What is music?

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by DHK:
First, you contradict the words of Jesus inasmuch calling him a liar. Some words are inherenntly evil. "By thy words thou shalt condemned." Did he mean what he said or not?

There you go again with that bad attitude. Now I have been patiently debating and creatively clarifying my position for quite some time now and all you do is make the same declarative statements over and over.

Originally posted by DHK:
Secondly, as far as the word in Austria, We do not speak either Bavarian or Austrian. Your entire example is moot.
DHK

Which further demonstrates that words have no meaning other than what we give them.

When Jesus was speaking of the words we use, He was more specifically speaking of the manner in which we communicate. He was not teaching some superstitious notion that certain arrangements of sounds and syllables or letters and symbols was inherently evil.

Now how many times have I had to explain these things without you addressing them once? Instead of accusing me of sin, step back, take a deep breath, and count to ten. Now read.

 

[DHK]

You still don't get it do you?
Words have multiple meanings don't they?
Meanings are generally construed by the context that they are used in. You demonstrated that by the context in the example you used. Obviously if the word has "Austria" behind it we know what the word stands for, and what meaning it has attached to it.
Nevertheless words still have meaning attached to them, some of them very offensive.

That is why Jesus said: "Every idle word that a man shall speak he shall so give account of; for by thy words you shall give justified, and by thy words you shall be condemned."

Did say this for nought? Is he just babbling on about nothing? You disregard what Christ said completely as if you don't believe him. You have yet to explain what Christ meant.

You are condemned by your words. Words condemn, according to the meaning attached to them. They are not neutral, not amoral.
If spoken in anger they are sin, and have the stigma of murder attached to them. Both Christ and John state this.

1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Hatred is usually expressed in words, angry words.
You cannot disassociate the words from the meaning behind them, nor from the intent that is in the heart. Vehicle or not, the two are connected together, and as one is a vehicle to conduct the other it is as much sin as the other.

Proverbs 22:24 Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go:

Proverbs 25:23 The north wind driveth away rain: so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.

Proverbs 29:22 An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression.

--An angry man, and a backbiting tongue--don't make friends with them says the wisest man that ever lived apart from Christ.
If Solomon said not to make friends with those that have a backbiting tongue, then it is evident that the words of that person are sin, wrong, and a vehicle used for destruction.

How do you tell an angry man? Usually by his words!
Stay away from him. Don't make friends with him. He stirs up strife. How? With his words obviously.
Angry words are sin. Words compose a language, and the words themselves, used alone, are sinful. We all know words that can be used without sentence structure that are very offensive.
DHK

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by DHK:
You still don't get it do you?
Words have multiple meanings don't they?

Words have no meaning other than what we give them. That is why they are nothing more than a tool.

Words are symbols which point to the things we use them to stand for. They are abstractions. That is why they can't be sinful.

I have addressed every single point of yours. I have done so many times now. You however do nothing but repeat the same declarative statements. Once again, I urge you to study my argument.

 

[Travelsong]

Did say this for nought? Is he just babbling on about nothing? You disregard what Christ said completely as if you don't believe him. You have yet to explain what Christ meant.

I have addressed this 3 or 4 times now. If you can't be bothered to read what I say then why even debate?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
You still don't get it do you?
Words have multiple meanings don't they?

Words have no meaning other than what we give them.
</font>[/QUOTE]But they do have meanings. That is why they sometimes are wicked and vile. That is the whole point of a language. If a language or words did not have meanings there would be no point to a language.
If a book did not have pages there would be no point to a book. Your argument does not make sense. You are arguing against the definition.
DHK

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by DHK:
But they do have meanings. That is why they sometimes are wicked and vile. That is the whole point of a language. If a language or words did not have meanings there would be no point to a language.

That is true, words have the meaning we give them. Therin lies their utility. Words themselves cannot be wicked or vile, only the meaning behind them can be.

Look at my "F" word example. In one usage we have assigned a vulgar meaning to the word, in another we have assigned a completely innocuous meaning to the word. There is nothing inherently sinful about the word itself.

Originally posted by DHK:
If a book did not have pages there would be no point to a book. Your argument does not make sense. You are arguing against the definition.
DHK

No, I am arguing against inherent definition. Words are defined by the meaning we give them and nothing more.

 

[DHK]

Colors have no meaning except the color we give them, and nothing more. Blue is blue only because we say it is, and not because we didn't call it red.
A cup is not called a glass because we defined it as a cup.
You argument is silly. You are arguing against definitions of words. Words have meanings, some of which are vile and wicked as Jesus himself said, and can condemn a person. Your argument is not with me, but with God. Study Mat.12:35-37
DHK

 

[tenor]

Pamela,

Thanks for pointing me to this article. I enjoyed reading it.

I find it rather "prooftexted." The incidents used to illustrate the morality of music really don't drive his point home. If you look closely at the passages cited, it is attitude of the performers/worshippers/ listeners, etc. and not the medium that is addressed. The passage from Amos about "hating your feasts..." is about the ATTITUDE of worship and not the MEDIUM. Remember, God instituted most of these feasts.

