# "Religious" Music



## millionrainbows

The term 'religious' is limiting, in that it refers to religion, and that term means specific things to different people.

With the term "spiritual" (and keeping in mind that spirituality is universal to all, and that religion came after, and acts as a limiter and is specific), we can identify and explore the universal aspects of music which are not only common to all men, but can produce or enhance a sense of spiritual awareness which is universal and inclusive, which centers us and gets us to that common, universal state of being.

I say this not to invalidate any form of religious music, but to get people to recognize that our sense of spirituality is nearly synonymous, in sound terms, with certain kinds of 'religious' music.


----------



## Strange Magic

Is "spirituality" indeed universal to all? And by reference to "all men", I know you mean "all people". Please tell us more about our sense of that spirituality that is nearly synonymous with certain kinds of "religious" music. In the highlands of New Guinea, would there be that sense? What sorts of religious music do you have in mind?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Any devout religious person is not going to consider their beliefs as religion, but as truth, and will consider all other beliefs as religion. What that has to do with religious music I don't know. 

But someone on this site said there is no such thing as religious music, just music, some with religious associations. 

And in my case, a lot of "religious" music bores me, though I would be considered strongly religious in the general sense of the term. 

My beliefs however do help determine what music I listen to, not in a sense of a legal requirement, but in the sense that some music does not appeal to me because of it's content or associations.


----------



## Dan Ante

I am not religious or spiritual (whatever that is) but recognise and love the wonderful music that is related to the Church.


----------



## Larkenfield

Spiritual can be the experience of something sacred in life not dependent on specific beliefs or religious dogma. It’s a univeral energy that can be tangibly felt. Belief systems by nature are divisive among people—and where there’s division there’s war. A spiritual experience is direct and can be a force of inspiration, uplift, and healing. Some consider that sacred energy as part of the basic nature of Man and always available if one tunes into it. That energy can be expressed in music. Nevertheless, religious music, such as a Mass, can still carry that energy and point to something considered sacred and transformative.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Is "spirituality" indeed universal to all? And by reference to "all men", I know you mean "all people". Please tell us more about our sense of that spirituality that is nearly synonymous with certain kinds of "religious" music. In the highlands of New Guinea, would there be that sense? What sorts of religious music do you have in mind?


To exist on this earth as a human being...is not that a sacred thing? I think the first thing you have to realize is the good in people, and that there are more similarities than differences. Oh my God, I'm starting to sound like a liberal now.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> To exist on this earth as a human being...is not that a sacred thing? I think the first thing you have to realize is the good in people, and that there are more similarities than differences. Oh my God, I'm starting to sound like a liberal now.


"To exist on this earth as a human being...is not that a sacred thing?" I have no idea what this means. Would an antelope's existing on this earth also be equally sacred? How about the existence of an enormous crystal of beryl? What are some non-sacred existences? I do think most of us recognize the good in people, and that there are more similarities than differences. Don't fret--you're starting to sound like millionrainbows, and I like crusty old Strange Magic .


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> The term 'religious' is limiting, in that it refers to religion, and that term means specific things to different people.
> 
> *With the term "spiritual"* (and keeping in mind that spirituality is universal to all, and that religion came after, and acts as a limiter and is specific), *we can identify and explore the universal aspects of music which are not only common to all men, but can produce or enhance a sense of spiritual awareness which is universal and inclusive,* which centers us and gets us to that common, universal state of being.
> 
> *I say this not to invalidate any form of religious music*, but to get people to recognize that our sense of spirituality is nearly synonymous, in sound terms, with certain kinds of 'religious' music.


Music that would be considered "spiritual" in Bali (if that concept has a Balinese equivalent) certainly has little in common with "The Old rugged Cross" or Haydn's _Nelson Mass_. I fear that any attempt to rationalize the radical differences and "explain" what is "spiritual" about these kinds of music might indeed end in some kind of invalidation, not of any kind of music, but of some people's idea of "spirituality."


----------



## KenOC

My sense is that in the West, "religious" music arose from simple chants and tunes that were prepared to help illiterate flocks memorize the words of the scriptures. The same may be true of the "religious' music in Asian and other cultures, where religious texts were at least as important and literacy certainly no higher. We now hear that music (and the more complex music developed from it) as "religious" only because we recognize the conventions used and respond to them.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> To exist on this earth as a human being...is not that a sacred thing?


I don't know...is it? I have an uneasy feeling I've been here before, asking this question, because dictionary definitions of 'sacred' don't always suit your purpose.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Music that would be considered "spiritual" in Bali (if that concept has a Balinese equivalent) certainly has little in common with "The Old rugged Cross" or Haydn's _Nelson Mass_.


That would be for musically structural reasons only. My response to those examples is that the Balinese music has a repetitive element, and repetition tends to resonate with the consciousness of the listener, as in "trance" music and minimalism, and also some ritual practices, such as chanting, counting beads, etc. 
"The Old Rugged Cross" has, for me, emotional associations with my mother, which are probably specific to me (maybe not, if we consider all Southern Baptist-raised men). But the hymn itself, as a musical form, does not have any of the universal structural devices (repetition, drone, ethereal atmosphere) that other "spiritual" music might have.

The Baptist hymn is not in the same category as what I see as "spiritually inducing" music, because it is a typical form. It is "religious" music because of its lyrical content, and it shares the rudimentary form of other hymns. Its purpose is utilitarian, to be used in a certain environment, under certain conditions. Its persuasion is to remind the pious of certain religious principles and stories, and to make a point conceptually. 
The music itself does not transform the consciousness of the individual, and was not designed to do so. In this sense, hymns like this are not so much "musical" in their power, but are simply utilitarian songs which carry a simple message. I doubt that these sorts of hymns would translate into a transcendent experience in other cultures, but then again, I heard this sort of harmony in the hands of Africans which sounded quite powerful; in that case, I think the inherent "spirituality" of the people did the transforming to the hymn form, not the other way around. In other words, the "spiritual" element is in people, not music. The music is ideally a "tool" or form of "spiritual technology" which is designed to evoke and enhance these 'spiritual reactions' in the listener.



Woodduck said:


> I fear that any attempt to rationalize the radical differences and "explain" what is "spiritual" about these kinds of music might indeed end in some kind of invalidation, not of any kind of music, but of some people's idea of "spirituality."


"Spirituality" as I mean it is not an idea, but an essence which exists in all people. If these ideas "invalidate" anyone's idea of what is "spiritual" (as a universal quality of humanity), then that person is too attached to an idea, and risks "invalidating" the universal birthright of a large segment of mankind.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> My sense is that in the West, "religious" music arose from simple chants and tunes that were prepared to help illiterate flocks memorize the words of the scriptures. The same may be true of the "religious' music in Asian and other cultures, where religious texts were at least as important and literacy certainly no higher. We now hear that music (and the more complex music developed from it) as "religious" only because we recognize the conventions used and respond to them.


I think that's too sweeping. I make a distinction between music which is religious by tradition and utility, and music which evokes "sacred" responses from the listener. The latter kind of music will have a more universal, less specific/utilitarian effect, by tapping-in to the human responses we all share by simply being human. I do think that there is "spiritual" music which accomplishes its effect despite its immersion in cultural norms, and does this in a direct way. This is what makes good art universally appealing. It transcends cultural limitations, and whatever other limitations it was supposedly intended for. This can probably be blamed on the artists who created it, and their desire to "connect" with humanity. Think of Beethoven's Ninth; he was "feeling" it when he used the Ode to joy. In this sense, The Ninth is definitely "spiritual" music because of its universal effect and appeal. This is obvious.

What is the meaning of music which does not include the human elements of "resonance" and empathy? It seems that it would be on the verge of being emblematic or simply an agreed-upon term, with no real connection to human psychology or the fact that "God gave us brains."

In my view, "psychological phenomena" can be linked to music and to spirituality, or a sacred sense of being, before it has to be connected to any religion, which in my view comes after the fact.

Music does not work by itself apart from our psychology as humans. 

"Real" religious music, is music whose effect is audible, structural, and "in the music itself." Whereas other religious music seems to rely more on text, the setting, the belief and faith of the listener,etc, which are not universal or transferrable to all people. Perhaps users of the religious music forum feel more comfortable with that more restricted, less universal interpretation, so that my 'spiritual music' becomes 'mumbo-jumbo' compared to real religious music like theirs.

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the obstacle for many here is that I'm really not talking about 'religious' or 'spiritual' music per se, but rather what common and universal elements of human psychology and physiology are triggered by certain kinds of sounds, namely drones and repetitions, and how these sounds can affect us and lead us closer to being 'in tune' and resonating sympathetically with certain kinds of sounds and music.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I'm really not talking about 'religious' or 'spiritual' music per se, but rather what common and universal elements of human psychology and physiology are triggered by certain kinds of sounds, namely drones and repetitions, and how these sounds can affect us and lead us closer to being 'in tune' and resonating sympathetically with certain kinds of sounds and music.


Certainly drones and repetitions can have all sorts of musical uses, connotations, and effects on listeners.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> The music itself does not transform the consciousness of the individual, and was not designed to do so. In this sense, hymns like this are not so much "musical" in their power, but are simply utilitarian songs which carry a simple message.


I don't know The Old Rugged Cross, but in the hands of skilled performers, a congregation can certainly be "transformed" to some extent by traditional Christian hymns, without the words necessarily carrying the transformative power. The idea that there are some musical forms that have this power is hardly revelatory: people at TC report it, or something similar, for all kinds of the music they enjoy. That doesn't make the music 'sacred' or 'religious' or 'transcendent' except that the listener makes that connection or assertion for themselves.

I can get quite carried away by a stentorian rendtion of "God Is Love, His The Care" - but it's the music that does it, not the words, which are meaningless to this atheist!


----------



## Guest

Hold the front page Richard Ingrams! Pseuds Corner has just got a new winner.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the obstacle for many here is that I'm really not talking about 'religious' or 'spiritual' music per se, but rather what common and universal elements of human psychology and physiology are triggered by certain kinds of sounds, namely drones and repetitions, and how these sounds can affect us and lead us closer to being 'in tune' and resonating sympathetically with certain kinds of sounds and music.


This is just fine and I agree with it entirely. But what confuses me are your repeated references to "sacred states of being". I don't know what this means. Are there non-sacred states of being? What's the difference? How is a sacred state of being recognized? What is it? Please be very precise here; it will be a great help.


----------



## Dan Ante

Strange Magic said:


> This is just fine and I agree with it entirely. But what confuses me are your repeated references to "sacred states of being". I don't know what this means. Are there non-sacred states of being? What's the difference? How is a sacred state of being recognized? What is it? Please be very precise here; it will be a great help.


Ya hear millionrainbows, don't go and do a trump


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> This is just fine and I agree with it entirely. But what confuses me are your repeated references to "sacred states of being". I don't know what this means. Are there non-sacred states of being? What's the difference? How is a sacred state of being recognized? What is it? Please be very precise here; it will be a great help.


I don't know if this can be so neatly defined. I think that someone who is 'in touch with their being' will resonate with others better, and what he does will reflect that. I think all great jazz musicians like John Coltrane, for example, are in touch with their being, which I call sacred. If you are religious, then your being /existence is "sacred" because God created it.

I think Beethoven was an example of someone "in touch" with their own being, as expressed through music, and this probably means he realized he was part of something larger, perhaps God or whatever you call it.

To me, the gateway to 'the spiritual' and to "god" and all things sacred, is within us, and can be expressed by our being.

This 'subjective' way of seeing things might be 'heresy' to a conventional Western religion, since it is an "Eastern" way of seeing it. Western religion wants God to be "out there" and objective.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Well, you tried . I think it's me: too literal-minded; no imagination .


----------



## Barbebleu

Where is JosefinaHW when you need her/him?


----------



## Woodduck

Barbebleu said:


> Where is JosefinaHW when you need her/him?


You naughty, naughty boy!


----------



## Guest

Barbebleu said:


> Where is JosefinaHW when you need her/him?


rainbows said subjective, not objective.


