What is music?

I'm speaking as plainly as I can so I don't know how you jump to all of these crazy conclusions. A musician may or may not be feeling the particular emotion of the music they are performing. The distinction is in noting that the music itself is not emotion or thoughts or desire or intent. This can be said of all language. Look at Isaiah 29:13:

By all outward appearances the Israelites were holy and righteous. Their words were everything you'd expect to find coming from obedient servants of the Lord, but in reality their hearts were far removed from God. Although language can effectively communicate the thoughts, intents, desires and emotions of the heart it never ever becomes those things. It is only a tool and nothing more.

This is why God warns David and Samuel not to look at the outward appearance, not to believe the cunning words of their enemies who would decieve them with language of peace but in their heart plan war and murder.

You must seperate them. Even if you say you don't you do. You can't help it. If someone says "I hate you", you will not judge the audible signals proceeding from their mouth, you will judge their intent. As I said earlier, the words "I hate you" are not the actual sentiment of my hatred for you. Hatred can only exist in the heart.

 

This was a secular rock group? If they were non-Christian, of course, their intent would not be to glorify the Lord. It could have been mockery if they only did it for the shock value. (and I would caution CCM performers about this). But this does not mean that all renditions of the Lord's Prayer with a certain beat or whatever, are mockeries. That once again upholds Western classical/traditional style as some sacred production, when it is just as originally secular as anything else.

That's true. And I think Travelsong, BiR, MCK, and others have even criticized it for this. But this is once again a misuse of it, and has nothing to do with a style, excepot that the style is what people like today, and therefore is what is naturally going to be used to sell. A classical production in a Christian context would get a lot of praise for the musicians as well. And even the old hymn style would have gotten proase to a generation that liked that style. Sometimes the most separatistic fundamentalist music garners praise from its own audience just for being so "different from the music of the world today". We must always beware, as self-glorification creeps in in many ways!

 

See that? You've already made the distinction between the heart and an expression of the heart. No matter how much you try to deny it you can't. Language and the heart are two entirely seperate entities.

Certainly our words are important and we shall be judged by the things we say. You still aren't paying attention.

This is your horrible attitude coming out once again. When you have nothing left in the arsenal you must try and present me in opposition to Jesus. All the while you still don't understand my argument.

There you go again, making that distinction. You just can't help it. Yes, words can be an expression of the heart-and that is all they can be.

 

Clearly you have no concept of the workings of the heart (otherwise known in Scripture as the mind).
Do you have a mind? How is it expressed? How is the sin in one's mind expressed? It is expressed through language which cannot be separated from the sin itself. That is apparent from the words of Jesus quoted above in Mat.12:26,37. But Jesus goes farther than that. He speaks of your words as being "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," which shall not be forgiven. Obviously this was a very serious sin, committed with the mouth, the words which one spoke. It wasn't just a heart attitude. It was what they were saying. They were committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which would never be forgiven them. That sin can only be committed in words. The sin cannot be separated from the words in which it is conveyed.

Matthew 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

Where is sin committed? You yourself admit that it is committed in the heart or mind (the same thing). Let's consider this.
Consider the rich man of Luke 12:

Luke 12:17-20 And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?
16 And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?

Here was this rich man laying out his plans for the future. He did not have an audience. No one else was around but himself. "He said to his soul, Soul thou hast much goods laid up for many years..." He was speaking to himself, inwardly, not necessarily verbalizing that which he was saying. His thoughts were being verbalized within himself, but not necessarliy in an audible way. We call that thinking. Our thinking is done in our mother language, just as this man did. There is no indication that this man was saying these things out loud, just as there is no indication that God spoke to him in an audible voice. It doesn't say that God appeared to him in the form of a man, and shook his finger in front of him, rebuked him, and said to him, "You are going to die, and then...?" You can't read all of that into Scripture, just as you can't read anything that was said in an audible voice.

Jesus said:
Matthew 12:34-35 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
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.

You cannot separate the language from the heart or mind. Jesus said exactly that. Out of the heart comes the mouth speaks evil things. Isn't that plain enough?