The article is inseresting and well written, but most definitely a prffotext and the preconceived ideas of the writer.

Thanks,
Tim

Originally posted by PamelaK:
Originally posted by Tim
Music in its self is amoral - there is no "good" or "evil" music.

Tim (tenor), Daniel, or anyone -
I came across this in-depth article which seems to line up with my views, but I only had time to give it a cursory look, so I can neither endorse or reject it. (Also, thought I should mention, I noticed at least one article on the home page I would deem to be unscriptural after looking at it. Am not meaning to intentionally lead you to an unorthodox site.) Would be interested in your opinions when you have time, especially those of you who are music directors/ministers. Thanks.

http://www.heritagemusic.org/brr/ismusicamoral.html

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by DHK:
Colors have no meaning except the color we give them, and nothing more. Blue is blue only because we say it is, and not because we didn't call it red.

That's right.

Originally posted by DHK:
A cup is not called a glass because we defined it as a cup.

That's correct.

Originally posted by DHK:
You argument is silly. You are arguing against definitions of words.

No, I am arguing against inherent definition or meaning in words. Remember the "F" word example which you continuously refuse to address?

I've done this before but not in this thread. Here's another illustration which might be helpful to you. I am going to make up a word. My word is "infterblat". Is infterblat an evil word? As of right now it's completely meaningless isn't it? Do you suppose it's possible years down the road that this might actually become a word? How will it get it's meaning? The answer is that if it ever does become a word, men will give it a meaning.

This example may seem silly but that's exactly how the "F" word came into existence. Prior to the 15th century it had no meaning whatsoever. Anyone who would have arranged the letters or symbols to phoneticallly pronounce it would have spoken a word as nonsensical as my word "infterblat" is right now.

So once again words are nothing more than a tool. It is only the meaning which we assign to them that can be evil. Refer once again to the "F" word example that you keep ignoring.

Originally posted by DHK:
Words have meanings, some of which are vile and wicked as Jesus himself said, and can condemn a person.

Refer once again to the "F" word argument. Where is the distinction between the immoral use of "Fing" and the innocuous use of the word? It's in the intent of the speaker my friend. People are the agents who put the meaning behind words. Same word, different meanings.

Originally posted by DHK:
Your argument is not with me, but with God. Study Mat.12:35-37
DHK

I have addressed this several times, you have yet to respond to it.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Travelsong:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Your argument is not with me, but with God. Study Mat.12:35-37
DHK

I have addressed this several times, you have yet to respond to it. </font>[/QUOTE]You are the one that has failed to properly respond to this one. It teaches plainly that words are inherently evil, which you do not, therefore contradicting what Christ himself says.

1. This "conversation" is going nowhere.

2. 1 Timothy 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

3. Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

One word: three different meanings. Here there is, of course, no evil meaning. But it is an example of how a word has multiple meanings. Some words have evil meanings. Context is key. Why can't you accept this. Christ teaches this as plain as day. Words have meanings. Meanings have been assigned by mankind whether you like it or not. They are concrete, and not nebulous, ambiguous, symbolic, etc. When you call someone a fool, your are in danger of hell fire. There is a reason for that. Words hurt. They cut to the heart. The Word of God is living, like a sword, able to pierce the heart.
These are God's Words. They have life. They have meaning. It is God's communication to mankind. And when he says "Thus saith the Lord," he means it. One should not be a fool and reject the words of the Lord.
DHK

 

[webdog]

DHK, you are a real ifterblat!
(is this an insult or compliment?)

Depends on what I intend it to be, no?

 

[PamelaK]

Originally posted by tenor:
Pamela,

Thanks for pointing me to this article. I enjoyed reading it.

I find it rather "prooftexted." The incidents used to illustrate the morality of music really don't drive his point home. If you look closely at the passages cited, it is attitude of the performers/worshippers/ listeners, etc. and not the medium that is addressed. The passage from Amos about "hating your feasts..." is about the ATTITUDE of worship and not the MEDIUM. Remember, God instituted most of these feasts.

The article is inseresting and well written, but most definitely a prffotext and the preconceived ideas of the writer.

Thanks,
Tim

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PamelaK:
Originally posted by Tim
Music in its self is amoral - there is no "good" or "evil" music.

Tim (tenor), Daniel, or anyone -
I came across this in-depth article which seems to line up with my views, but I only had time to give it a cursory look, so I can neither endorse or reject it. (Also, thought I should mention, I noticed at least one article on the home page I would deem to be unscriptural after looking at it. Am not meaning to intentionally lead you to an unorthodox site.) Would be interested in your opinions when you have time, especially those of you who are music directors/ministers. Thanks.

http://www.heritagemusic.org/brr/ismusicamoral.html

</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for your time and input, Tim, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I'll bring your comments with me when I go back and read it fully.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by webdog:
DHK, you are a real ifterblat!
(is this an insult or compliment?)