----------



## Nate Miller

If you are really talking about religious music, what you really mean is Liturgical music, or music for the liturgy

with our organ being refurbished, I helped out by playing all the Masses this weekend. In Liturgical music, the music goes along with the liturgy (or the Bible readings for you unwashed heathens) so not only the hymns, but also the psalm and Gospel acclaimations are for that specific Sunday. The other musical parts of the Mass will stay relatively static. There are several Mass settings that are approved for each country by that country's Bishops and each parish is free to choose the one they want to use. Our diocese requests that the parishes at least know 2 specific Mass settings, but they are free to use any of the approved settings. Its when Bishop is there that you need to use one of the 2 the diocese wants so that you don't get your parish priest in trouble with his boss (the Bishop, not God) 

Anyway, so Liturgical music has nothing to do with spiritualism or any of that

if you are a heathen, then you do not play Liturgical music. There's really no getting around the fact that you have to be a church going person to play music in the context of the Christian Liturgy. So no Church, no Church music. Period. End of discussion.

and if you are not Catholic or at least one of the major protestant sects, then feel free to cry about it, but you still are not playing Liturgical music. It is our tradition for the last 2000 some odd years, so that's all there really is to it. Either you are or you aren't, and if you don't go to Church, then you aren't


----------



## SixFootScowl

Nate Miller said:


> If you are really talking about religious music, what you really mean is Liturgical music, or music for the liturgy
> 
> with our organ being refurbished, I helped out by playing all the Masses this weekend. In Liturgical music, the music goes along with the liturgy (or the Bible readings for you unwashed heathens) so not only the hymns, but also the psalm and Gospel acclaimations are for that specific Sunday. The other musical parts of the Mass will stay relatively static. There are several Mass settings that are approved for each country by that country's Bishops and each parish is free to choose the one they want to use. Our diocese requests that the parishes at least know 2 specific Mass settings, but they are free to use any of the approved settings. Its when Bishop is there that you need to use one of the 2 the diocese wants so that you don't get your parish priest in trouble with his boss (the Bishop, not God)
> 
> Anyway, so Liturgical music has nothing to do with spiritualism or any of that
> 
> if you are a heathen, then you do not play Liturgical music. There's really no getting around the fact that you have to be a church going person to play music in the context of the Christian Liturgy. So no Church, no Church music. Period. End of discussion.
> 
> and if you are not Catholic or at least one of the major protestant sects, then feel free to cry about it, but you still are not playing Liturgical music. It is our tradition for the last 2000 some odd years, so that's all there really is to it. Either you are or you aren't, and if you don't go to Church, then you aren't


I don't know if heathen is the best term (they certainly won't visit our churches if we call them heathen), but as far as these non-Christians go, I think many enjoy masses such as those of Beethoven, Bach or Haydn. I looked at the words to Beethoven's Missa Solemnis and it looks pretty close to the liturgy in the 1941 Lutheran Hymnal.


----------



## Nate Miller

well, I imagine it would since Beethoven's source would have been the Lutheran liturgical tradition. And that is what I am getting at, it is music first and foremost for liturgical services.

So you cannot "remove" it from the context of the Church. Sure, you can listen to liturgical music in your headphones wherever and when ever, but Liturgical music is not about secular "spirituality" and that is really what my point is


----------



## Larkenfield

“Spiritual” is not “Spiritualism.” It’s not an -ism at all. That’s the point. Certain liturgies are why some people are leaving the church, and it could be any church where anyone is considered to be a “heathen” who doesn’t believe as they do. People can have spiritual experiences outside of a church and be completely transformed. It’s a direct relationship with what they consider to be the sacred energies of life and it’s not based on a religious dogma or dependency on a specific liturgy, though some liturgies can be very spiritually oriented and inclusive... Spiritual is not Spiritualism, nor does it necessarily belong to any religious persuasion.


----------



## Guest

And of course "religious music" is not just Christian religious music.


----------



## Bulldog

Nate Miller said:


> well, I imagine it would since Beethoven's source would have been the Lutheran liturgical tradition. And that is what I am getting at, it is music first and foremost for liturgical services.
> 
> So you cannot "remove" it from the context of the Church. Sure, you can listen to liturgical music in your headphones wherever and when ever, but Liturgical music is not about secular "spirituality" and that is really what my point is


I am free to remove it from the context of the Church, and please stop using the nasty heathen word.


----------



## Guest

I like being a heathen. It has the same meaning to you as Christian does for me.


----------



## James Mann

The term "religious" does just fine, in spite of a general inclination to associate it with one particular religion.


----------



## Dan Ante

Well I like religious music I was even in the church choir when I was very young and my love of choral music is stronger now than ever before but I am no longer a church goer.


----------



## Woodduck

Nate Miller said:


> well, I imagine it would since Beethoven's source would have been the Lutheran liturgical tradition. And that is what I am getting at, it is music first and foremost for liturgical services.
> 
> So you cannot "remove" it from the context of the Church. Sure, you can listen to liturgical music in your headphones wherever and when ever, but Liturgical music is not about secular "spirituality" and that is really what my point is


Beethoven was not a church-goer, he did not compose the Missa Solemnis to be performed in church, and no one needs to be a church-goer to listen to it, perform it, or love it. Beethoven's religious beliefs are unclear; he was raised as a Catholic, but was interested in other religious traditions, including Hinduism. The Missa Solemnis meant a great deal to him, but that is all we can say.

Composers, regardless of their personal beliefs and their church-going habits, have been attracted to the emotional and dramatic possibilities of the mass (including the requiem for the dead) and have written masses intended for concert performance. They've done so for centuries; it's part of the Western musical tradition. Regardless of personal belief, if they are good composers they set the words of the mass with seriousness and sensitivity. We can't say what a setting of the mass means to its composer, and no one can decide what it means, or ought to mean, to any given listener except the listener himself.


----------



## Nate Miller

I could take an aria from an opera and listen to it on its own, without any context, and enjoy it. I could even write a paper about it and I might even make some interesting musical observations. But if I didn't know what opera the aria was from, had no idea who the characters were, or any clue about the overall story of the libretto and what is happening dramatically in this aria I wouldn't be a terrible person....I would have just missed the point

and that is why I reminded you folks that you are talking about Liturgurical music and it has a specific function in the Christian Liturgy. So you can take it out of a Church and listen to it in your living room, but you are not understanding the full nature of the music.


----------



## Thomyum2

Nate Miller said:


> I could take an aria from an opera and listen to it on its own, without any context, and enjoy it. I could even write a paper about it and I might even make some interesting musical observations. But if I didn't know what opera the aria was from, had no idea who the characters were, or any clue about the overall story of the libretto and what is happening dramatically in this aria I wouldn't be a terrible person....I would have just missed the point
> 
> and that is why I reminded you folks that you are talking about Liturgurical music and it has a specific function in the Christian Liturgy. So you can take it out of a Church and listen to it in your living room, but you are not understanding the full nature of the music.


If I'm understanding you correctly I think I basically agree with the premise. These days, we think of music as something of a commodity, and item that we consume for enjoyment of personal fulfillment of some sort, but Liturgical music, at least at one point in time, was not created for that purpose - it was a component of a Sacrament or rite, it's purpose is/was to serve that end only, not to be a vehicle to entertain a congregation or audience, or to otherwise provide some kind of enjoyable or sentimental background sound to the proceedings.

But as Woodduck points out above, some of those forms have been taken out of the original context over the years and composed or used for purely musical purposes instead of religious ones, so I think in our time, 'religious music' has become something of a hybrid. And just as these religious musical forms have been taken out of the Church, so has 'non-religious' music made its way _into_ the Church. I've attended many services where the musical selection is clearly not chosen to enhance the Liturgy but rather seems to be just to entertain or attract people from outside to make them want to attend - think of the use of pop music in many of the 'new age' churches that have sprung up. I'm reminded of the scene in the movie 'Sister Act' where the choir starts singing new and jazzy music that scandalizes the traditional nuns, but thrills the priest when he sees that the music draws in people off the street.

But even in older times, are we certain that the Liturgical music did not serve a dual purpose - both as an element of worship but also to provide enjoyment for the congregants?


----------



## Nate Miller

actually, in the old times you never heard a recording of music, you had to hear it played. That said, very few peasant homes would have had a pipe organ 

but the music heard in Church did creep into folk music, and folk music also crept into the liturgical tradition. That is very evident. I play both Liturgical music and folk music. Where I live, a lot of the local "old time" tunes are actually from old Lutheran hymns. People learn a tune in Church and play it at home during the week. That's how they get into the local folk repertoire of a region


----------



## SixFootScowl

Nate Miller said:


> actually, in the old times you never heard a recording of music, you had to hear it played. That said, very few peasant homes would have had a pipe organ


That is why we have piano transcriptions of symphonies. So people (who could afford a piano) could enjoy the music in their home.


----------



## Nate Miller

in the 19th century people entertained guests in their parlors, and wealthy families had pianos for exactly that purpose. Also, composers wrote works for amateur players to play in those settings.

My grandma was an Irish immigrant and she played the concertina because they couldn't afford pianos. My grandma told me that the concertina was the instrument a lot of women played in the region our family came from, which was the western part of County Tipparary and the east part of County Clare 

so playing music in the parlor was basically what people did for entertainment before we had XBoxes


----------



## isorhythm

million, as is often the case I think you have interesting ideas on this but are being overly rigid.

Is it actually the case that no one gets the "spiritual" feeling you get from drones and repetition from Baptist hymns? Does everyone respond to drones and repetition in the way you describe? Can music be separated from cultural context as neatly as you suggest? I'm not so sure. I get that "spiritual" vibe from Lutheran hymn tunes as much as from _In C_, personally.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> million, as is often the case I think you have interesting ideas on this but are being overly rigid.
> 
> Is it actually the case that no one gets the "spiritual" feeling you get from drones and repetition from Baptist hymns? Does everyone respond to drones and repetition in the way you describe? Can music be separated from cultural context as neatly as you suggest? I'm not so sure. I get that "spiritual" vibe from Lutheran hymn tunes as much as from _In C_, personally.


There was an article in Scientific American about the hallucinations and patterns that are seen when taking LSD. There were pictorial representations of them taken from descriptions. I recognized all of them. It seems to me that human beings are more alike than they are different. Are you resistant to this idea because you are an Ayn Rand fan or something?


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> There was an article in Scientific American about the hallucinations and patterns that are seen when taking LSD. There were pictorial representations of them taken from descriptions. I recognized all of them. It seems to me that human beings are more alike than they are different. Are you resistant to this idea because you are an Ayn Rand fan or something?


Millionrainbows, what are your views on glossolalia?


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> There was an article in Scientific American about the hallucinations and patterns that are seen when taking LSD. There were pictorial representations of them taken from descriptions. I recognized all of them. It seems to me that human beings are more alike than they are different. Are you resistant to this idea because you are an Ayn Rand fan or something?


I'm not resistant to the idea at all. I am saying I think the relationship between music and spirituality is not straightforward.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I'm not resistant to the idea at all. I am saying I think the relationship between music and spirituality is not straightforward.


No, unless you look for it.


----------



## Woodduck

Isorhythm wrote: "I am saying I think the relationship between music and spirituality is not straightforward."



millionrainbows said:


> No, unless you look for it.


The only thing straightforward in this discussion, million, is the fact that you've decided on a definition of spirituality that's meaningful to you, and have decided that certain kinds of music express what you think spirituality is. The most that you can hope for here is that others will consider your definition and your corresponding type of music and say whether or not your choices make sense to them. But you seem to want more from us than that. You seem to want to claim that your concept of spirituality represents something that ought to be real and meaningful to the rest of, if only we "look for it."

Well, I've heard that before. I heard it as a child, growing up in a church where people were sure they knew who "God" was and what the "truth" was. But when I "looked for it," I found something quite different from what I was told I should find.

I've run into the idea of "spirituality" many times, and I've concluded that it doesn't have a single or clear definition. I could go further and say that it's one of those concepts that actually depends for its appeal, to those who use it, on not being definable in terms which say anything necessary or relatable to those who don't use it. Using concepts like that is, among other things, a way of asserting superior insight, profundity, or authority - a way of claiming access to the mysteries which entitles one to look down, in pity or contempt, upon the benighted or sinful masses.

I can imagine using the word "spiritual," and have occasionally used it, to refer to intellectual/emotional experiences that feel especially exalted or profound, and I can imagine a wide range of music which different people experience as relatable to such experiences. In fact, I don't have to imagine any of that. It all exists. It's actually how things are. But I'm highly suspicious of such a word as "spirituality," which always seems to have connotations of exclusivity, of some superior reality apart from the reality we commonly observe, and of some superior class of humans who would hold their special dispensation up like a trophy they've been awarded for an achievement no one can describe.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> ...But I'm highly suspicious of such a word as "spirituality," which always seems to have connotations of exclusivity, of some superior reality apart from the reality we commonly observe, and of some superior class of humans who would hold their special dispensation up like a trophy they've been awarded for an achievement no one can describe.