Remeber the story in Luke 18 how both a publican and a Pharisee went up to the Temple to pray. How did the Pharisee pray? He is the record:

Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
--What he really said didn't matter. The Scripture says: He prayed thus to himself. His prayer wasn't even to God. It was to himself that he was praying, not to God. It was for the intent that others would hear him, so that they would compare his "righteousness" with that of "THAT" publican!
But the pulbican's prayer was heard, for he prayed in humility and he prayed to God. Our language is manifested through the language that we speak. The two cannot be separated.

Hannah could express her voice without using it. It is not the voice box that counts. She still prayed to God, but the Scripture records: only her lipes moved; her voice was not heard. Her prayer was to God. The language was her language, an expression of her thoughts to God, but not vocalized. The language doesn't have to be vocalized. You think in your language. And sometimes your thoughts are very evil. Those thought are expressed in your own langauge. You cannot divorce your language from your sin, and that goes for music as well, for it is a langauge.

As Hannah demonstrates, her heart demonstrated her will through her words, though not expressed audlibly. Words, or language--whether expressed audibly or inwardly--cannot be divorced from what is in the heart. Every sin must have a vehicle of its expression, otherwise it doens't become sin. It is in the nature of the mind to do so.

Jesus said:
Ye have heard of old time: Thou shalt not commit adulltery; but I say unto you, that whoso looks upon a woman to lust after her in his heart has already commited adultery." He put the sin of adultery into persective. It begins in the heart, and can be committed only in the heart. It has its outlet both in the heart and physically. But in the heart there must also be a vehicle of expression and that is in the mind. In the mind there is the verbal expression which may be there. There is alos the visual expression which may be there--also a form of communication, though just not communicated to another. Just as people talk to themselves in their thinking, they visualize things in their thinking. They also share these things with others afterward. It is all a part of communication. And much of the time it is sin. Sin (whether in the mind or not) is always able to be communicated verbally, through a language and even through music. In many cases the sin of adultery is communicated through the language of "art" which many call porn. It is still communicated. And it stil sin, whether in the mind or outside of the mind. YOu cannot divorce the message from the vehicle of its expression. It is absolutely impossible.
DHK

 

You have been doing so. It can't be helped. I agree with most everything else you say, but the fact is you're overlooking this one very significant bit of common sense.


When I say "car", the word car is not an actual car. It is an audible or visual signal that let's you know a specific object I am referring to. Language is symbolic.

So you want me to believe that words can in and of themselves be evil. That certainly does sound to me as if you are the one who wishes to seperate language from the heart.


Indulge me for a minute. Is the "F" word in and of itself evil?

 

1. You said "words". Yes, wors, in and of themselves can be evil.
2. You used an example of a letter, the letter "F". That is one of 26 letters of the alphabet which are used to write or compose words. That one letter may or may not be evil. It is possible, but unlikely for it to be evil. However, in context, the four letter "F" word is certainly an evil word. I hated to post that. I hope it won't draw any objections. Words have meanings. I have been saying that all along. Words can be evil. Language can be evil. I am not talking of a 26 letter alphabet. I am speaking of words, the same thing that Jesus spoke of.
DHK

 

ok good.

Is the town of F**king in Austria (place the letters u and c for the stars) an evil word?

 

Let's get your head on right.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Fucking,-Austria

If you got any sense at all, you would realize the word has a Germanic root, has existed since since the eleventh century, and is named after a person's name. It simply menas the place of his people. You have many such names in America, named after people.
BTW, there is a Hell, Michigan.

So get your mind out of the gutter and quit trying to find obscure names that people on this board have never of before for the simple reason of trying to deliberatley offend. In that country it would not offend. But you are putting another meaning to it in this country, a filthy meaning. Thus you are the one offending. You have more than proved my point that words offend.

By thy words you shall be justified and by thy words you shall be condemned.
DHK

 

Thankyou for proving my point. You have demonstrated that words can not be evil. In Austria That word is simply the name of a town which was in turn named after a man. The meaning Of the word is dependant upon the interpreter. There isn't a universal evil meaning intrinsically attatched to it.

