Perhaps one might counter, “Aha! what you are mentioning requires certain aspects of the environment during the playing of the music. What you are talking about involves other elements coming into play. But music in and of itself is amoral.” Okay, let us proceed with that argument. Let us consider: if a tree falls and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? The same can be said about music: if a stringed instrument is broadcast from a sound system and there is no one there to hear it, is the stringed instrument in and of itself amoral? There is no point in asking that, because when we consider music we always consider the effects it can have upon a person (persons). The ears are an open doorway into the soul. No path is more open to the soul for the formation thereof than through the ears.

Let us ask: how is it that certain beats have been used successfully to hypnotize human beings into irrational or uncontrollable acts? Simply the nature of the beat itself can create immorality.

Just a thought: let’s contrast a couple of venues. On the one hand, awards ceremonies for classical music. On the other hand, awards ceremonies for rap music. Chances are, the people playing JS Bach and Claude Debussy are not as likely to display thuggery and lewd behavior. Why is that.

My point about man being moral was different than what you were countering in Nathan. I’m not saying music is totally neutral and actually good because God created it. I’m saying music is neutral in itself, but when sinful man encounters it it can be good or bad.

You say the music itself is specific enough to convey lust and sensuality, and as such should not be used in worship. I say that Scripture does not specifically teach enough for us to know which music styles are inherently sensual and which aren’t. We can depend on music experts, but they disagree.

I’m not arguing that no music ever is sensual, many songs and occasions (music + context) are. I know, however, that you conclude that pretty much all Jazz, Rock, and anything with strong beat (excepting big band or marching music), is sensual and so all the songs of those styles and any compositions of those styles are unfit for worship. I disagree. Not all music of the styles listed above is equally conducive to sensual dancing. Not all of it is equally sensual. The way the majority of our culture experiences most of this music is not in sensual way. It is normal, it is in the malls, in the restaurants, on most radio stations. You can’t tell me that all of it is all about sensuality.

So we disagree, and music experts disagree, and Christians disagree. The Bible doesn’t include a musical theory section, and so this debate wages on. Hopefully, we could agree to disagree when we realize that Christians who employ these music styles, such as myself, do not do so to enhance a level of sensuality in their lives. Many, as in the testimony of Donette in my other recent music post, affirm that modern Christian music really affects them spiritually in a positive way. And that is why they listen to it and sing it. This is not about rebellion. It is about differences and how we deal with them.

Its probably too much to hope that you won’t just write me off and anyone who uses this modern music style as participating in false worship. But I honestly hope you will see that this is a complex issue, there is much proof for both sides, and for that reason it is inevitable that good Christians would disagree on this issue. Lets do so charitably and not think the worst of one another.

YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH WHAT I’M SAYING. MAN IS NOT INHERENTLY MORAL. HE IS INHERENTLY IMMORAL. SINCE THE FALL, WE CAN’T START BY SAYING THAT SINCE GOD MADE THIS, IT IS INHERENTLY GOOD. THINGS HAVE BEEN RUINED BY THE FALL.

2) I’m not adding to Scripture anymore than you are. Where does Scripture specifically teach we should evaluate musical instruments before including them in worship. 1 THESSALONIANS 5:21, 22. WE ARE TO JUDGE EVERYTHING. YOU YOURSELF SAID THAT DUNG COMMUNICATES THE WRONG MESSAGE. YOU KNOW WHAT I’M SAYING IS TRUE. Where do we see an example of avoiding specific instruments because of their association? THE USE OF THE ASHERAH POLE IN WORSHIP WAS AGAINST GOD. 2 KINGS 18:4. BUT THAT WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN BY GOD IN WORSHIP. THE ASSOCIATION WITH THAT WHICH IS AGAINST GOD AND IN CONTRADICTION TO GOD IS THE PROBLEM.