Well, that's perhaps a bit unfair. I can certainly feel the "spirituality" of some music, but I'd hardly claim any innate superiority. Of course, it may be obvious to others that I am, in fact, superior to the common run, but modesty forbids any such claim. I remain humbly yours, etc etc.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I've run into the idea of "spirituality" many times,


Ah, now I see where you've been going wrong:



millionrainbows said:


> "Spirituality" as I mean it is not an idea


I'm now wondering what MRs' definition of 'idea' is.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Ah, now I see where you've been going wrong:


Not a problem. It doesn't hurt when you run into it. The worst that can happen is that someone will threaten you with eternal damnation - probably music consisting of repetitions and drones.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Woodduck: [Spirituality:]"...it's one of those concepts that actually depends for its appeal, to those who use it, on not being definable in terms which say anything necessary or relatable to those who don't use it. Using concepts like that is, among other things, a way of asserting superior insight, profundity, or authority - a way of claiming access to the mysteries which entitles one to look down, in pity or contempt, upon the benighted or sinful masses."


I fully agree. But rather than being a way to actually and successfully assert superior insight, I find the use of the term a way to evade clarity of thought, clarity of discussion. The phrase "sacredness of being" also comes to mind. These serve to short-circuit analysis rather than advance it. I myself would be happy to see the word "spirituality" abandoned entirely. While we're at it, let's get rid of "incredible" also, starting with the next presidential press conference.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Strange Magic said:


> I fully agree. But rather than being a way to actually and successfully assert superior insight, I find the use of the term a way to evade clarity of thought, clarity of discussion...


That's true, but as we know the spirituality-mongers are obsessed with the notion that what they claim to be experiencing is too ineffable for words (not that it stops them pouring forth) and thus immune from clarity of thought and expression or 'analysis' in the conventional sense. That is why you must either 'get it' or remain in a state of spiritual typhlosis. And yet because of this ineffability we can't even learn _how_ to find our way out of the maze.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> That's true, but as we know the spirituality-mongers are obsessed with the notion that what they claim to be experiencing is too ineffable for words (not that it stops them pouring forth) and thus immune from clarity of thought and expression or 'analysis' in the conventional sense. That is why you must either 'get it' or remain in a state of spiritual typhlosis. And yet because of this ineffability we can't even learn _how_ to find our way out of the maze.


How do we find our way? There are always those ready to tell us, and what they tell us is not "think" but "obey."


----------



## EdwardBast

"Spiritual but not religious" is, I have read, the most effective thing to enter on ones dating profile, but the people using it are generally not trying "to get in touch with _their_ [own] being," if you catch my drift.

Seriously, spirituality is for me a subspecies of woo-woo.


----------



## Larkenfield

EdwardBast said:


> Seriously, spirituality is for me a subspecies of woo-woo.


Of course, it's woo-woo to you because you've obviously created your own body and mind without any help from a force larger than yourself, and maybe you created that life-force in the trees too, and the sun and the moon, that others would respectfully call a sacred life-force or 'spiritual' energy. Either the universe is alive or it isn't, and if it's alive then what makes it alive other than some type of Intelligence that moves through every aspect of matter, filling space itself too, including through one's own mind and body. Some people can go through their entire lifetime thinking that the highest there is in the universe is their own limited intellect and there's no deeper dimension to life that is in back of creation... and I'm not referring to a Santa Claus God or Devil in the heavens pulling all the strings.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Larkenfield said:


> Of course, it's woo-woo to you because you've obviously created your own body and mind without any help from a force larger than yourself, and maybe you created that life-force in the trees too, and the sun and the moon, that others would respectfully call a sacred life-force or 'spiritual' energy. Either the universe is alive or it isn't, and if it's alive then what makes it alive other than some type of Intelligence that moves through every aspect of matter, filling space itself too, including through one's own mind and body. Some people can go through their entire lifetime thinking that the highest there is in the universe is their own limited intellect and there's no deeper dimension to life that is in back of creation... and I'm not referring to a Santa Claus God or Devil in the heavens pulling all the strings.


Some sort of 'intelligence' moving through every aspect of matter? You're making a bold leap there Larkenfield. Who would call the workings of the universe a "spiritual life-force"? People who refuse to accept reasonable, naturalistic explanations that tally with expected outcomes perhaps? You, because you've decided to?

I don't think my own limited intellect is the highest thing in the universe (and I'd hazard a guess that no-one else in this thread thinks that), but it simply does not follow that because my intelligence is limited there is some other super intelligence which is not limited. You used the word "creation" multiple times throughout (and then used your free-pass card to assure us it wasn't a Santa Claus god), but what is it then?

I'm not insisting you must know the answer to the origins of the universe; I certainly don't know the answer, but I'm also not positing something for which there is zero evidence or even reasonable and logical supposition. You folks need to knock it off with these claims of creation by super intelligences and invisible life-forces and treating them as givens.


----------



## EdwardBast

Thanks Eugene! You saved me some thinking and writing in #58.


----------



## JAS

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm not insisting you must know the answer to the origins of the universe; I certainly don't know the answer, but I'm also not positing something for which there is zero evidence or even reasonable and logical supposition. You folks need to knock it off with these claims of creation by super intelligences and invisible life-forces and treating them as givens.


It is called faith because none of it is easily proven. If it could be proven with any reasonable degree of certainty, there would be no need (or room) for faith. My general rule of thumb is that anyone who is absolutely certain that he (or she) knows the truth (in regard to the great questions of life) is probably to be ignored, avoided, or both. To me, the willingness to acknowledge doubt is evidence of stable mind.


----------



## eugeneonagain

JAS said:


> It is called faith because none of it is easily proven. If it could be proven with any reasonable degree of certainty, there would be no need (or room) for faith. My general rule of thumb is that anyone who is absolutely certain that he (or she) knows the truth (in regard to the great questions of life) is probably to be ignored, avoided, or both. To me, the willingness to acknowledge doubt is evidence of stable mind.


I agree with you. I only wish the faithful could try and remember they are talking about their unsubstantiated beliefs and not known quantities when they put forward these beliefs as facts.


----------



## KenOC

JAS said:


> It is called faith because none of it is easily proven. If it could be proven with any reasonable degree of certainty, there would be no need (or room) for faith.


Kind of like flying pigs, then.


----------



## JAS

KenOC said:


> Kind of like flying pigs, then.


So you see them too?


----------



## Larkenfield

eugeneonagain said:


> Some sort of 'intelligence' moving through every aspect of matter? You're making a bold leap there Larkenfield. Who would call the workings of the universe a "spiritual life-force"? People who refuse to accept reasonable, naturalistic explanations that tally with expected outcomes perhaps? You, because you've decided to?
> 
> I don't think my own limited intellect is the highest thing in the universe (and I'd hazard a guess that no-one else in this thread thinks that), but it simply does not follow that because my intelligence is limited there is some other super intelligence which is not limited. You used the word "creation" multiple times throughout (and then used your free-pass card to assure us it wasn't a Santa Claus god), but what is it then?
> 
> I'm not insisting you must know the answer to the origins of the universe; I certainly don't know the answer, but I'm also not positing something for which there is zero evidence or even reasonable and logical supposition. You folks need to knock it off with these claims of creation by super intelligences and invisible life-forces and treating them as givens.


Good luck to you, eugeneonagain. Either the universe is alive and _conscious_ or not. If it's not, then you nor anybody else have anything to worry about, and when they reach the end of the trail they can welcome that great nihilistic abyss because everything was viewed as dead all along, and I've witnessed no evidence of that. It's no one else's problem if someone doesn't want to look a bit deeper and see that there may be more going on this planet and in creation - conscious energies and forces... something sacred - than just the skepticism and logic of the dry human intellect. I don't see a dead empty universe; I see an alive one and it doesn't have to be defined. I also view Mozart and Mahler as part of an alive, intelligent universe, despite the terrible destruction that can happen here, and I would imagine they thought so too, or why bother to create at all?


----------



## Strange Magic

Do we know the universe is "alive", and conscious yet?! I also don't see a dead, empty universe; I see a universe full of interesting things, many of which we are beginning to understand reasonably well. And here and there, there may be life; there is certainly life here. I also know where I came from: Mom and Dad.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> Good luck to you, eugeneonagain.* Either the universe is alive and conscious or not. If it's not, then you nor anybody else have anything to worry about,* and when they reach the end of the trail they can welcome that great nihilistic abyss because everything was viewed as dead all along, and I've witnessed no evidence of that. It's no one else's problem if you don't want to look around and see that there may be more going on this planet and in creation - conscious energies and forces - than just the skepticism and logic of the human intellect. *I don't see a dead empty universe; I see an alive one and it doesn't have to be defined.* *I also view Mozart and Mahler as part of an alive, intelligent universe,* despite the agonies that can happen here, and *I would imagine they thought so too, or why bother composing at all?*


There may be some sense in which "the universe" is "alive" and "conscious," but large observable portions of it give no apparent evidence that that is the case. I put "the universe" in quotes because attributing life and consciousness to it implies that we're speaking of some sort of entity, which is already problematic even before we make the attribution. You say you don't have to define what you're talking about, but a couple of statements suggest that you've gone some way toward definitions. This: "If it's not [alive and conscious], then [neither] you nor anybody else have anything to worry about..." But why would anybody have anything to worry about if the universe _were_ alive and conscious? And this: "I would imagine [Mozart and Mahler] thought so too, or why bother composing at all?" But why would the desire to compose music be dependent on belief in a living, conscious universe?

Such ideas are a bit reminiscent of the sentiments we hear expressed by people who can't understand why, if there isn't an omnipotent deity laying down rules for us and promising eternal life, anyone would desist from murder and rape, or even choose to go on living, as if the knowledge that one will die is a reason for getting it all over with as quickly as possible and possibly bumping off a few others in the process! I have never understood such sentiments, and in fact I can't think of a single way in which having some vague belief in an indefinable universal "super-intelligence" would alter my desires and my choices.

The sense that life is its own reason for being is surely our biological inheritance. If the universe has any suggestions to the contrary they haven't been communicated to me.


----------



## KenOC

I know of no evidence that the universe is "alive" or "conscious" and I'm not even sure what that means. Essentially ALL of mankind's progress in improving human life has been due to knowledge uncovered by informed observation, not superstition. In fact, I can think of no exceptions. Water disinfection, steam and electric power, antibiotics, vaccines, etc etc etc. And what, exactly, is on the other side to stack up against that?

Religion/superstition tries to disprove that which is clearly seen. Science welcomes, even demands, disproof of any or all of its hypotheses in order to better understand what IS, rather than what somebody wants us to believe.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Larkenfield said:


> Good luck to you, eugeneonagain. Either the universe is alive and _conscious_ or not. If it's not, then you nor anybody else have anything to worry about, and when they reach the end of the trail they can welcome that great nihilistic abyss because everything was viewed as dead all along, and I've witnessed no evidence of that.


I find it bizarre that you think not thinking of existence, and the consciousness of it, in terms of super-intelligences and 'spiritual life forces' is the road to nihilism (and all the baggage that word carried). With my limited intelligence I can only consider the purposes we make for ourselves personally and collectively as social beings. Not having been vouchsafed the reasons for existence I can only concentrate on the essences; in that respect I am agreeing with Sarte's maxim.



Larkenfield said:


> It's no one else's problem if someone doesn't want to look a bit deeper and see that there may be more going on this planet and in creation - conscious energies and forces... something sacred - than just the skepticism and logic of the dry human intellect. I don't see a dead empty universe; I see an alive one and it doesn't have to be defined. I also view Mozart and Mahler as part of an alive, intelligent universe, despite the terrible destruction that can happen here, and I would imagine they thought so too, or why bother to create at all?


"It's no-one else's problem if someone..." Gah! What a word-soup! Say what you mean man. I certainly do look deeper than the mere fact of existence and it can be done without resorting to mental mirages and vague talk of 'conscious energies' (do tell me about these and why it holds more weight than e.g. the idea of the zero-energy universe?). The scepticism and logic of the human intellect is all we have, it's just how we are; without which we certainly wouldn't have made it far enough to be discussing such matters on an internet forum.

I'm tired of religious and 'spiritual' people telling me that if I don't follow their faith-thinking I am trapped in a dry, narrow, plodding-empiricist existence. No sir, I am just as curious, but my limited time on earth makes me want to employ a gate-keeper for filtering out what looks like time-wasting claptrap. I do my best, like anyone else curious to know things.


