'.
If God is defining what is good and beautiful, I would agree. If fallen man is doing the defining then I would question the verity of the definition.
- As for liturgical music, I'm not sure if I agree that modern music should be ruled out, but I've been slowly coming to appreciate tradition more and more.Liturgical music is music used for worship.
While all aesthetics are of God, aesthetics can be abused and dishonor Him. You know this. Pornography is an abuse of something He created -- sexuality. Not meaning to be crass with that example, but the principle is still there.
If goodness and beauty are defined by God then I would see that as an objective reality.Then you think that goodness and beauty are subjective. Interesting thought.
If they are objective, then the definitions of "fallen man" would either converge with the truth or else be objectively false.Not entirely.
If goodness and beauty are defined by God then I would see that as an objective reality.
-In the example you give, I would say that such sexual sins are baser forms of the truly aesthetic. The illusion of beauty is but a shadow; it retains the form, but fails to actualize itself. Its failure is not so much an abuse of beauty, but a failure to fully realize the true beauty.
And which would you promote?If they are objective, then the definitions of "fallen man" would either converge with the truth or else be objectively false.
That seems to me to be pure unadulterated Pantheism. An early morning scene in a rain Forrest with sunlight being reflected by a myriad of dew drops sitting in the symmetrical and intricate perfection of spider webs and being diffused by a rising mist. That is but one example of beauty, but it is not God..it is a creation of God nothing more.Also, I would hesitate at the wording of God "defining" goodness and beauty (true in a sense, but perhaps misleading).
Goodness and beauty are God.
Theologically speaking, goodness is only one of the defining attributes of God. Your statement that 'goodness is the ontological nature of God' shows me that you do not fully understand either ontology or the theology of God. As I cautioned you, this is not the place for apologetics and you should not venture there.Goodness cannot exist separately from God. All that is Good is of God; Goodness is the ontological nature of God.
Another musician who turned to atheism claims, only 1 out of 10 Christian musicians are genuinely Christians. Something to pray about I guess.
Rev 5:51 peter 5:8