3) Worship is to be what God likes, yes. But if that means we should only use music that God likes, please direct me to the Scriptural teaching on what kind of music God likes. GOD LIKES THAT WHICH COMMUNICATES HIS CHARACTER. IT SHOULD BE IN FITTING WITH WHO HE IS. WE KNOW THINGS THAT HE DOES NOT LIKE, SO THAT RULES THOSE THINGS OUT. THE WAY OF THE HEATHEN WOULD BE THOSE AREAS THAT VIOLATE GOD’S CHARACTER. Does he like the minor key? WHO BROUGHT THIS IN? WHAT GROUP SAYS THE MINOR KEY IS WRONG? The Hebrews do. Does he like music which goes easily with dancing or shouting or clapping hands? All three activities are commended in Scripture. YOU’VE GOT A PROBLEM HERE. A KIND OF MUSIC ACCOMPANIES SEXUAL, SENSUAL DANCING—THAT WOULD NOT BE THE KIND OF MUSIC THAT WOULD FIT WITH WORSHIP OF GOD. I BELIEVE THAT YOU KNOW THIS, BUT YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT IT. What is the pagan sound anyway? Or does God want our hearts to be engaged in worship, and allows us as humans to offer up that which we prize ourselves to Him? BEING CONFORMED TO THE SPIRIT OF THE AGE, THE WORLD SYSTEM, IS DISCERNABLE, OR GOD WOULD NOT HAVE TOLD US NOT TO CONFORM OUR WORSHIP TO THAT. Granted we must not contradict what God explicitly said, as in Cain was wrong, and so were Nadab and Abishu. But they had specific teaching to guide them on what not to bring. We are left to ourselves in using things which are not clearly immoral and do not violate Scripture.

4) I’m not sure Nathan meant that a song is only a lyric. What he probably meant is that as far as the new song is concerned, what is new is the lyrics. HE SAID NOT LYRIC.

5) Col. 3 and 1 Thess. 4 are not teaching that certain things can be unclean. They are teaching that certain actions, specifically sexually oriented desires and feelings, can be unclean because they are out of the boundaries set by Scripture. EXACTLY, AND THERE IS A MUSIC THAT IS FITS WTIH THAT.

6) We differ on the point of whether music communicates lust specifically enough on its own, apart from context or lyrical content. I have asserted that I don’t believe it does. You say you think it does. We will have to let the proof we have both put forth stand as it is, and let other decide who’s more convincing. For neither of us to merely state our position does not actually put forth the basis for it.

SO FOR THE RECORD, YOU DON’T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY MUSIC THAT COMMUNICATES LUST ON ITS OWN. NONE. YES, WE CAN LET PEOPLE JUDGE ON THAT. LOOK AT http://www.jackhammr.org/2007/.....ly-sinful/ FOR A REFUTATION.
7) My point, again, with the wood and the rock is that they are capable of communicating with a degree of specificity that is beyond the specificity that music is able to reach without words or a context. Nathan is not saying the rock can’t be evil. But the rock as created is not evil. When fallen man sets it up as an idol, it becomes evil through the evil actions of man. God didn’t create idols, he created rocks. God created clothing and music etc. Man can take those things and violate God’s commands of holiness, and those things can become evil. But the clothing by itself without a context, and the music by itself without a context is not specific enough to be evil. Same goes for dung here.

I agree, you and I have made our cases, we should let the argument stop here and let everyone make up their own minds over who is more convincing and what position is more Biblical.

A few quick responses.

1) Man is moral in that he can do morally evil things or good things. Of course fallen man apart from God can do no good things, but the fact remains man is a moral agent.

2) I’m not adding to Scripture anymore than you are. Where does Scripture specifically teach we should evaluate musical instruments before including them in worship. Where do we see an example of avoiding specific instruments because of their association?

3) Worship is to be what God likes, yes. But if that means we should only use music that God likes, please direct me to the Scriptural teaching on what kind of music God likes. Does he like the minor key? The Hebrews do. Does he like music which goes easily with dancing or shouting or clapping hands? All three activities are commended in Scripture. What is the pagan sound anyway? Or does God want our hearts to be engaged in worship, and allows us as humans to offer up that which we prize ourselves to Him? Granted we must not contradict what God explicitly said, as in Cain was wrong, and so were Nadab and Abishu. But they had specific teaching to guide them on what not to bring. We are left to ourselves in using things which are not clearly immoral and do not violate Scripture.

4) I’m not sure Nathan meant that a song is only a lyric. What he probably meant is that as far as the new song is concerned, what is new is the lyrics. This is seen by a study of the term new song in the Psalms that it often is written after a new victory. A new song for a new occasion. I think Nathan has written on this before in other posts, or else we discussed back in the enormous debate I link to above. Again, the key here is there is NO music which could be picked up which is uniquely “new” and thus suited for Christians. All music is “old” in the sense it was created by people as mere people and not created by Christians as its own genre of musical style.