----------



## JAS

I have always thought that the best argument in favor of "intelligent design" is the fact that we cannot read each other's mind, and the best argument against is the design of human teeth. (Who thought it was a good idea to put so many nerves in there? Why can't we have teeth like sharks do, that just fall out and get replaced?) A lot of people evidently need the idea that the universe is friendly, or at least benign as a reason to get up in the morning and to not constantly live in fear and bitterness of every little thing until the moment we pass on. (Others clearly do not need such reasons to avoid these issues, although everyone seems to form his or her own "mythology," even if it doesn't involve a deity or supernatural beings.) Religion has often been a motivator for people to do objectively good things, and to that extent it is a force for good and useful. Unfortunately, it too easily moves from "I should do this good thing" to "you should do this thing that I think is good" and to fall into doctrinal obsessions (you have to be baptized by full submersion in running water?) and magical thinking (keep calm, God is in control, as I saw on a T-shirt the other day, in which case he has a lot to answer for). At the very least, and more on-topic, I can say that religion has inspired a lot of very good art, including music.


----------



## Kate Segall

After scanning the posts it seems there is mostly a discussion of terms ie:sacred; religious; transcendent. For me there are certain pieces of music that just seem to touch the heart and set up a longing for "the good" whether that translates as peace, God, heaven, or.... Certain hymns seem to be everybody's favorite like How Great Thou Art. When you think how the Japanese have embraced Beethoven's Ninth it seems clear there are pieces that speak to all human hearts but I can't say why, being no specialist in mental responses to sound. Maybe it causes the brain to trigger dopamine. Who knows? Or maybe it has been inspired by a deep belief in God (or whatever one's deepest longing may be)and that belief is translated into the musical form and speaks to that in others.


----------



## Nate Miller

eugeneonagain said:


> I agree with you. I only wish the faithful could try and remember they are talking about their unsubstantiated beliefs and not known quantities when they put forward these beliefs as facts.


I actually took the time to have my beliefs substantiated and I have all the paperwork and receipts to prove the same

I had to present all that paperwork when I went sing Liturgical music this weekend. Had to cantor for the 10:30 yesterday


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Apparently you've stumbled into the wrong forum. There are lots of opportunities for stereotyping and insulting people's politics elsewhere on the net.


C'mon Woody you old stick in the mud. Why snub your nose at free entertainment?


----------



## Room2201974

Paging David Hume, pick up on line three!


----------



## Nate Miller

the thing that I think is funny about this thread is that after 5 pages, there really isn't anybody out there that can actually discuss Liturgical music with me because none of you have any idea what the Christian Liturgty even is, much less be able to speak intelligently about it.

no offense, if you want to be degenerate heathens, its a free country. At least my country is. So fair play to you, but you still can't hold an actual discussion about Liturgical music, because you have to separate the Christian liturgy from it first to even have a go at it, and that is the part that I think is pretty funny.

I mean its like trying to have a discussion about piano technique while never having seen a piano except for pictures in books, that's really how silly you guys sound.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows kicked off this thread. 'nuff said .


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Nate Miller said:


> If you are really talking about religious music, what you really mean is Liturgical music, or music for the liturgy .......
> 
> Anyway, so Liturgical music has nothing to do with spiritualism or any of that
> 
> *if you are a heathen, then you do not play Liturgical music. There's really no getting around the fact that you have to be a church going person to play music in the context of the Christian Liturgy. So no Church, no Church music. Period. End of discussion.*
> 
> and if you are not Catholic or at least one of the major protestant sects, then feel free to cry about it, but you still are not playing Liturgical music. It is our tradition for the last 2000 some odd years, so that's all there really is to it. Either you are or you aren't, and if you don't go to Church, then you aren't


As a spectator watching this debate from the cheap seats, I was thoroughly enjoying the various attempts to define the numinous and to 'other' others. But the real gem is the bit in bold above. It brought to mind a certain Ralph Vaughan Williams, in his own words a "happy agnostic" and by no stretch of the imagination a church-goer unless to play the organ, yet whose diverse compositions include settings of the Mass and other works that would, for most people, meet the definition of 'liturgical'. He would have been quite amused, I think, to learn that his Mass in G Minor was disqualified from the liturgical oeuvre because he wasn't a practising Catholic or "at least" one of the major Protestant sects.

But then I'm a practising heathen of many years standing, so what do I know?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Nate Miller said:


> I mean its like trying to have a discussion about piano technique while never having seen a piano except for pictures in books, that's really how silly you guys sound.


You're quite wrong. I can e.g. talk about Mozart's music without having lived in 18th century Vienna or ever been a member of the court there. I can talk about Plainchant and Gregorian Chant and the harmonic changes it underwent without ever having sung plainchant in a Church, let alone a medieval one.

Your argument, such as it is, is built on a foundation of - as you United States-ers call it - Jell-O.


----------



## Nate Miller

eugeneonagain said:


> You're quite wrong. I can e.g. talk about Mozart's music without having lived in 18th century Vienna or ever been a member of the court there. I can talk about Plainchant and Gregorian Chant and the harmonic changes it underwent without ever having sung plainchant in a Church, let alone a medieval one.
> 
> Your argument, such as it is, is built on a foundation of - as you United States-ers call it - Jell-O.


yes, but you know something about those subjects and that's my point.


----------



## Bulldog

Nate Miller said:


> the thing that I think is funny about this thread is that after 5 pages, there really isn't anybody out there that can actually discuss Liturgical music with me because none of you have any idea what the Christian Liturgty even is, much less be able to speak intelligently about it.
> 
> no offense, if you want to be degenerate heathens, its a free country. At least my country is. So fair play to you, but you still can't hold an actual discussion about Liturgical music, because you have to separate the Christian liturgy from it first to even have a go at it, and that is the part that I think is pretty funny.


Have you heard the news that the United States Attorney General has initiated a Religious Freedom Task Force? I don't know if music will be a part of this new initiative.


----------



## Nate Miller

Pat Fairlea said:


> As a spectator watching this debate from the cheap seats, I was thoroughly enjoying the various attempts to define the numinous and to 'other' others. But the real gem is the bit in bold above. It brought to mind a certain Ralph Vaughan Williams, in his own words a "happy agnostic" and by no stretch of the imagination a church-goer unless to play the organ, yet whose diverse compositions include settings of the Mass and other works that would, for most people, meet the definition of 'liturgical'. He would have been quite amused, I think, to learn that his Mass in G Minor was disqualified from the liturgical oeuvre because he wasn't a practising Catholic or "at least" one of the major Protestant sects.
> 
> But then I'm a practising heathen of many years standing, so what do I know?


nothing about the liturgy, and that's the point.

I never listen to Vaughan Williams, but not surprised to hear that his work wasn't accepted as being liturgical and so could not be played in the liturgy. but the thing is that what you and I think doesn't matter. It truly doesn't. So we can like it. Great. Still does not make it Liturgical music, though. Liturgical music has a function in the Christian Liturgy. The Vaughn Williams work was disqualified not because he wasn't a practicing Catholic, but because it did not fit in a Liturgical service.

here's the question to ask: What Sunday of the Liturgical Year was this a Mass for? Believe it or not, we don't just preach about whatever we feel like on Sunday. That's more a protestant thing, really. On every Sunday, the same Mass is said in the local languages all over the world. So the Mass has to actually fit the Liturgy for a particular day or it is not useable.

did you realize that? That may clear some confusion and help you see that you really don't know jack R about Liturgical music


----------



## Nate Miller

Bulldog said:


> Have you heard the news that the United States Attorney General has initiated a Religious Freedom Task Force? I don't know if music will be a part of this new initiative.


that's funny, but it still does not change what Liturgical music is and what it is not

look, I know I kicked a hornet's nest, but you guys really need to hear that you are way off or you would go through life being horribly ignorant, and I just couldn't bring myself to allow that to happen through my inaction.


----------



## Bulldog

Nate Miller said:


> that's funny, but it still does not change what Liturgical music is and what it is not
> 
> look, I know I kicked a hornet's nest, but you guys really need to hear that you are way off or you would go through life being horribly ignorant, and I just couldn't bring myself to allow that to happen through my inaction.


Your lack of sincerity is apparent. Maybe you know a lot about the subject, maybe not. Doesn't matter. I just want to listen to great music.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Monsignor Miller has particular views. I don't agree with them, but I can live with them. Otherwise he's a fine fellow and likes fried squirrels.


----------



## Nate Miller

Bulldog said:


> Your lack of sincerity is apparent. Maybe you know a lot about the subject, maybe not. Doesn't matter. I just want to listen to great music.


yes, listen to great music and not be bothered by all this religion stuff...yes, I get that. Believe me, there is no missing that message here on this board

its just that there are things about liturgical music that you will not understand or even know about unless you have some sort of a familiarity with the Christian Liturgy, and actually it is the Catholic Liturgy that really matters because that is the tradition that has centuries of history and actually predates harmony, meter, and all that other stuff we count on to make western music.

so if you just want to listen to music, that's fine with me. There's really a lot of it out there

but "religious" music is actually Liturgical music, and to fully appreciate Liturgical music you have to dig you some Christian Liturgy.


----------



## Nate Miller

I said this back on page 3, but nobody really reacted to this but this really illustrates what I am saying pretty well:

"I could take an aria from an opera and listen to it on its own, without any context, and enjoy it. I could even write a paper about it and I might even make some interesting musical observations. But if I didn't know what opera the aria was from, had no idea who the characters were, or any clue about the overall story of the libretto and what is happening dramatically in this aria I wouldn't be a terrible person....I would have just missed the point "

so none of you are bad people or wrong about anything, you are just missing the point


----------



## Bulldog

Nate Miller said:


> its just that there are things about liturgical music that you will not understand or even know about unless you have some sort of a familiarity with the Christian Liturgy, and actually it is the Catholic Liturgy that really matters because that is the tradition that has centuries of history and actually predates harmony, meter, and all that other stuff we count on to make western music.


The christian liturgy matters to you; for me, it is nothing. Since you have turned this thread into one of religious extremism, I'm riding off into the sunset.


----------



## Nate Miller

If pointing out that Litugical music has a function in the Christian Liturgy is your definition of extreamism, then you really got one more screw loose than I thought

but Happy Trails, never the less


----------



## Thomyum2

Look, let's keep this civil and on-topic and all try to learn something from each other. I'm actually quite interested in this line of thought. 

So, I'm a musician by training (albeit an amateur one), so I know some things about music. And I'm also a Catholic by faith, converted and confirmed in adulthood, and I've spent a fair amount of time participating in traditional Liturgy at a Benedictine monastery where I used to live, so I understand a bit about that too, although I'm by no means not a specialist in the area. So I understand where you're coming from, but I've honestly never thought about how the music itself has to 'function' for the Liturgy. Understood that the text might change, but that's just the setting, that's not necessarily how the music itself would need to be different for the specific occasion. How do you see it? As I mentioned in my post a few pages back (and yes, I really did react to your post  ), I don't see truly religious music as being meant to entertain, but rather to worship. So beyond the setting of the words, how should, or how does a composer approach music differently to make that music function properly for a given Mass. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.


----------



## Nate Miller

awesome! this is the sort of thing I was talking about....

so for instance, take the Penitential Rite near the opening of the Mass. Traditionally, the Kyrie is highly ornamented and this is a place where a composer could "stretch out" and write a more complex part. There are also settings for the Gloria that comes up right after. Now if you were doing a Mass for the Lenten Season, you clearly would omit the Gloria because that part is left out during Lent and Advent. 

Consider late in the Mass, in the Liturgy of the Eucharist that in the Angus Die, a bit of the host is placed in the chalice to symbolize the reunification of the Body and Blood (symbolizing the Resurrection because, as you know, it is the Resurrected Christ that we celebrate at the Eucharist) well, if all that is going on up on the Altar, then as a composer this thematic material might be brought out with the music in a similar way to the way a composer uses the libretto of an opera. But if you really did not know what was going on at that part of the Mass, wouldn't you say that you were missing the point? So an understanding of what is going on in the Liturgy actually does make a difference


there are also special Masses said for funerals, special feast days, and Holy Days, and all of those occasions can have extra musical themes that a composer can weave into his work

but that is really all I was talking about, that a Mass setting is not arbitrary, and Masses are not necessarily interchangeable

this is very different from other works because it does not matter which day you play Beethoven's 7th symphony, but you can't play a Mass for St John on Easter Sunday, no matter how pretty it is because there is something else going on that day Liturgically


----------



## Bulldog

Nate Miller said:


> If pointing out that Litugical music has a function in the Christian Liturgy is your definition of extreamism, then you really got one more screw loose than I thought
> 
> but Happy Trails, never the less


Let's see what we have here:

1. I have loose screws.
2. I'm horribly ignorant.
3. I'm a degenerate heathen.

Those are very extreme statements one would expect from a religious extremist.


----------



## Joe B

Nate Miller,

I've got a question for you. I've been watching this thread since the day it started. I'm just curious how you categorize works like the Stabat Mater, or song cycles to the Virgin Mary, etc.. I always considered these to be "religious" musical pieces, but I don't think they qualify by your definition.


