Slacker G wrote:Any music written to edify ungodliness or to appeal to the desires of sinful man would would be satanic in nature wouldn't it? After all, music is best used for propaganda.
According to scripture, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
That being the case, wouldn't any music to entertain sinful man be satanic in nature? If music is inspired, wouldn't it edify the one inspiring it? Carnal man writes music appealing to his nature because it pleases his father, so wouldn't the Godly man write music to edify his God?
Sinful man hates God because it is the nature of sinful man to hate god. It is written He who loves the world hates me.
No need to flame. These are questions, aren't they? 
What about all the musicians that are not Abrahamic (Christian, Judaic, Muslim)?
Music is "propaganda" to you? It certainly is not to me, far from being a tool to impose my beliefs on another.
Sin is another Abrahamic belief and has no bearing on non-Abrahamics.
Actually Sin is brilliantly explained by Professor Carl Jung:
"As the tradition of a Fall from the Garden of Eden' is an archetype. The Original Sin is Man's guilt of being carnivorous and lycanthropic."
We are all descended from males of the carnivorous lycanthropic variety, a mutation evolved under the pressure of hunger caused by the climatic change at the end of the pluvial period, which induced indiscriminate, even cannibalistic predatory aggression, culminating in the rape and sometimes even in the devouring of the females of the original peaceful fruit-eating bon sauvage remaining in the primeval virgin forests.
It was the 'clothes of skin' and the 'aprons of fig-leaves', that produced the nakedness of man, and not the other way round, the urge to cover man's nudity that led to the invention of clothing. It is obvious that neither man nor woman could be 'ashamed' (Gen. ii. 25) or 'afraid because they were naked' (Gen. iii. 10 f.) before they had donned their animal's pelt or hunters' 'apron of leaves', and got so accustomed to wearing it that the uncovering of their defenseless bodies gave them a feeling of cold, fear and the humiliating impression of being again reduced to the primitive fruit-gatherer's state of a helpless 'unarmed animal' exposed to the assault of the better-equipped enemy.
The uncovered body could not have been considered 'indecorous' or 'im-moral'. The very feeling of sin, the consciousness of having done something 'im-moral', contrary to the mores, customs or habits of the herd, could not be experienced before a part of the herd had wrenched itself free from the inherited behaviour-pattern and radically changed its way of life from that of a frugivorous to that of a carnivorous or omnivorous animal.
....................... from a lecture delivered at a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine by ROBERT EISLER
First published in 1951 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited
Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, London, B.C.4
Printed in Great Britain
by Butler and Tanner Limited Frome and London