5) Col. 3 and 1 Thess. 4 are not teaching that certain things can be unclean. They are teaching that certain actions, specifically sexually oriented desires and feelings, can be unclean because they are out of the boundaries set by Scripture.

6) We differ on the point of whether music communicates lust specifically enough on its own, apart from context or lyrical content. I have asserted that I don’t believe it does. You say you think it does. We will have to let the proof we have both put forth stand as it is, and let other decide who’s more convincing. For neither of us to merely state our position does not actually put forth the basis for it.

7) My point, again, with the wood and the rock is that they are capable of communicating with a degree of specificity that is beyond the specificity that music is able to reach without words or a context. Nathan is not saying the rock can’t be evil. But the rock as created is not evil. When fallen man sets it up as an idol, it becomes evil through the evil actions of man. God didn’t create idols, he created rocks. God created clothing and music etc. Man can take those things and violate God’s commands of holiness, and those things can become evil. But the clothing by itself without a context, and the music by itself without a context is not specific enough to be evil. Same goes for dung here.

I agree, you and I have made our cases, we should let the argument stop here and let everyone make up their own minds over who is more convincing and what position is more Biblical.

Man is moral because everything fallen man (redeemed or not) does can either be moral or immoral. Even drinking orange juice is a sin if it is not done out of praise and thanks to God, so for the unredeemed such actions are sinful.

YOU SAY THAT A LOST, DEPRAVED MAN IS A MORAL BEING. I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO ROMANS 3:10-13, ECCL. 7:20, MATTHEW 19:17 TO REFUTE THAT.

There are many and varied instruments in Ps. 150 and other psalms, and so the implication would be every available instrument. Is there any major instrument available in the culture of David’s day that was not used for worship? Even though such instruments were surely used for pagan purposes at that time as well, mind you.

YOU ADD TO SCRIPTURE HERE. YOU ASK ME TO TELL YOU WHETHER ANY INSTRUMENT AVAILABLE IN DAVID’S DAY WAS NOT USED FOR WORSHIP. I DON’T KNOW. SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SAY. I DON’T MAKE UP A TRUTH BASED ON SILENCE. PERHAPS I FORMED AN INSTRUMENT OUT OF A CRACK PIPE OR MADE A BRA-STRAP TUB-BASE—I CONTEND THAT THEIR ASSOCIATION WOULD KEEP THEM FROM BEING USED IN WORSHIP.

Of course utmost emotional intensity is not commanded for every single time of worship, but if you read the whole of the psalms, there is often quite strong emotional content. From that we can assume that strong emotional feeling is not antithetical to sincere worship. And again, music is inherently emotional.

NO ONE HAS SAID THAT STRONG FEELINGS ARE OPPOSED TO WORSHIP. I WAS SIMPLY CRITIQUING WHAT HE WROTE, AND YOU ARE SAYING HERE THAT WHAT HE SAID WAS NOT TRUE. I AGREE WITH YOU. NOT EVERY PSALM CALLS FOR UTMOST EMOTIONAL INTENSITY.

EXISTENTIALISM WOULD SAY THAT BECAUSE IT FEELS RIGHT, IT MUST BE RIGHT. WE JUDGE OUR FEELINGS WITH OUR MINDS. NOT ALL FEELINGS ARE APPROPRIATE. OUR WORSHIP IS TO BE IN SPIRIT, THAT IS, SINCERE. IT SHOULDN’T BE FORMALISTIC IN ANY WAY. THEY SHOULD BE SINCERE FEELINGS BASED ON THE TRUTH OF THE WORDS, NOT FEELINGS CHOREOGRAPHED BY THE RHYTHM OF THE SONG. THAT KIND OF MUSIC AIDS IN DESTROYING DISCERNMENT AS CAN BE SEEN IN MANY CULTURES.

I would contend that just as there is an emotional quality and a feeling surrounding a contemporary style of music when used for worship, there is a corresponding, albeit different, feeling surrounding the use of traditional/classical music style. One emphasizes love and joy, the other emphasizes holiness and solemnness. Neither captures the complete range of emotions found in the psalms. Both styles can be harnessed for proper worship, but must be used not abused. A mindless worship can happen with either style. Also some people prefer one feeling more than the other. Some like the somber, other-ness sound of high church music. Others like the happy sound of a peppy music style (like Southern gospel even).

