Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Music is an abstract like anything else we derive meaning from. By abstract I mean to say that it is symbolic of the intent, emotion, or thought being communicated. All language works this way. I really don't see the point in defining music as rhythm and melody and that sort of thing. In fact I don't know that I can come up with a perfect definition for it. I know it when I hear it.
Yet another example of how you constantly cross the line.
Music doesn't make me do anything. I am fully accountable for my actions before God.
Music is an abstract like anything else we derive meaning from. By abstract I mean to say that it is symbolic of the intent, emotion, or thought being communicated. All language works this way. I really don't see the point in defining music as rhythm and melody and that sort of thing. In fact I don't know that I can come up with a perfect definition for it. I know it when I hear it. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying that music is a symbol, as the letter "R" is a symbol? That it's a manmade representation of an idea, and that to understand it, one must be taught it?
I think there is an element to music which can be widely if not universally understood. That is to say I believe most people would recognize "Taps" as sad or sorrowful. However, the melody we know as "Taps" is still fully symbolic because it isn't in and of itself sadness or sorrow.
Originally posted by Travelsong:
[qb]You have given a very emotional accusatory response here. I have crossed no line at all, but simply drawn a conclustion from what you have posted. You admitted yourself that you don't even have a defintion of music; can't come up with one. Why? It is just all sentimental emotion to you. You "feel" it. You said it was like a language. But I have news for you. Language is very concrete, and not abstract. The English language has 26 letters in its alphabet by which it is defined. It is structured by sentences and paragraphs. Do you know what syntax is? How about grammar, spelling? And you say that music is like language and cannot be defined??
Music is usually defined within the parameters of its rhythm, melody, and perhaps harmony. To say that you are defining music by your emotions and not by your brains would be an understatement by what you have written. I am only going by the information by what you have provided. Both language and music can be concretely defined, just as both can evoke an emotional response: CAN'T THEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some music may have an effect on you so as to make you cry, make you laugh, make you angry, etc. Music affects the emotions. That is why it so important to have the right kind of music in church. The medium must fit the message; in fact you cannot separate the two.
"I am not angry."
"I am not angry!!"
"I AM NOT ANGRY!!!!"
The medium must fit the message.
Much of rock and rap are types of angry music which does not fit the gospel message.
And I agree, you are accountable to God for your actions, including the music you play and listen to.
DHK
You feel you have the authority to go around accusing anyone of being carnal or engaging in sin whenever it suits you. You are self righteous, arrogant, and you have no business being in a position of authority here or anywhere else.
Incorrect. I said I don't see the point in defining music in terms of rhythm and melody and so on, and I don't think I can come up with a perfect definition for it. The reason is (a)music is symbolic like anything else we derive meaning from and (b) people have varying ideas about what music is (some think all kinds of atonal experimentation should be considered music). Of course if you actually read my posts instead of jumping to impulsive, unfounded accusations you'd already understand where I am coming from. Because you are more interested in tearing others down than you are in fellowship or healthy debate I suspect you will continue to have a lot of catching up to do.
Everything that comprises the English language had to be defined because it is not innately understood.Originally posted by DHK:
But I have news for you. Language is very concrete, and not abstract. The English language has 26 letters in its alphabet by which it is defined. It is structured by sentences and paragraphs. Do you know what syntax is? How about grammar, spelling? And you say that music is like language and cannot be defined??
And that's good enough for me. i don't feel the need to come up with a perfect, all inclusive definition for it.
I've never said anything close to that.
You are going by a preconceived notion which doesn't relate to my argument at all.
I think all language, whether musical, verbal, written, or coded in semaphore or morse code on an aldis lamp can be concretely defined as symbolic communication. That is to say anything we use to communicate our thoughts, feelings, intents or desires is only representative of thoughts, feelings, intents or desires. Language is not and cannot be thoughts, feelings, intents or desires. Those things only exist in the heart.
Music cannot make one do anything one does not want to do.
I think there is an element to music which can be widely if not universally understood. That is to say I believe most people would recognize "Taps" as sad or sorrowful. However, the melody we know as "Taps" is still fully symbolic because it isn't in and of itself sadness or sorrow. </font>[/QUOTE]So it isn't a symbol, as "R" is a symbol. Are the universally recognized musical elements man made, or are they simply discovered.
I think letters are a poor comparison. I would say it is a symbol in the same way that a frown is a symbol. A frown indicates sadness or sorrow, but a frown is not in and of itself sadness or sorrow.
Everything that man has ever done has been established by God. Man has created nothing. Language is no exception.
I'm sorry but I don't see how this supports your assertion. If I am happy, "Taps" is not going to make me cry against my will.
Why are you so upset? Did I accuse you of engaging in sin of anykind? No. Why the false allegations? Keep to the subject of music and you will be better off. Your post is exactly how you treat music--emotional.
I am not sure what you are talking about. As you infer: Let God be your judge.