Now when we engage our brains just a little bit and employ the use of common sense we can understand that Jesus was not saying that a particular combination of letters or an arrangement of sounds and syllables is in and of itself evil, rather what He was refering to is the manner in which we communicate. I'm glad to see you're finally coming around.

 

I have sat for days watching this discussion between DHK and Travel and finally believe we have reached Travel's point, albeit with a rather provocative geography lesson.

As I have said so many times, God PURPOSEFULLY did not "tie us down" to a particular style of music so that we could be all things to all men. Can you imagine exporting our 19th century marching hymn style to other nations, say, for instance, that town in Austria about which we have been learning these past couple of days?

 

Yes, there is a meaning attached to it. Get your dictionary out, and learn how to use it. Most words have more that one definition. In the theology forum we deal with definitions all the time:
church,
grace,
faith, etc.
Do you know how many defintions the word "church" has in a dictionary? Plenty. The context gives us the meaning of the word. Words have meanings. They are not abstract.

They are corrupt: "corrupt communication"
They are angry: "angry words"
They are idle: "Every idle word that a man shall speak..."
By your words you shall be condemned.
By your words you shall be justified.

If you choose not to beleive the words of Jesus and Paul, then who do you choose to believe?

So yes, it is evident, by the words of Jesus himself, that words can be inherently evil.
DHK

 

That's correct. Meaning is attatched to words because otherwise they are nothing but sounds or symbols that point to nothing. That's why language is only a tool.

Now you can add "fing" to that list. Whereas previously you thought it was an intrinsically evil word, now you know it is also a completely innocuous geographic indicator.

Actually men give meaning to words. The "F" word dates back to the 15th century. Prior to that it had no meaning.

Words only stand for or represent the things they point to. They are symbolic representations of ideas or things. In other words the word "anger" can only point to something which exists in the heart and mind. The word anger is not in and of itself anger. That is indeed exactly why language is abstract.

You have already proven that they can't.

I first asked you if the "F" word was evil. You said yes. I then gave you the example of a town in Austria which was called "Fing" and you admitted that the word in that sense was not evil. So how can the same word be both inherently evil yet not evil? Looks like you've got a serious conundrum on your hands.

 

It isn't a question of believing. It's a question of understanding. If a word could be evil in and of itself than the "F" word would have been evil long before it ever had meaning assigned to it by man (in fact it would have always been sinful), and the town of "Fing" Austria would be a sinful name.


So common sense dictates that Jesus did not mean to say that certain arrangements of letters and symbols or pronunciation of sounds and syllables will always be evil. What he was pointing to was the manner in which we communicate.

 

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?

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

 

Excuse me as I interject, here, DHK, but you still have a conundrum on your hands with the Austrian town example.

You cannot just say an entire example is moot and then expect it to just go away. The illustration stands on its own merits. We don't have to speak Bavarian or Austrian to know the town's name is "F-ing."

Also, though I am not Travelsong, I am very offended by your statement where you say Travel is calling Jesus a liar. You once again tread thin ground with that horrible accusation. You should be sanctioned.

 

Simply put, Music is sound and silence organized in time and space.

Music means different things to different cultures. I find it interesting most of the definitions tend to be from a "western" tradition and also tend to be biased to the likes of the definer. The above definition gives credence to different cultural expressions.

Included in the above are the concepts of rhythm (music in time), pitch (high and low), melody (a succession of pitches) etc.

Is some music more pleasing to me than others, absolutely! Does this give the right to define music to my likes, absolutely not!

As to "Biblical" basis - the soothing of Saul by David's playing - the style was probably very simple, monophonic and in a ancient Eastern mode, so not at all like what we call music today.

Communication? Yes music communicates but not the same to every person or culture.

Can music change mood? Yes? Look at restaurants and stores and how they change the tempo of the music at certain times of day.

Music in its self is amoral - there is no "good" or "evil" music. Only the use, application and possibly association can determine its morality. A Christian song can be used for an evil purpose.

So, I stick with my general definition that even includes (gasp) rap and hip-hop and most non-western music.

Tim

 

, Tim!

 

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