WORSHIP IS WHAT GOD LIKES, NOT WHAT WE LIKE. THE EMOTIONS SHOULD AGAIN BE TRUE EMOTIONS, NOT FEELINGS MANUFACTURED BY THE MUSIC. AND ANY MESSAGE OF GOD SHOULD NOT BE ACCOMPANIED BY A MUSIC THAT HAS A WORLDLY, PAGAN, UNGODLY SOUND.

Back to your points, now. It should be patently obvious that a song is both lyrics and musical style. You can’t have one without the other. So a new song is a completely new arrangement of words and music. But it should also be obvious that new song cannot mean a specifically new (as in different) style of music. There is no Christian style. There are anthems and hymns aplenty that are totally secular. I’m thinking of national anthems and folk songs, etc. There is a classical music style that is used for nonChristian music. There are folk songs identical to the music of most of the kids Christian songs we use in Sunday School. Further, from Rev. 14, we see that no one could learn the song except the 144,000. So is it a completely new musical style invented for heaven’s use? Or is it a special set of words and a new melody which no one is allowed to hear or use except the 144,000. The idea of new song in Rev. 5 from the context seems to be a new lyrical composition to be sung on a new occasion. Again we have discussed the “new song” argument in detail before 9see above link).

YOU SAY THIS IS PATENTLY OBVIOUS, BUT NATHAN SAYS THAT “SONG” IS ONLY THE LYRIC, NOT THE MUSIC. YOU ARE CONTRADICTING HIS POINT. WHEN YOU STUDY THE BIBLE, YOU START BY STUDYING THE WORDS. I DID THAT TO COME TO A POSITION. HE GIVES NO EVIDENCE FOR HIS POSITION, AND YOU DON’T EITHER WHEN YOU SAY “SEEMS” IN YOUR ABOVE PARAGRAPH. YOU ARE ONLY SPECULATING.

As Nathan mentioned, both in his post and in the ensuing discussion, the clean/unclean things were a foreshadowing of New Testament teaching on holiness and clean living. The New Testament affirms that every thing is good, all is clean, such rituals are done away in Christ. Their purpose was to teach by illustration. From our New Testament vantage point, living in the age we live in, we are to abstain from things or actions which are clearly revealed in Scripture to be immoral or evil. In the absence of Scriptural teaching as to which music is unclean, we have liberty in that area, as long as we do all to the glory of God.

IF EVERYTHING IS CLEAN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, THEN WHY DOES GOD THROUGH PAUL COMMAND US TO MORTIFY ALL “UNCLEANNESS” IN COLOSSIANS 3:5? WHAT ABOUT 1 THESSALONIANS 4:7 WHERE WE READ THAT GOD CALLED US NOT TO UNCLEANNESS, BUT TO HOLINESS? THAT SAYS THAT THERE IS BOTH CLEAN AND UNCLEAN STILL.

God is not so holy, that we cannot express love to Him, as the psalms so clearly illustrate. Romantic love is in part, a picture of the love Christ has for the bride. Songs of love to God sung in the modern contemporary style are not so romantic sounding as many would claim. The music facilitates an expression of love, but again it is not specific enough by itself to demand that the love being expressed is a sensual romantic love.

WE CAN EXPRESS AGAPE LOVE TO HIM BUT NOT EROS TO HIM. THE CONTEMPORARY SONGS OFTEN EXPRESS AN LUSTFUL FEELING THAT IS NOT FITTING OF THE MAJESTY OF GOD.

Music can express sensuality and lust given a context. By itself, I do not believe it can. Unless sufficient craftiness goes into the making of the music to communicate with an increased level of specificity.

MUSIC IS A LANGUAGE. IT CAN EXPRESS LUST INHERENTLY JUST LIKE WORDS CAN. THE CONTEXT DOESN’T MAKE THE MUSIC SENSUAL; THE MUSIC MAKES THE CONTEXT SENSUAL.

OT regulations witness to the moral standards of God, but we are not bound by them equally as the Israelites were. There is a permanent change in how we view them, this side of the cross.

GOD HASN’T DONE AWAY WITH MORAL LAW AND WE ARE STILL TO KEEP GOD’S LAW. THE NT HAS AS MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THESE ISSUES AS THE OLD ANYWAY.