You don't see a need for defining music. That doesn't mean there isn't a need for defining music. The same is true for any language. What would a deaf person who uses sign language "say" to that? Words have meanings. Sign language has meaning in its symbols that it uses. And the notes of music have meanings as well, in the way that they are used. Don't use the wrong signs in sign language or you may get yourself in trouble. The same is true in music. Paul says as much in 1Cor.14:
The language is concrete, and your example inaccurate. I am sure you can come up with a better example. The one you used is inaccurate because the English alphabet does not use stars in its alphabet, and I am not going to say anything further than that because we are speaking only of the English language, and of music. I am quite willing to compare music to a language. I have a number of musicians in my house, and am acquainted with music of other cultures. I also know more than just one or two langauges. In learning a second language I learn it on the basis of grammar. You need to know the grammar. When my children learn to play the piano, one of the first things they have to learn is to "read" music. That is the language that they have to learn.
Sometimes "good enough for me," is not good enough. If my daughter said: "I don't feel the need to come up with..." to her music teacher, she would flunk out immediately. Good definitions are available and essential. The are concrete, not abstract. They are well-defined, not emotionally charged.
But you have. You want to get away from defining music within the paramaters of melody, rhythmn, and harmony, etc., and other essentials that go into the composition of music. You don't see that it is necessary to do so. You imply that you can define music in an emotional way, the way that it affects you emotionally.
Not true. Ironically, you are answering me with your own pre-conceived ideas of my views on music.
Language is more than symbolic.
You have already equated music to a language, so lets use language as an example. Everything that language can do music can do. Correct?
Throughout your previous posts you made a number of false allegations against me which I can point out to you if you wish. I deliberately ignored them. Now you again make another false allegation that I have accused you of being carnal. When you are going to accuse me (or anyone else for that matter) of anything like that put in quotes or you will be accused of slander. In a court of law you could be sued for such. I want you to quote me where I accused you of being carnal in the last post. If not retract your statement. And while your at it you might want to retract a few other false statements that you have made about me as well. Slander is sin. Do you want me to start editing your posts for such unwarranted statements?
Maybe not immediately, but think of it a different way. As vinegar upon natron (bicarbonate of soda). If you have a heavy heart and someone comes along singing happy songs to you, you're going to blow up.
You have got to be kidding me. What new kind of low do you wish to sink our exchange to? This is what I am referring to:
Your very first contribution to this entire thread starts by accusing me of flesh serving motivation.
I retract nothing. This behaviour is typical for you. I have pointed it out several times and I'm prepared to defend any incident you wish to contest.
I want you to stop provoking people and acting as if you've committed no offense.
The reason you save your reconciliation for a possible misunderstanding on my part for last is because you know I am right. Now knock it off.
Maybe not immediately, but think of it a different way. As vinegar upon natron (bicarbonate of soda). If you have a heavy heart and someone comes along singing happy songs to you, you're going to blow up.</font>[/QUOTE]There is no reason to suggest that this single verse establishes some sort of universal axiom about the ability of music to control our hearts or minds or whatever. Is that really the lesson you gather from it?
In the verse you cited, your interpretation suggests that a heavy heart will always react violently to song. Here we have a specific incident where a particular action under certain circumstances will lead to a particular result. Now you wish to extrapolate that all music will affect all people under all circumstances. I just don't see how your reasoning follows, and I have a harder time reconciling your statement with my own personal experience.
false allegation.
Your have no buisiness calling me or anyone else such names, nor judging who should be in a place of authority or not. It is precisely such comments like this that could get you in trouble (as being suspended or banned).
No, I did not. False allegations are not permitted.
I don't believe my behaviour is irrational. If anything the posting of these answers of yours to my responses to you would prove otherwise.
This is blatantly false. You have ignored some of the most pertinent points that I have made in this debate, and apparently deliberately so. I don't believe you have an answer for them, and thus you reply with innuendo and emotionally charged accusations such as the above.
Perhaps there was a possibility of you misunderstanding my post. Did you take that into consideration? Did you ask for clarification?
I am not the one provoking here. Look and examine your own posts. Why don't you answer the posts that I have given you. Why the emotionally charged accusations. As I have pointed out to you, is it not ironic that just as you equate music to language you answer in an angry emotional way to me, just as music can be angry and emotional. That style of music is the style of music that is unacceptable in worship even though it is the CCM crowd that adamantly assserts that any style of music can be used in worship. Ironic isn't it?
I know you are not right. Emotionally charged accusations are never right. If you can't deal with a debate in a reational and intellectual level how can you make a blind assertion that you are right. You have not even taken the time to debate the issue.
Please inform your moderators that they are just as accountable as everyone else. There is no excuse for accusing people of sin and not even supporting those allegations. There have been numerous complaints about DHK in the past and every time it leads to the same result. Another moderator comes in and finds no fault on his part. This must stop.