----------



## Dan Ante

This has developed into a pack attack...............


----------



## JAS

Nate Miller said:


> . . . but that is really all I was talking about, that a Mass setting is not arbitrary, and Masses are not necessarily interchangeable
> 
> this is very different from other works because it does not matter which day you play Beethoven's 7th symphony, but you can't play a Mass for St John on Easter Sunday, no matter how pretty it is because there is something else going on that day Liturgically


This is an interesting point, in that the context for which the music was written can have an impact on how it is received. Listening to one piece or sequence out of the greater context may be much like listening to a single movement from a 3 or 4 movement symphony. Technically, there is nothing really wrong with that either, although it is certainly a different experience. But I think it is a bit excessive to suggest that these works _must_ be listened to in the original context, service and all, to appreciate them. (Knowing something about the greater context may be helpful, but to some extent, the music also must be effective as a musical experience.) A similar argument has been made about film music, and for many scores, particularly for scores in the older styles, it is no more true. The better film scores work in the film, and on their own. (Again, knowing the original context may also be helpful, but not essential.) And plenty of orchestral selections from operas can be appreciated as the "great bleeding chucks" that are sometimes scorned by opera purists. And if I feel like hearing Handel's Messiah, I really don't have to wait until Christmas or Easter.


----------



## millionrainbows

Liturgical music is utilitarian; it follows prescribed procedures of the ritual, and is made to "fit" the ritual. In this sense, it is not "music for music's sake," but it is music in the service of the Church and its rituals. Can it transcend these restrictions and become truly "transporting", or is it designed to do that at all?

For music, or any art, to become effective on a visceral level, and truly universal in its appeal, and effective as music, it has to somehow transcend the boundaries of what it was originally designed for.

If it does, then knowledge of its liturgical purpose becomes secondary. That is, if we are talking about art not restricted by it service to religion.


----------



## EdwardBast

Nate Miller said:


> yes, listen to great music and not be bothered by all this religion stuff...yes, I get that. Believe me, there is no missing that message here on this board
> 
> its just that there are things about liturgical music that you will not understand or even know about unless you have some sort of a familiarity with the Christian Liturgy, and actually it is the Catholic Liturgy that really matters because that is the tradition that has centuries of history and actually predates harmony, meter, and all that other stuff we count on to make western music.
> 
> so if you just want to listen to music, that's fine with me. There's really a lot of it out there
> 
> but "religious" music is actually Liturgical music, and to fully appreciate Liturgical music you have to dig you some Christian Liturgy.


If the Church or anyone else wanted the congregation to understand what was going on in the liturgy they wouldn't have performed it in Latin (and Greek) until the 1960s, would they? They even offered to burn at the stake anyone who printed it in the vernacular. So now it's suddenly necessary after fifteen centuries of blissful incomprehension that we understand the liturgy when listening to a sung Mass? Surely you jest? 

There are plenty of people who (claim to) listen to opera and lieder without caring about the text, and in those forms it is actually important. There is nothing wrong with listening to Masses as abstract musical works.


----------



## millionrainbows

Nate Miller said:


> yes, listen to great music and not be bothered by all this religion stuff...yes, I get that. Believe me, there is no missing that message here on this board
> 
> its just that there are things about liturgical music that you will not understand or even know about unless you have some sort of a familiarity with the Christian Liturgy, and actually it is the Catholic Liturgy that really matters because that is the tradition that has centuries of history and actually predates harmony, meter, and all that other stuff we count on to make western music.
> 
> so if you just want to listen to music, that's fine with me. There's really a lot of it out there
> 
> but "religious" music is actually Liturgical music, and to fully appreciate Liturgical music you have to dig you some Christian Liturgy.


Actually, what Nate Miller is saying is largely correct; if you want to _understand_ "religious" music, you have to understand the context. But the caveat here is the phrase "to fully appreciate." This implies that only believers or participants in the ritual will "fully" appreciate the music.
What if I study all the background, and read Willi Appel's "Gregorian Chant" book, and learn all about it, yet, I am still a "non-believer" who is more interested in music than religion. Am I able to "fully appreciate it" then? I think that's dependent on how good the music is "on its own," apart from its context in a liturgical ritual.

Is this "fair" to the art, to remove it from its context, even if we fully understand its purpose and background? I think it is, because I "believe" in art.


----------



## Woodduck

Nate Miller said:


> the thing that I think is funny about this thread is that after 5 pages, *there really isn't anybody out there that can actually discuss Liturgical music with me because none of you have any idea what the Christian Liturgty even is, much less be able to speak intelligently about it.*
> 
> no offense, if you want to be *degenerate heathens*, its a free country. At least my country is. So fair play to you, but you still can't hold an actual discussion about Liturgical music, because you have to separate the Christian liturgy from it first to even have a go at it, and that is the part that I think is pretty funny.
> 
> I mean its like trying to have a discussion about piano technique while never having seen a piano except for pictures in books, that's really how silly you guys sound.


You may be surprised to learn that some degenerate heathens have extensive backgrounds in churchy things. Some have even functioned as salaried church musicians charged with making decisions about music suitable for service use, or with executing music specifically written for liturgical purposes. Some could therefore understand perfectly well the institutional context in which such music is utilized, yet still maintain that it may be just as meaningful, but in a different way, when heard outside that context.

As millionrainbows has just pointed out, how well music can survive on its own may actually be a test of music's inherent quality and ultimate value. Some of what I had to play as an organist, effective as it was in its liturgical context, will never be of interest to anyone outside that context, and in such a case you are correct in insisting that knowledge of the liturgy is essential. But no one needs to know for which week after Easter a particular Bach cantata was written in order to derive full musical satisfaction from it, and in the case of degenerate heathens like me the power of some "religious" music may even be diminished by its association with ideas I consider wrong, nonsensical or insignificant. Great music is apt to be larger than the ideas that inspire it, or the purposes to which it is conventionally put.


----------



## KenOC

EdwardBast said:


> If the Church or anyone else wanted the congregation to understand what was going on in the liturgy they wouldn't have performed it in Latin (and Greek) until the 1960s, would they?


Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional,
There, the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.

(etc.)


----------



## Dan Ante

Bulldog said:


> Let's see what we have here:
> 
> 1. I have loose screws.
> 2. I'm horribly ignorant.
> 3. I'm a degenerate heathen.
> 
> Those are very extreme statements one would expect from a religious extremist.


And that's only the beginning...


----------



## SixFootScowl

Nate Miller said:


> ...did you realize that? That may clear some confusion and help you see that you really don't know jack R about Liturgical music


You might do well to start a thread specifically about liturgical music. This thread is way too broad and most people don't care about liturgical music, even a lot of Christians don't care. The Bible does not require Christians to use liturgical music. It is a preference of some churches (Catholic, Lutheran, and perhaps Episcopalian).


----------



## Martin D

I have a strong liking for Christian religious music from of all ages, and my collection is not missing any major work. I've studied the subject in some detail, partly as a consequence of having been brought up in the R.C faith, and having remained an adherent in later life. I would say that, for me personally, this knowledge of, and familiarity with, the R.C liturgy has allowed me to have a better idea of what's going on in any particular sacred piece, and from this I would say that I have derived some added enjoyment from the music.

However, I would not presume that what works for me is generally applicable. I don't agree that one needs to know anything about the liturgical setting of any particular piece of religious music in order to obtain full enjoyment from it. It is a matter of common obsevation that many people who don't profess any allegiance to the Christian faith still seem to enjoy religious music.

Nor do I believe that if people who have little or no interest in Christianity were to take the trouble to acquire a greater knowldege of the liturgical aspects of the music they enjoy this will necessarily enhance their appreciation of the music. Rather, for some people, the opposite effect might result, as for example reportedly happened when many Roman Catholics left the Church once the traditional latin Mass was replaced by the vernacular at mass from about 1965, in the wake of Vat 2.

A similar argument applies in the case of opera. I enjoy listening to some opera works, but in many cases I have only the scantiest knowledge of the overall plot or what they're singing about in any particular aria/duet. I doubt that my liking for any work would be enhanced if I were to acquire a better knowledge of the plot, etc.

In the context of opera, I'm reminded of the statement by Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding in _The Shawshank Redemption_ when he and fellow inmates heard the 'Su l'aria' duet from Mozart's Le Nozze over the prison's tannoy system:

"_I have no idea to this day what those two Italian ladies were singing about. Truth is, I don't wanna know. Some things are best left unsaid. I'd like to think they were singing about something so beautiful it can't be expressed in words, and it makes your heart ache because of it. I tell you those voices soared, higher and farther than anybody in a grey place dares to dream. It was like some beautiful bird flapped into our drab little cage and made these walls dissolve away, and for the briefest of moments, every last man in Shawshank felt free"_.​


----------



## Nate Miller

Joe B said:


> Nate Miller,
> 
> I've got a question for you. I've been watching this thread since the day it started. I'm just curious how you categorize works like the Stabat Mater, or song cycles to the Virgin Mary, etc.. I always considered these to be "religious" musical pieces, but I don't think they qualify by your definition.


The Stabat Mater can function within the Mass as a hymn. The melody is actually used in several other hymns as well.

But Stabat Mater is an old chant, too, with a long history and it also has a place in the monasteries as they perform the Offices throughout the day


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> You may be surprised to learn that some degenerate heathens have extensive backgrounds in churchy things. Some have even functioned as salaried church musicians charged with making decisions about music suitable for service use, or with executing music specifically written for liturgical purposes. Some could therefore understand perfectly well the institutional context in which such music is utilized, yet still maintain that it may be just as meaningful, but in a different way, when heard outside that context.
> 
> As millionrainbows has just pointed out, how well music can survive on its own may actually be a test of music's inherent quality and ultimate value. Some of what I had to play as an organist, effective as it was in its liturgical context, will never be of interest to anyone outside that context, and in such a case you are correct in insisting that knowledge of the liturgy is essential. But no one needs to know for which week after Easter a particular Bach cantata was written in order to derive full musical satisfaction from it, and in the case of degenerate heathens like me the power of some "religious" music may even be diminished by its association with ideas I consider wrong, nonsensical or insignificant. Great music is apt to be larger than the ideas that inspire it, or the purposes to which it is conventionally put.


Would be interested in reading your take on this statement which is part of the promotional material written in reference to the "Bach 333" edition which will be released in October -

https://www.bach333.com/

"Why 333?

2018 marks 333 years since the birth of Johann Sebastian Bach; music in Bach's time went far beyond the superficial process of just placing pleasing harmonies on manuscript paper - it had religious significance and meaning built into its very structure.

Of particular prominence in some of Bach's music are references to the number three, reflecting the important doctrine of God's Tri-unity which lies at the core of Bach's Lutheran faith. So for Bach at least, 333 would have had real significance.
The symbolism of three, representing the Father, Son and Holy Ghost of the Trinity, is everywhere in the collection of organ works Clavier-Übung III (1739).

There are 27 pieces in the collection (3 x 3 x 3), perhaps representing the 27 books of the New Testament. The rather incongruous inclusion of the Four Duets BWV 802-805 which were probably not originally for organ, prompts speculation that they are mainly there to increase the total piece count to 27. The work opens and closes with the Prelude and Fugue in E flat major BWV 552 with its key signature of 3 flats. This is Bach's only use of this key in a free organ work. The Prelude has 3 strongly contrasted subjects, while the Fugue is tripartite with 27 entries (3 x 3 x 3) of the theme in total.

The nine (3 x 3) liturgical mass settings BWV 669-677 refer to the three of the Trinity in the Mass, with specific reference to Father, Son and Holy host in the corresponding texts. The "large" settings are momentous pieces of music where the first Gott Vater in Ewigkeit BWV 669 puts the chorale in the upper part. The second, Christe aller Welt Trost BWV 670 places the chorale in the middle of the texture as a tenor part. The final Kyrie, Gott Heiliger Geist BWV 671 places its chorale melody deep down in the pedal part. Here we have Trinity symbolism at work in both a literary and musico-pictorial sense.

The significance of the Trinity to Bach's thinking is expounded in one of his least-known, shortest, apparently simple and insignificant works, the one-line Canon Trias Harmonica BWV 1072. The term "trias harmonica" (harmonic triad) was coined by Johannes Lippius in 1612 and is a set of three pitches that can be stacked vertically in thirds.
"Trias harmonica gives a beautiful image or parallel of the Holy Trinity … Could there be a clearer parallel to show us as though in a mirror the Divine Three-in-One nature than this?"
(Andreas Werckmeister, 1687)."

I pre-ordered mine today - I realize that this type of release is not for everyone but it certainly is for me...