Wood carved in a style with the end of a nude woman, would communicate the nudity of the woman very clearly. This nudity is shameful, as Scripture teaches, and the only place for nudity is the marriage chamber. Therefore the communication violates Scriptural principles. But yes the style of the carving could be used to carve a beautiful carving that communicated a positive thing, so we don’t ditch the style just because it can be and has been used for improper communications.

MY POINT IS MADE. IT IS NOT JUST HOW IT IS USED, BUT THE MESSAGE OF THE CARVING, THE MUSIC ITSELF. ART COMMUNICATES. MUSIC COMMUNICATES. THE MESSAGE CAN BE WRONG OR RIGHT.

The rock being used for a good end is irrelevant, the end contradicts Scriptural teaching. We don’t have such specific Scriptural teaching with regard to what we can or cannot express with music or what we can or cannot do with regard to musical compositions styles, etc.

BUT GOD CREATED THE ROCK. I’M SIMPLY USING WHAT NATHAN WROTE. GO BACK AND READ IT. IF GOD CREATED THE ROCK, ACCORDING TO NATHAN, THEN THERE CAN BE NO INHERENT EVIL TO THE ROCK. HOWEVER, THE ROCK CAN BECOME INHERENTLY EVIL WHEN MAN IS THROUGH WITH IT.

Dung is amoral. It does communicate however. The nature of dung communicates waste and dirtiness. But such is natural, and most often does not communicate at all because it just goes down the drain. But when dung is used for crafting an image of the Bible or when urine is used to add to an art project including the Cross, a clear specificity of communication is happening. The dirtiness of the excrement is being used to comment on the value of the Bible. Now with music, we can argue whether association with certain base lifestyles can so taint certain music styles to where we cannot employ them to communicate about Scripture. I would argue that in certain circumstances and settings certain music styles would keep a connotation that is improper for communicating what the lyrics intend. However, to expand this to the rock beat altogether, or to any music not emphasizing the 1st and 3rd beats, seems to be stretching the proper use of association too far. In any case the intentional smearing of God communicated with the use of dung, is not going to be the same with music. The Christians employing the music out of motives to worship God, are in no way intentionally choosing to use a debased style and thereby smear God.

YOU SAY DUNG CAN COMMUNICATE. THAT PRETTY MUCH SETTLES THIS. MY POINT IS MADE. MUSIC EXPRESSES ITSELF IN MORE WAYS THAN DUNG AND YET DUNG CAN COMMUNICATE. YOU WOULD DO WELL, JUST TO GIVE IN, INSTEAD OF PROTECTING THIS TURF OF YOUR MUSIC, BOB.

But I will respond to his points on this post too.

Man is moral because everything fallen man (redeemed or not) does can either be moral or immoral. Even drinking orange juice is a sin if it is not done out of praise and thanks to God, so for the unredeemed such actions are sinful.

There are many and varied instruments in Ps. 150 and other psalms, and so the implication would be every available instrument. Is there any major instrument available in the culture of David’s day that was not used for worship? Even though such instruments were surely used for pagan purposes at that time as well, mind you.

Of course utmost emotional intensity is not commanded for every single time of worship, but if you read the whole of the psalms, there is often quite strong emotional content. From that we can assume that strong emotional feeling is not antithetical to sincere worship. And again, music is inherently emotional.

I would contend that just as there is an emotional quality and a feeling surrounding a contemporary style of music when used for worship, there is a corresponding, albeit different, feeling surrounding the use of traditional/classical music style. One emphasizes love and joy, the other emphasizes holiness and solemnness. Neither captures the complete range of emotions found in the psalms. Both styles can be harnessed for proper worship, but must be used not abused. A mindless worship can happen with either style. Also some people prefer one feeling more than the other. Some like the somber, other-ness sound of high church music. Others like the happy sound of a peppy music style (like Southern gospel even).

Back to your points, now. It should be patently obvious that a song is both lyrics and musical style. You can’t have one without the other. So a new song is a completely new arrangement of words and music. But it should also be obvious that new song cannot mean a specifically new (as in different) style of music. There is no Christian style. There are anthems and hymns aplenty that are totally secular. I’m thinking of national anthems and folk songs, etc. There is a classical music style that is used for nonChristian music. There are folk songs identical to the music of most of the kids Christian songs we use in Sunday School. Further, from Rev. 14, we see that no one could learn the song except the 144,000. So is it a completely new musical style invented for heaven’s use? Or is it a special set of words and a new melody which no one is allowed to hear or use except the 144,000. The idea of new song in Rev. 5 from the context seems to be a new lyrical composition to be sung on a new occasion. Again we have discussed the “new song” argument in detail before 9see above link).