Depends on what I intend it to be, no?

It is neither. It doesn't have a meaning. It is not in the dictionary, and is not accepted by those who study languages even if you assign your own meaning to it. Besides that it is simply cacaphony.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Your argument is not with me, but with God. Study Mat.12:35-37
DHK

I have addressed this several times, you have yet to respond to it. </font>[/QUOTE]You are the one that has failed to properly respond to this one. It teaches plainly that words are inherently evil, which you do not, therefore contradicting what Christ himself says.

1. This "conversation" is going nowhere.

2. 1 Timothy 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

3. Philippians 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

One word: three different meanings. Here there is, of course, no evil meaning. But it is an example of how a word has multiple meanings. Some words have evil meanings. Context is key. Why can't you accept this. Christ teaches this as plain as day. Words have meanings. Meanings have been assigned by mankind whether you like it or not. They are concrete, and not nebulous, ambiguous, symbolic, etc. When you call someone a fool, your are in danger of hell fire. There is a reason for that. Words hurt. They cut to the heart. The Word of God is living, like a sword, able to pierce the heart.
These are God's Words. They have life. They have meaning. It is God's communication to mankind. And when he says "Thus saith the Lord," he means it. One should not be a fool and reject the words of the Lord.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]As we have demonstrated words do not have inherent meanings. People give them meanings. Meaning comes from the heart and mind.

Given this understanding of language it is easy to see that Jesus was not saying that a particular pronunciation of sounds and syllables or an arrangement of letters and symbols can be inherently evil, rather He was addressing the manner in which we communicate.

It's really that simple. If a word could be evil in and of itself, then it would be evil no matter what meaning we gave it. How can you have such difficulty understanding this?

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by webdog:
DHK, you are a real ifterblat!
(is this an insult or compliment?)

Depends on what I intend it to be, no?

It is neither. It doesn't have a meaning. It is not in the dictionary, and is not accepted by those who study languages even if you assign your own meaning to it. Besides that it is simply cacaphony. </font>[/QUOTE]And before the 15th century the same thing could have been said about the "f" word. It would have been a meaningless utterance.

What changed then? It's quite obvious that it is the intent of the speaker who uses the word to express a sinful intent of the heart. The soundwaves and letters that comprise the word didn't suddenly become evil just because someone used them to express an evil sentiment.

As you say now, the word "infterblat" is meaningless. One day it might be used to express the most offensive insult imaginable. Will the soundwaves and letters that comprise the word "infterblat" suddenly become evil? Of course not, it will be the meaning and intent behind the word that will be sinful.

Really DHK, this isn't that difficult of a concept to get around.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Travelsong:

Really DHK, this isn't that difficult of a concept to get around.

No it isn't, so why don't you grasp it?
Here are some examples:

Matthew 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Matthew 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

out of the heart (the mind) man speaks.
And just what do you think Christ was teaching.
Words are inherently evil. They can be evil because we attach evil meanings to them. We do not speak in simple letters of the alphabet, but organized into words, and then into sentences. God gave us a mind to do so. And those words and often sentences hurt and even destroy lives. "The pen is mightier than the sword." Why? Both destroy; one is more effective than the other.

"But the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity, and it is set on fire of hell."

Your example of nonsense syllables put together into a nonsense word is nothing short of the Charismatic movement of speaking in tongues or speaking in gibberish, a movement that only started at the beginning of the 20th century and unknown before then. Linguistics have carefully studied this movement. There is no understandable language(s) involved in this movement. It is a movement used of the devil to bring confusion into Christianity. But God is a God of order and not of confusion. Why succumb to the speaking of unknown gibberish.
God expects us to use our mind; to think before we speak; to know what we are going to say before we say it. Thus your nonsense words are really just red herrings. Words have definite meanings in communication, otherwise there would be no communication obviously. This is one of the ways that man differentiated us from animals. He gave us a concrete way to communicate with one another through a language--the ability to reason, and to think things out. Animals have no such ability. Are some of you advocating that we are no more than animals as the evolutionists say, because we just make noise, and our noise doesn't have any inherent meaning??
DHK

 

[Travelsong]

Wow, you really have no understanding of my argument. Either that, or you're intentionally being obtuse. You leave me no choice. I will have to pin you down step by step.


Who gave the "F" word it's meaning?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Wow, you really have no understanding of my argument. Either that, or you're intentionally being obtuse. You leave me no choice. I will have to pin you down step by step.


Who gave the "F" word it's meaning?

The Bavarians in the 11th century.

 

[Travelsong]

Prior to that what did the pronunciation of the "F" word mean?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Prior to that what did the pronunciation of the "F" word mean?

It had no "prior to that." It was first introduced into the English language in the 16th century ca. 1535. It was attributed to monks who committed immorality, and would thus be forbidden entrance into heaven.
DHK