Virginia,
I do believe scriptures speaks about immoral music (not just the lyrics) but for the sake of time and such let me quote something else... I also do believe firmly that the Westminster Larger Catechism Speaks of this topic....... Music even absent from words can be lascivious and lustful which would be a violation of the seventh commandment... Rock Music is very lustful and Sexual... It was so in the beginning and it is so today.. It can't be changed.. It is part of what it is... "Sex, Drugs, & Rock and Roll" and "Lets Rock and Roll" are all part of the music which can not be divorced it is the music that makes it so. Ever watched a Rock Star up on the stage singing? It looks like he is making love to the microphone and ready to swallow the thing... Rock Music is lascivious....
Q139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A139: The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required,[1] are, adultery, fornication,[2] rape, incest,[3] sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;[4] all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;[5] all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto;[6] wanton looks,[7] impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel;[8] prohibiting of lawful,[9] and dispensing with unlawful marriages;[10] allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;[11] entangling vows of single life,[12] undue delay of marriage;[13] having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;[14] unjust divorce,[15] or desertion;[16] idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,[17] unchaste company;[18]
lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays;[19] and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.[20]
1. Prov. 5:7
2. Heb. 13:4; Gal. 5:19
3. II Sam. 13:14; I Cor. 5:1
4. Rom. 1:24, 26-27; Lev. 20:15-16
5. Matt. 5:28; 15:19; Col. 3:5
6. Eph. 5:3-4; Prov. 7:5, 21-22
7. Isa. 3:16; II Peter 2:14
8. Prov. 7:10, 13
9. I Tim. 4:3
10. Lev. 18:1-21; Mark 6:18; Mal. 2:11-12
11. I Kings 15:12; II Kings 23:7; Deut. 23:17-18; Lev. 19:29; Jer. 5:7; Prov. 7:24-27
12. Matt. 19:10-11
13. I Cor. 7:7-9; Gen. 38:26
14. Mal. 2:14-15; Matt. 19:5
15. Mal. 2:16; Matt. 5:32
16. I Cor. 7:12-13
17. Ezek. 16:49; Prov. 23:30-33
18. Gen. 39:10; Prov. 5:8
19. Eph. 5:4; Ezek. 23:14-16; Isa. 3:16; 23:15-17; Mark 6:22; Rom. 13:13; I Peter 4:3
20. II Kings 9:30; Jer. 4:30; Ezek. 23:40
Andrew, I suppose you were directing me to this paragraph from the article you linked.
This may be illustrated as follows: Beyond doubt it is sinful to commit suicide by drinking carbolic acid. This, however, is not because the use of carbolic acid is sinful in itself, but because it is used with suicidal intent. In such a case, the sin committed is the sin of suicide, not the sin of drinking carbolic acid. Carbolic acid being a material thing cannot be sinful in itself. If its use were sinful in itself, that use would be sinful regardless of the quantity used. If one drop of carbolic acid were to be dissolved in a thousand gallons of water, and one drop of the resultant solution drunk, the drinking of that one drop would be a sin deserving the punishment of eternal death, provided the use of carbolic acid is sinful in itself.
-J.G. Vos
And obviously cocaine is not a
sinful substance. It is not a moral pimple on the face of the universe that poppies grow in fields. But that was not the point I was raising. Cyanide is considered a lethal substance; cocaine is considered an addictive substance. I am not saying they are therefore bad: I am asking if it has been universally proven that they are such (which obviously in the nature of the case it can't be: in order to prove that cyanide was universally lethal we should have to give it to everybody --and if it did turn out to be, it would still be a failed experiment in that no one would be around to publish an article about it in
Nature). Unless I misunderstood him, that was the standard Josh wanted in order to demonstrate that, say, the rhythms of Swan Lake are relaxing, or
ranchero music is annoying. That is the point I am interested in, and that is why I asked him for clarification.
It is really a question of whether the lack of exhaustive data in induction ought to prevent us from reaching a generalization.
{As an aside, I know this conversation is a bit

but it pertains to the principle under discussion. This will likely be my last post on this thread, however.}
Actually, Reuben, I had in mind the discussion by Vos of the use of "opium or marihuana." The point that Vos makes, similar to the point that Josh was making, I believe, is that beyond looking at individual Christians / cases, generalizations about sin concerning some
thing, whether it be a musical note, or a drink of alcohol, or "cocaine or heroin or cyanide" (as you noted), without Biblical warrant, are violations of the principle of Christian liberty. Science can never determine what is or is not sinful, and Vos rightly refers us to the saying of J.G. Machen, wishing that Christians might be delievered from "the tyranny of experts."
Someone may object that opium and marihuana, for example, are not indifferent, but sinful in themselves. We have already shown that no material thing can be sinful in itself. Now if opium, marihuana or any other particular material substance is to be regarded as an exception to this principle, the problem is raised as to what authority is competent to decide which substances are exceptions to the principle that no material things can be sinful in itself. There is, no doubt, general agreement among Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana, for example, are so dangerous and harmful that they should not be used at all. This general agreement is, however, no proper ground for church judicatories authoritatively pronouncing such substances sinful in themselves, or declaring their use to be sinful per se. The Word of God, not the so-called Christian consciousness, is our only infallible rule of faith and conduct. What authority is competent to determine the harmfulness and on this basis to infer the inherent sinfulness of the use of a particular material substance, withal making this inference binding on the consciences of the Lord’s people? Are church judicatories qualified to issue authoritative pronouncements on such matters? By what right does a synod or assembly composed of ministers and elders decide questions concerning the physiological action and toxic properties of various narcotic drugs? If we grant to ecclesiastical bodies the right to decide concerning opium and marihuana, do we not thereby concede the entire principle that the church may legitimately decide for its members concerning the use of things indifferent? And if so, could we consistently object, for reasons of principle, if a church judicatory were to enact a rule prohibiting the use of tea or coffee? We are far from holding that it is legitimate for Christians to use dangerous drugs. What we are contending for is not license to use poisonous drugs, but freedom under God to decide for ourselves what material substances we ought to leave alone. We would keep the consciences of Christian people free from what Dr. Machen called “the tyranny of the experts.” We maintain that the individual Christian, and not the church, must pass judgment on the pronouncements of experts concerning such things, so far as questions of morality are concerned. We are far from holding that it is “all right” to use opium, marihuana or a great many other material substances, but if the question as to the sinfulness of the use of these things is to be decided for us by a synod or pope, then our freedom of conscience is destroyed and our soul reduced to bondage to the commandments of men. If the thing is indifferent in itself, whatever it may be, then the individual Christian, not the church, has the God-given right to decide ethical questions concerning its use. We fully agree with the general opinion of Christian people that such substances as opium and marihuana should not be used at all, except possibly by a physician’s orders; but we claim the God-given right to make this decision ourselves, and not to have it made for us by an ecclesiastical judicatory. The conscience of each and every one of the Lord’s people is enlightened by the Holy Spirit; to require Christian people to accept ecclesiastical regulations on such matters is akin to the “implicit faith, and absolute and blind obedience” which is required by the Church of Rome.