As Nathan mentioned, both in his post and in the ensuing discussion, the clean/unclean things were a foreshadowing of New Testament teaching on holiness and clean living. The New Testament affirms that every thing is good, all is clean, such rituals are done away in Christ. Their purpose was to teach by illustration. From our New Testament vantage point, living in the age we live in, we are to abstain from things or actions which are clearly revealed in Scripture to be immoral or evil. In the absence of Scriptural teaching as to which music is unclean, we have liberty in that area, as long as we do all to the glory of God.

God is not so holy, that we cannot express love to Him, as the psalms so clearly illustrate. Romantic love is in part, a picture of the love Christ has for the bride. Songs of love to God sung in the modern contemporary style are not so romantic sounding as many would claim. The music facilitates an expression of love, but again it is not specific enough by itself to demand that the love being expressed is a sensual romantic love.

Music can express sensuality and lust given a context. By itself, I do not believe it can. Unless sufficient craftiness goes into the making of the music to communicate with an increased level of specificity.

OT regulations witness to the moral standards of God, but we are not bound by them equally as the Israelites were. There is a permanent change in how we view them, this side of the cross.

Wood carved in a style with the end of a nude woman, would communicate the nudity of the woman very clearly. This nudity is shameful, as Scripture teaches, and the only place for nudity is the marriage chamber. Therefore the communication violates Scriptural principles. But yes the style of the carving could be used to carve a beautiful carving that communicated a positive thing, so we don’t ditch the style just because it can be and has been used for improper communications.

The rock being used for a good end is irrelevant, the end contradicts Scriptural teaching. We don’t have such specific Scriptural teaching with regard to what we can or cannot express with music or what we can or cannot do with regard to musical compositions styles, etc.

Dung is amoral. It does communicate however. The nature of dung communicates waste and dirtiness. But such is natural, and most often does not communicate at all because it just goes down the drain. But when dung is used for crafting an image of the Bible or when urine is used to add to an art project including the Cross, a clear specificity of communication is happening. The dirtiness of the excrement is being used to comment on the value of the Bible. Now with music, we can argue whether association with certain base lifestyles can so taint certain music styles to where we cannot employ them to communicate about Scripture. I would argue that in certain circumstances and settings certain music styles would keep a connotation that is improper for communicating what the lyrics intend. However, to expand this to the rock beat altogether, or to any music not emphasizing the 1st and 3rd beats, seems to be stretching the proper use of association too far. In any case the intentional smearing of God communicated with the use of dung, is not going to be the same with music. The Christians employing the music out of motives to worship God, are in no way intentionally choosing to use a debased style and thereby smear God.

Where does Scripture say “praise him with every available instrument?” How is that an accurate application of Psalm 150? Shouldn’t every instrument be judged as to its appropriateness for worship?

How does Psalm 33:3 teach that we are to worship with the utmost emotional intensity on every single occasion?

The historical understanding of the word “song” (look up Greek word) as used in the NT, “new song,” in Revelation 5 and 14, is not only the lyrical. See BDAG to read, “of a rooster.” The history of the word usage was the music, not the lyric, that is, unless roosters are singing lyrics. So that point falls to the ground. To buttress the point here, when “song” is used in Ephesians 5:19, it says “singing and making melody.” “Making melody” is a word that means “to pluck on a stringed instrument.” You can see that the whole tenor of Scripture supports that it is not just the lyric, but the music too.

Were the unclean animals unclean at creation, or did they become unclean later? Was anything unclean at the point of God’s creation? Ceremonially or morally? Are animals the only things in Scripture that are clean or unclean?

Do the verses Nathan cited for “utmost emotional intensity” allow for every emotion at every occasion and in every circumstance to be expressed to God in worship?

Does God’s holiness, transcendence, and majesty allow for an expression of romantic love to God?

Does God accept sensuality and lust as worship? Can music express sensuality and lust?

Did Christ do away with all specific, Old Testament regulations when He came?

If a piece of wood is carved into a door stop, but in the shape of a nude woman, is that acceptable usage of wood? The style of the carving is unrelated to its end. When a piece of rock is carved into an image of God for the purpose of helping someone serve the Lord, does that sanctify the rock, since the end is a moral end?