- Syd


----------



## Nate Miller

Woodduck said:


> You may be surprised to learn that some degenerate heathens have extensive backgrounds in churchy things. Some have even functioned as salaried church musicians charged with making decisions about music suitable for service use, or with executing music specifically written for liturgical purposes. Some could therefore understand perfectly well the institutional context in which such music is utilized, yet still maintain that it may be just as meaningful, but in a different way, when heard outside that context.
> 
> As millionrainbows has just pointed out, how well music can survive on its own may actually be a test of music's inherent quality and ultimate value. Some of what I had to play as an organist, effective as it was in its liturgical context, will never be of interest to anyone outside that context, and in such a case you are correct in insisting that knowledge of the liturgy is essential. But no one needs to know for which week after Easter a particular Bach cantata was written in order to derive full musical satisfaction from it, and in the case of degenerate heathens like me the power of some "religious" music may even be diminished by its association with ideas I consider wrong, nonsensical or insignificant. Great music is apt to be larger than the ideas that inspire it, or the purposes to which it is conventionally put.


no, I wouldn't be surprised at all. A lot of keyboard players take work as Church organists. I've know several who were just as spiteful and hateful towards the Church as you all here.

And sure, you can take music out of its context and enjoy it just like I can listen to an aria and not even know what opera its from.

what I am saying is that is sure is silly listening to grown men who hate God and the Church talk about religious music like it was some sort of hippy love fest.

that's all I'm saying, really. Its Church music so you have to accept that the Church exists

but feel free to bash away at me and at religious people in general. Don't let me slow you down there


----------



## Thomyum2

OK, so getting back to the musical aspect of this...let me ask again. So the Liturgy does vary according to the calendar, so there would be different chants and sections in the ritual for a given celebration, but how does the role of music change accordingly, other than to just set a different text? What I'm asking is how does this change the composition, or the character of the music. What role does the music itself play in this? It's always intrigued me to think about music in the context of the church - is it's purpose to entertain and thus make the service more 'enjoyable'? Or should it be like in an opera where the function is to set a mood that is appropriate to the emotional state of the occasion or the stories that are referenced in that particular scripture? Or should it engender a 'spiritual' type of experience to make the celebrant 'feel' God's presence more? Or is it's role somehow in service of the ritual itself? 

I think different churches and different parishes take different approaches to the role that music should play and I'm not sure there is a set and fixed answer to this. In fact, in more than one Catholic church that I've attended, I've found it interesting that the hymn book has included such music as four-part Protestant hymns (even including 'Ein Feste Burg' which I find an odd fit), Negro spirituals and popular songs - it almost seems that even the traditional Church has borrowed elements from outside traditions that it finds useful.


----------



## Nate Miller

there are certain responses during the Mass that are sung by the congregation. Those melodies in all of those responses are what is called the "Mass setting" 

In each country, the college of Bishops for that country will define the set of Mass settings that will be used at all the Masses in that country. Each country can pick different Mass settings that suit their own vernacular.

Within that framework, each Dioceses can give a more narrow guidance. For example, where I live, the Diocese requests that all parishes know at least one of two particular Mass settings. One of them is the Mass of St Francis Cabrini, so that is the one we use at my parish right now.

but the Mass setting is really what they are talking about when they say that somebody "wrote a Mass" in C minor or something like that. What they mean is that they wrote the melody and accompaniment for the responses, may be even wrote out the 4 part vocal arrangements and everything.

Just as an aside, but the Vaughn Williams Mass that someone talked about earlier...I've not heard it, but it could very well be that the melodies for these responses were just beyond what you can expect from the 800 or so people who showed up for the 9:30 at St Pete's. It may have been too technical a piece for laypeople and not practical for an actual Mass and there wasn't any more to it than that behind why it was not adopted by the Church. I don't know, but I'm just sayin'....

anyway...

the part that changes each week is the Psalm and the Gospel Acclamation. Those psalm readings are all set throughout the year, and are on a 3 year cycle with the Sunday readings. The psalms are written in 4 part with a descant, but in practice they are often sung by a soloist called a Cantor. The same format is used for the Gospel Acclamation, and these parts are distributed to all the parishes in books published for the cantors and the choirs. So when I travel across the country to see my mom and dad, not only will that parish be saying the same Mass that Sunday that is being said in my home parish, but because I am still in America, the melodies for the Psalm and Gospel will be exactly the same one we use on the east coast as they use out west.


----------



## Nate Miller

millionrainbows said:


> Liturgical music is utilitarian; it follows prescribed procedures of the ritual, and is made to "fit" the ritual. In this sense, it is not "music for music's sake," but it is music in the service of the Church and its rituals. Can it transcend these restrictions and become truly "transporting", or is it designed to do that at all?
> 
> For music, or any art, to become effective on a visceral level, and truly universal in its appeal, and effective as music, it has to somehow transcend the boundaries of what it was originally designed for.
> 
> If it does, then knowledge of its liturgical purpose becomes secondary. That is, if we are talking about art not restricted by it service to religion.


that is something that I can agree with, and when you put it like that, I can accept taking the liturgical purposes and setting them to one side for the moment. But we need to keep in mind that this music was written for a specific purpose, a religious purpose, and so when it comes to the interpretation, the liturgical use can actually be very good information to consider. This is really what I'm saying. the danger in completely discounting the religious part of it is that your interpretation can seriously be missing an important point.


----------



## EdwardBast

Nate Miller said:


> no, I wouldn't be surprised at all. A lot of keyboard players take work as Church organists. I've know several who were just as spiteful and hateful towards the Church as you all here.
> 
> And sure, you can take music out of its context and enjoy it just like I can listen to an aria and not even know what opera its from.
> 
> what I am saying is that is sure is silly listening to grown men who hate God and the Church talk about religious music like it was some sort of hippy love fest.
> 
> that's all I'm saying, really. Its Church music so you have to accept that the Church exists
> 
> but feel free to bash away at me and at religious people in general. Don't let me slow you down there


Some of us know the liturgy quite well. It was pounded into our minds as part of the brainwashing, psychological torture, and mental molestation we were subjected to until we were old enough to fight back. Yeah, believe me, we know the Church exists. You should be more understanding when those who enjoy Dufay's and Josquin's artistic achievement choose not to dwell on its liturgical context. We've earned the right to despise it.


----------



## Nate Miller

EdwardBast said:


> Some of us know the liturgy quite well. It was pounded into our brains as part of the brainwashing, psychological torture, and mental molestation we were subjected to until we were old enough to fight back. Yeah, believe me, we know the Church exists. You should be more understanding when those who enjoy Dufay's and Josquin's artistic achievement choose not to dwell on its liturgical context. We've earned the right to despise it.


well, it takes a special kind of jackass to despise love, forgiveness and understanding


----------



## eugeneonagain

And perhaps an even more special one to imagine that is the sole property of the Catholic Church (or even its sole reason for existence).


----------



## Woodduck

Nate Miller said:


> no, I wouldn't be surprised at all. A lot of keyboard players take work as Church organists. I've know several who were just as spiteful and hateful towards the Church as you all here.
> 
> And sure, you can take music out of its context and enjoy it just like I can listen to an aria and not even know what opera its from.
> 
> what I am saying is that is sure is silly listening to grown men who hate God and the Church talk about religious music like it was some sort of hippy love fest.
> 
> that's all I'm saying, really. Its Church music so you have to accept that the Church exists
> 
> but feel free to bash away at me and at religious people in general. Don't let me slow you down there


I can't speak for everyone here, but personally I'm not here to "bash away" at anyone. I don't think that contending that religious music's value can be independent of anyone's religious beliefs or observances constitutes "spite" or "hatred." I had many rewarding years as both tenor soloist and organist in several churches of different theological persuasions and did not feel spite or hatred for anyone who employed me.

Your religion is your business alone, as is the effect of it on your perception of music. You apparently have no idea of, no interest in, and no respect for, what the "Et incarnatus" and "Crucifixus" of Bach's B-minor Mass might mean to a person who does not participate in church services or believe in the physical incarnation or death of God in human form. But because you don't, it's presumptuous of you to claim that only someone who participates in those beliefs and practices can properly appreciate the music Bach wrote to those texts. A religious person will certainly be affected by associations around musical works related to his own tradition, but even so not every believer will experience the music in the same way. Every person perceives a work of art in his own way, and no way is right or wrong, regardless of tradition or the intentions of the artist.

That said, I really wonder why you seem to want to limit the subject of this thread to what you call "liturgical music," as you appear to say in your first post. That was clearly not the stated intent of the originator of the thread, which is why he titled it "Religious" Music. Much music on religious themes is not specifically intended for liturgical use, many religions that use music don't have liturgies at all, and a goodly amount of music set to religious texts or inspired by religious ideas has been composed by nonbelievers and is unlikely ever to be performed in a church. The boundaries of "religious music" are really quite unclear, just as the boundaries of "religion" are unclear. (A Christian may or may not regard Zen Buddhism or Wicca as "religions," and some Christians are fond of telling atheists that a lack of belief in their God is itself a "religion," but all of that should serve as a caution against mistaking words for realities and making presumptuous statements about others. Reality is more nuanced than we tend to want it to be.)

As far as actual liturgical music is concerned, almost the only specifically liturgical music I ever performed in some twenty-five years as a church musician was what I played as organist in a Lutheran church, and it's music that only a Lutheran would have any interest in. I also composed and improvised short choral and organ pieces to be used in services, and I like to think that they fulfilled their purpose well and even had some intrinsic beauty. But no one will be discussing such music here.

I'll conclude by mentioning someone I met who told me that she had thrilled to Mahler's Symphony #2, (the "Resurrection") but was disappointed to discover later that the words being sung were about resurrection. I have no idea what she originally imagined the piece was about, if anything, but evidently the sheer splendor of the music had inspired some profound feelings in her which the concept of resurrection did not. It's a good illustration of the way art can transcend any literal meanings we attach to it and speak to parts of human nature independent of, and deeper than, any ideology.


----------



## Nate Miller

Woodduck said:


> That said, I really wonder why you seem to want to limit the subject of this thread to what you call "liturgical music," as you appear to say in your first post.


that's easy...because its silly to listen to grown men pretend that religious music has nothing to do with religion

listen, you got a personal problem with religion, that's nice, but you are taking out your personal problem with religion on me because I happen to mention that liturgical music actually has a function in the Christian liturgy.

I'll pray for you, but you got some problems that have nothing to do with me and what I said. But don't worry about it, you clearly are not alone, so its not like you are some sort of monster.


----------



## mmsbls

Please refrain from negative, personal comments. Focus on aspects of the music instead.


----------



## Woodduck

mmsbls said:


> Please refrain from negative, personal comments. Focus on aspects of the music instead.


I tried that and look where it got me.


----------



## EdwardBast

Nate Miller said:


> well, it takes a special kind of jackass to despise love, forgiveness and understanding


It takes a special kind of blindness not to see that a business model thriving for centuries on mentally abusing young children by threatening them with eternal torment in a lake of fire is not based on love, forgiveness and understanding. The rabid penguin who taught my fifth grade class told me that by having wrong thoughts I was pounding nails into the living flesh of Christ. Does that sound loving to you?


----------



## millionrainbows

Nate Miller said:


> ...I can accept taking the liturgical purposes and setting them to one side for the moment.
> 
> But we need to keep in mind that this music was written for a specific purpose, a religious purpose, and so when it comes to the interpretation, the liturgical use can actually be very good information to consider. This is really what I'm saying. the danger in completely discounting the religious part of it is that your interpretation can seriously be missing an important point.


This is a good point, as much as many people here would hesitate to recognize. Church music was written with a specific religious purpose in mind, as a utilitarian tool of the Church. It was designed to enhance and verify the belief system which underlies it. In this sense, liturgical and Church music is a "spiritual technology" which is designed to have a tangible effect on its listeners, to enhance and validate their faith.

For a non-believer, listening to this music without any faith in what it is propounding is similar to having sex with an inflatable doll; going through the motions is not quite the same as "the real thing."

Fortunately for me, I am not in the least hindered by this, since in my philosophy, all religions are secondary, and are ideally purposed to enhance Man's innate spirituality; a spirituality which existed and was manifest before the advent of any religion. So, in this sense, I am not a true "non-believer," since I acknowledge the innate spirituality in all of us.

Thus, I am able to recognize the essential spiritual qualities of religiously-designed music, and "get off" on it spiritually, just as an adherent would.

But a _true_ non-believer? Someone who actively denies and rejects the metaphysical, or labels themselves as "atheist" without qualifying exactly what that means? That seems like a denial of the religious technology (as music) itself, reducing it to an empty shell, inflated with nothingness. No big thrill there. Just an inflatable doll.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Blah blah blah... wash, rinse, repeat. A philosophy that means everything and nothing.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *For a non-believer, listening to this music without any faith in what it is propounding is similar to having sex with an inflatable doll*; going through the motions is not quite the same as "the real thing."
> 
> *Fortunately for me, I am not in the least hindered by this*, since in my philosophy, all religions are secondary, and are ideally purposed to enhance Man's innate spirituality; a spirituality which existed and was manifest before the advent of any religion. So, in this sense, I am not a true "non-believer," since I acknowledge the innate spirituality in all of us.
> 
> *Thus, I am able to recognize the essential spiritual qualities of religiously-designed music, and "get off" on it spiritually, just as an adherent would.
> *
> *But a true non-believer? *Someone who actively denies and rejects the metaphysical, or labels themselves as "atheist" without qualifying exactly what that means? That seems like a denial of the religious technology (as music) itself, reducing it to *an empty shell, inflated with nothingness.* No big thrill there. Just an inflatable doll.


As my aunt Helen used to say when someone was insufferably full of himself (and his "spirituality"): "Well pin a rose on you!"

Your description of sex with an inflatable doll has a much greater ring of authenticity than your description of the musical experience of a "true nonbeliever," which, since you are a deeply "spiritual" person who apparently "gets off" on a number of interesting things and are too exquisitely attuned to "being" to know what "true nonbelievers" experience, you are unqualified to talk about. Not that that ever stops you when the opportunity to belittle "nonbelievers" arises.

"An empty shell, inflated with nothingness." I couldn't have said it better. Pin a rose on you.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woo-Woo Defined:

"Woo-woo is a slang term used to describe those who believe in phenomena that lacks substantiated evidence to prove the claim of the phenomena. It can also refer to the explanations for the specific phenomena itself. It also describes the method a person uses to understand such phenomena, based on the subjective nature or their personal philosophy which can be neither proven nor disproven. In this sense, one could associate woo-woo with philosophy, religion, or any other branch of study concerning itself with knowledge that is open to interpretation or subjectivity."


----------



## Joe B

millionrainbows said:


> ...Fortunately for me, I am not in the least hindered by this, since* in my philosophy, all religions are secondary, and are ideally purposed to enhance Man's innate spirituality*; a spirituality which existed and was manifest before the advent of any religion. So, in this sense, I am not a true "non-believer," since I acknowledge the innate spirituality in all of us.


Don't ever read any Nietzsche!


----------



## JAS

Joe B said:


> Don't ever read any Nietzsche!


That is generally good advice to anyone.


----------



## Thomyum2

millionrainbows said:


> In this sense, liturgical and Church music is a "spiritual technology" which is designed to have a tangible effect on its listeners, to enhance and validate their faith.
> 
> For a non-believer, listening to this music without any faith in what it is propounding is similar to having sex with an inflatable doll; going through the motions is not quite the same as "the real thing."
> ...
> 
> Thus, I am able to recognize the essential spiritual qualities of religiously-designed music, and "get off" on it spiritually, just as an adherent would.


Are you being serious here or just provocative? I have to admit that I find this a very alien line of thinking. Authentic spirituality is more akin to giving than receiving - the idea that the ultimate purpose of faith or liturgy is to have some kind of 'experience' would be close to heretical. For the faithful, liturgy and any music associated with it serves to glorify God, not to create some kind of 'tangible effect on its listeners' or to serve as some kind of commodity that can be consumed by a congregant for purposes of personal satisfaction or to 'get off' spiritually.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Blah blah blah... wash, rinse, repeat. A philosophy that means everything and nothing.


You're talking about "atheism," right?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...since you are a deeply "spiritual" person who apparently "gets off" on a number of interesting things and are too exquisitely attuned to "being" to know what "true nonbelievers" experience, you are unqualified to talk about. Not that that ever stops you when the opportunity to belittle "nonbelievers" arises.


So, what DO they believe, if anything?



Woodduck said:


> "An empty shell, inflated with nothingness." I couldn't have said it better...


You can have that one, to describe a philosophy in which Man is at the center.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Woo-Woo Defined:
> 
> "Woo-woo is a slang term used to describe those who believe in phenomena that lacks substantiated evidence to prove the claim of the phenomena. It can also refer to the explanations for the specific phenomena itself. It also describes the method a person uses to understand such phenomena, based on the subjective nature or their personal philosophy which can be neither proven nor disproven. In this sense, one could associate woo-woo with philosophy, religion, or any other branch of study concerning itself with knowledge that is open to interpretation or subjectivity."


You're talking about "atheism," right?


----------



## millionrainbows

Thomyum2 said:


> Are you being serious here or just provocative? I have to admit that I find this a very alien line of thinking. Authentic spirituality is more akin to giving than receiving - the idea that the ultimate purpose of faith or liturgy is to have some kind of 'experience' would be close to heretical. For the faithful, liturgy and any music associated with it serves to glorify God, not to create some kind of 'tangible effect on its listeners' or to serve as some kind of commodity that can be consumed by a congregant for purposes of personal satisfaction or to 'get off' spiritually.


"The holy spirit" can fill people, and this is well-known in religions such as Pentecostals and Jehova's Witnesses.

Messiaen is a "mystic Catholic," so it's very possible there as well. What kind of strict, empty, meaningless Catholicism are you talking about?









​


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> "The holy spirit" can fill people...


Or it just might be a hearty dinner followed by a rich dessert. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Bulldog said:


> Or it just might be a hearty dinner followed by a rich dessert. :lol:


That must be the "inflated gasbag" doll description I used earlier. I was wondering what it "ran" on.


----------



## eugeneonagain

You are easily providing enough hot-air for that already.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> You're talking about "atheism," right?


Why is atheism in quotes in your formulations .


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> You are easily providing enough hot-air for that already.


Thanks. BTW, _great_ post of yours on the Beethoven's Ninth thread.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Thanks. BTW, _great_ post of yours on the Beethoven's Ninth thread.


Thanks, I'm trying to reach your standard.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> So, what DO they believe, if anything?


About what? And please don't say "being."


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> About what? And please don't say "being."


They don't need to believe in anything; all they want is proof. That must mean "nothing." There's too many different varieties of "atheists", anyway.

"Belief" is the experience that something exists, without actually seeing it. Only the effect of it is noticed, because it is not visible except as an interactive effect. This is being (invisible) and mind (visible).

Like in Beethoven's Ninth, where Schiller's Ode to Joy says,

You millions, be embraced.
This kiss is for all the world!
Brothers, above the starry canopy
There must dwell a loving Father.
Do you fall in worship, you millions?
World, do you know your creator?
Seek him in the heavens
Above the stars must He dwell.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Why is atheism in quotes in your formulations .


Is that a question or a complaint? 

I put it in quotes because it's a term that doesn't really mean any one thing. Look it up on Wikepedia. An atheist could be anyone who has replaced traditional religious faith with some sort of human activity or philosophy, such as art or poetry or fascism. They could be "spiritual" or not. Technically, Buddhists are a-theistic because they do not believe in a deity; but children are "non-explicit" atheists.

If any term ever deserved to be in quotes, it's that one.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Is that a question or a complaint?
> 
> I put it in quotes because it's a term that doesn't really mean any one thing. Look it up on Wikepedia. An atheist could be anyone who has replaced traditional religious faith with some sort of human activity or philosophy, such as art or poetry or fascism. They could be "spiritual" or not. Technically, Buddhists are a-theistic because they do not believe in a deity; but children are "non-explicit" atheists.
> 
> If any term ever deserved to be in quotes, it's that one.


I always thought it meant somebody who was an a (as in not or non) theist. Somebody who did not believe there are gods or a god. Probably because they saw neither evidence nor predicate for such belief, like not believing in astrology. I do believe in black holes, though, even though I cannot see them. Their effects are noticed.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Is that a question or a complaint?
> 
> I put it in quotes because it's a term that doesn't really mean any one thing. Look it up on Wikepedia. An atheist could be anyone who has replaced traditional religious faith with some sort of human activity or philosophy, such as art or poetry or fascism. They could be "spiritual" or not. Technically, Buddhists are a-theistic because they do not believe in a deity; but children are "non-explicit" atheists.
> 
> If any term ever deserved to be in quotes, it's that one.


So, we look it up on Wikipedia, as recommended, and we find something really quite simple to explain.



> *Atheism* is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP]


What follows is an exploration of the subtleties of the broad, less broad and the narrow, but the focus remains clear enough. What else atheists believe in, once their atheism is established, requires some other label; quote marks are not required.

Unless we're going to talk about "Christians" and "Muslims" simply on the basis that there are variations on those faiths.

(I wonder if Mr Magle should be asked to change the title of this forum to Talk "Classical"?)


----------



## Fredx2098

As far as I know there is no reason believe that a god exists, or even a reason to create this concept of a "god". I'm not necessarily against someone believing that there's a god, but I'm against them trying to argue that they're right just because they believe what they've been spoon-fed to believe hard enough. I'm also very, very anti-religion, as in, established, man-made religions. As far as I know there is no benefit, and it has caused probably a majority of the world's problems throughout history. At the very least it causes more harm than good. Man-made religions are like sports teams. You cheer on the one you grew up with and you look down upon and bicker with everyone else.


----------



## KenOC

Fredx2098 said:


> As far as I know there is no reason believe that a god exists, or even a reason to create this concept of a "god".


Ooh, you're in BIG trouble!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

KenOC said:


> Ooh, you're in BIG trouble!


Fred's my main man.

It helps to control the masses (just ask the Romans)


----------



## Fredx2098

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Fred's my main man.
> 
> It helps to control the masses (just ask the Romans)


True, but when you can tell people that they have to do what you say or else they'll be smitten by the infallible and vengeful god, things can get a little out of hand. _*cough* the Crusades *cough* religious terrorism *cough* *cough* religion enforced by law *cough*_ Dang my throat is clear now so I can't go on.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> If any term ever deserved to be in quotes, it's that one.


Any more than "spiritual", "religious", "being" or "boring"?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Fredx2098 said:


> True, but when you can tell people that they have to do what you say or else they'll be smitten by the infallible and vengeful god, things can get a little out of hand. _*cough* the Crusades *cough* religious terrorism *cough* *cough* religion enforced by law *cough*_ Dang my throat is clear now so I can't go on.


You do not understand that if it were not for the Christians checking the spread of Islam all Europe would have been taken over and made to convert to Islam, die, or live in subjugation with no legal rights. Insofar as the Crusades checked the spread of Islam it was a good thing.


----------



## Strange Magic

Fritz Kobus said:


> You do not understand that if it were not for the Christians checking the spread of Islam all Europe would have been taken over and made to convert to Islam, die, or live in subjugation with no legal rights. Insofar as the Crusades checked the spread of Islam it was a good thing.


Actually, the Crusades exacerbated the spread of Islam. It didn't help when Catholic Crusaders seized Constantinople from its Orthodox Christian rulers, further weakening the defenses of Europe against a re-energized Islam. A good history book will clarify.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, the Crusades exacerbated the spread of Islam. It didn't help when Catholic Crusaders seized Constantinople from its Orthodox Christian rulers, further weakening the defenses of Europe against a re-energized Islam. A good history book will clarify.


That is why I said "Insofar as the Crusades checked the spread...".


----------



## Strange Magic

Fritz Kobus said:


> That is why I said "Insofar as the Crusades checked the spread...".


By the time of the Crusades, the first wave of Arab Islamic expansion was long burned out, as was the second wave under the Seljuk Turks. The Islamic world was weak and was carved up into a series of petty local entities that offered little resistance to the Crusaders for quite some time. An even graver threat to Islam were the invasions of the Mongols under Hulagu. It was the trigger of the Crusades, then the impetus from the final defeat of the Mongols by Baibars the Mameluke, and finally the rise of the Ottoman Empire from the ruins of the Seljuk state that led to the great wave of Islam sweeping into southeastern Europe. The Crusades, by stopping the centripetal dissolution of Islam and leading to the growing resistance of a more united Islam under Saladin and his successors, were actually instrumental in reinvigorating Islamic expansion.


----------



## Fredx2098

Islam is another man-made religion...


----------



## Guest

Fredx2098 said:


> Islam is another man-made religion...


I can't think there's any that are not man-made.... ?


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> So, we look it up on Wikipedia, as recommended, and we find something really quite simple to explain...What follows is an exploration of the subtleties of the broad, less broad and the narrow, but the focus remains clear enough. What else atheists believe in, once their atheism is established, requires some other label; quote marks are not required.


So that's _why_ it's in quotes; there is no affirmation of any belief system; only a denial of others' beliefs. That doesn't define anything about atheists; it only defines a negation of other belief systems. It's like a virus; it needs a host to live.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> I always thought it meant somebody who was an a (as in not or non) theist. Somebody who did not believe there are gods or a god. Probably because they saw neither evidence nor predicate for such belief, like not believing in astrology.


Oh, so _that's_ what they not-are.


----------



## Jacck

dogen said:


> I can't think there's any that are not man-made.... ?


There is God that is not man-made, but only the religious geniuses know that - Buddha, Christ, Meister Eckhart, Dogen, Huang Po etc. Give up yourself, abandon your own ego and you will know. Every God created by the ego (by thought) is man-made and is false. This is not something that I need force upon others or convince anyone of it. I know it is so, and I am fully OK with those who do not believe it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Fredx2098 said:


> True, but when you can tell people that they have to do what you say or else they'll be smitten by the infallible and vengeful god, things can get a little out of hand. _*cough* the Crusades *cough* religious terrorism *cough* *cough* religion enforced by law *cough*_ Dang my throat is clear now so I can't go on.


You can't blame that on God. That was all Man's doing. After all, there is no God, right? So by your logic, Man is responsible.


----------



## millionrainbows

Fritz Kobus said:


> You do not understand that if it were not for the Christians checking the spread of Islam all Europe would have been taken over and made to convert to Islam, die, or live in subjugation with no legal rights. Insofar as the Crusades checked the spread of Islam it was a good thing.


Yeah, that's right. Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were atheists; blame them.


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> You can't blame that on God. That was all Man's doing. After all, there is no God, right? So by your logic, Man is responsible.


you cannot convince anyone about God using logic. I prefer an atheist to a religious bigot, at least he can use his critical reason to realize that most religions are just dogmatic illusions. Most religious people are not really religious, they just repeat what they have read or heard and uncritically accepted. God is not something to think about or to argue about. Every idea of God is wrong. God is not an idea, but a reality that comes into being with self-abandonment. And how many people have ever experiences self-abondonment? Maybe in rare instances they lose their sense of self.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, so _that's_ what they not-are.


Where are you on astrology? Are you an a-astrology person, seeing no reason, no predicate, no evidence to cause you to spend a lot of time and brainpower on it? I sense again an utter inability for you to understand others' non-involvement/non-interest in things for which no credible predicate presents itself. I'll bet the list of things you don't believe/don't waste your time fussing with, is a very large one.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> you cannot convince anyone about God using logic. I prefer an atheist to a religious bigot, at least he can use his critical reason to realize that most religions are just dogmatic illusions. Most religious people are not really religious, they just repeat what they have read or heard and uncritically accepted. God is not something to think about or to argue about. Every idea of God is wrong. God is not an idea, but a reality that comes into being with self-abandonment. And how many people have ever experiences self-abondonment? Maybe in rare instances they lose their sense of self.


I agree with you on this point; "God" is the reality of being. It's not about dogma, or the denial of dogma.


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> I agree with you on this point; "God" is the reality of being. It's not about dogma, or the denial of dogma.


then what it is point of trying to convince atheists about his existence? Only the spiritually gifted people can understand such talk. Only the people with "peak experiences" and tendency to self-actualization can really understand. The rest are lost, they will live and die without any knowledge of God. So let them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Where are you on astrology? Are you an a-astrology person, seeing no reason, no predicate, no evidence to cause you to spend a lot of time and brainpower on it? I sense again an utter inability for you to understand others' non-involvement/non-interest in things for which no credible predicate presents itself. I'll bet the list of things you don't believe/don't waste your time fussing with, is a very large one.


I think astrology, Tarot cards, Ouiji boards, and the I-Ching (which I prefer, although I have dabbled in all of the aforementioned) are simply tools which one can use to gain access to the realm of their unconscious. I'm pretty much a Jungian where this is concerned, because there is a lot of psychology involved in these sorts of pursuits.

After all, I am an artist, and have an interest in the unconscious, like the Surrealists and Abstract Exprerssionists, Mallarme, Boulez, Varese, and others.

What I find desperately boring is the culture-wide insistence on "objectivity." It has trashed psychology, turning it into an institutional quest for "hard data" which threatens our freedom and privacy.

I don't need "proof," I need my experience, which is not subject to proof.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> So that's _why_ it's in quotes; there is no affirmation of any belief system; only a denial of others' beliefs. That doesn't define anything about atheists; it only defines a negation of other belief systems.


No, it doesn't. Denying the existence of god(s) does not necessitate the denial of the whole system. For example, the moral framework built on Christianity remains available to atheists as well as Christians.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> then what it is point of trying to convince atheists about his existence? Only the spiritually gifted people can understand such talk. Only the people with "peak experiences" and tendency to self-actualization can really understand. The rest are lost, they will live and die without any knowledge of God


I'm not trying to convince atheists of anything; only that they define themselves before they "get offended" at some nebulous "attack" on their "non-belief system." What are they talking about? Thanks for the Maslow link.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> I think astrology, Tarot cards, Ouiji boards, and the I-Ching (which I prefer, although I have dabbled in all of the aforementioned) are simply tools which one can use to gain access to the realm of their unconscious. I'm pretty much a Jungian where this is concerned, because there is a lot of psychology involved in these sorts of pursuits.
> 
> After all, I am an artist, and have an interest in the unconscious, like the Surrealists and Abstract Exprerssionists, Mallarme, Boulez, Varese, and others.
> 
> What I find desperately boring is the culture-wide insistence on "objectivity." It has trashed psychology, turning it into an institutional quest for "hard data" which threatens our freedom and privacy.
> 
> I don't need "proof," I need my experience, which is not subject to proof.


Wonderful stuff indeed! I rest my case .


----------



## millionrainbows

That moral framework was not handed to Man in the form of stone tablets by Moses as "the law;" it is innate in Man's nature "not to kill" and so forth. Salman Rushdie, an atheist, would agree.

The "moral framework" manifest in the old testament as "the law" (also used in Judaism) includes rejection and ostracism of gay men. Do atheists "share" that as well?


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Wonderful stuff indeed! I rest my case .


What case is that, that I'm not a scientist? Thank God I'm an artist/philosopher!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> That moral framework was not handed to Man in the form of stone tablets by Moses as "the law;" it is innate in Man's nature "not to kill" and so forth. Salman Rushdie, an atheist, would agree.
> 
> The "moral framework" manifest in the old testament as "the law" (also used in Judaism) includes rejection and ostracism of gay men. Do atheists "share" that as well?


If they wish. .


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> That moral framework was not handed to Man in the form of stone tablets by Moses as "the law;" it is innate in Man's nature "not to kill" and so forth. Salman Rushdie, an atheist, would agree.
> 
> The "moral framework" manifest in the old testament as "the law" (also used in Judaism) includes rejection and ostracism of gay men. Do atheists "share" that as well?


I assume you mean not to kill other people. That is something we share as a necessary evolutionary heritage with our mammalian relatives, along with the maternal bond, the phenomenon of limerence, empathy, etc. Tough to maintain a viable position in the natural world if you're constantly killing off your own kind. And what kind of inane point are you making about gay men and atheism--one hestitates to find out!


----------



## endelbendel

Well phrased...........


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not trying to convince atheists of anything;


That's good because you have no ability to do so. Stick to what you're strong at.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> ...I assume you mean not to kill other people. That is something we share as a necessary evolutionary heritage with our mammalian relatives, along with the maternal bond, the phenomenon of limerence, empathy, etc. Tough to maintain a viable position in the natural world if you're constantly killing off your own kind.


Yes, and the point is that this is an innate sense. This did not come when "the law" was given to Moses; it is not dependent on the proscribed moral law of the old testament. Salman Rushdie, a professed atheist, agrees with this.



Strange Magic said:


> ...And what kind of inane point are you making about gay men and atheism--one hestitates to find out!


I was reputing the assertion in #153 that old-testament moral law was _also_ available to atheists, as if that were a good thing.

Judaism, and many Christians, who _share _the old testament and its "law,", also interpret the old testament (Leviticus) as justifying ostracism of gay men; ask Allen Ginsberg.

To this day, Judaism still ostracizes gay men from their "family." Do I have to explain this to you? Spare me.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> To this day, Judaism still ostracizes gay men from their "family."


The Temple I belong to and every temple I've ever belonged to does no such thing. Sexual preference/identity has no standing in temple membership, leadership positions or anything else connected with a congregation.

You might find some extremist congregations that concern themselves with the gay thing, but extremists don't represent the Hebrew mainstream (at least not in the U.S.)


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> you cannot convince anyone about God using logic. *I prefer an atheist to a religious bigot,* at least he can use his critical reason to realize that most religions are just dogmatic illusions. Most religious people are not really religious, they just repeat what they have read or heard and uncritically accepted. God is not something to think about or to argue about. Every idea of God is wrong. God is not an idea, but a reality that comes into being with self-abandonment. And how many people have ever experiences self-abondonment? Maybe in rare instances they lose their sense of self.


You never met a bigoted atheist then? I have! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Bulldog said:


> The Temple I belong to and every temple I've ever belonged to does no such thing. Sexual preference/identity has no standing in temple membership, leadership positions or anything else connected with a congregation.
> 
> You might find some extremist congregations that concern themselves with the gay thing, but extremists don't represent the Hebrew mainstream (at least not in the U.S.)


No, that does not seem to be true in the larger scheme of things. From WIK, we see:

_The subject of homosexual behavior and Judaism dates back to the Torah. The book of Vayikra (Leviticus) is traditionally regarded as classifying sexual intercourse between males as a to'eivah (something abhorred or detested) that can be subject to capital punishment by the currently non-existent Sanhedrin under halakha (Jewish law).

The issue has been a subject of contention within modern Jewish denominations, and has led to debate and division.

Traditionally, Judaism has understood homosexual male intercourse as contrary to Judaism, and this opinion is still maintained by Orthodox Judaism. On the other hand, Reconstructionist Judaism and Reform Judaism do not hold this view, and allow homosexual intercourse and same-sex marriage. Conservative Judaism's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, which until December 2006 held the same position as Orthodoxy, recently issued multiple opinions under its philosophy of pluralism, with one opinion continuing to follow the Orthodox position and another opinion substantially liberalizing its view of homosexual sex and relationships, while continuing to regard certain sexual acts as prohibited._


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> No, that does not seem to be true in the larger scheme of things. From WIK, we see:


I indicated that that there were extremist congregations where being gay was a no-no, and orthodox congregations are extremist.

You need to keep in mind that words on the printed page don't necessarily reflect the real world. Life experiences are the way to the truth.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, and the point is that this is an innate sense. This did not come when "the law" was given to Moses; it is not dependent on the proscribed moral law of the old testament. Salman Rushdie, a professed atheist, agrees with this.
> 
> I was reputing the assertion in #153 that old-testament moral law was _also_ available to atheists, as if that were a good thing.
> 
> Judaism, and many Christians, who _share _the old testament and its "law,", also interpret the old testament (Leviticus) as justifying ostracism of gay men; ask Allen Ginsberg.
> 
> To this day, Judaism still ostracizes gay men from their "family." Do I have to explain this to you? Spare me.


Spare me indeed! Only you would somehow understand the carrying forward of anti-intraspecific killing behavior as an innate requirement for future specific viability, as being somehow external to the evolutionary process itself. Question: do you not "believe" in evolution? The Pope says it's OK to believe in evolution. But I forgot; you're an artist, so you get to believe whatever you want to believe. It's magic.

And only millionrainbows would drag, kicking and screaming, atheism and gay men together into the same post (and mind). I shuddered to find out why you thought it would clarify anything, and now I wonder what's next?!


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> Thank God I'm an artist/philosopher!


Are you professionally connected to those pursuits?


----------



## mmsbls

OK, we backed off a bit from our fairly hard line on purely religious/political discussion hoping people could discuss issues civilly without resorting to attacks, insults (direct or otherwise). The results were decidedly negative. Please refrain from purely religious (or political) discussions. This thread is about religious music - not religion.


----------



## millionrainbows

...or anti-religion?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Strange Magic said:


> By the time of the Crusades, the first wave of Arab Islamic expansion was long burned out, as was the second wave under the Seljuk Turks. The Islamic world was weak and was carved up into a series of petty local entities that offered little resistance to the Crusaders for quite some time. An even graver threat to Islam were the invasions of the Mongols under Hulagu. It was the trigger of the Crusades, then the impetus from the final defeat of the Mongols by Baibars the Mameluke, and finally the rise of the Ottoman Empire from the ruins of the Seljuk state that led to the great wave of Islam sweeping into southeastern Europe. The Crusades, by stopping the centripetal dissolution of Islam and leading to the growing resistance of a more united Islam under Saladin and his successors, were actually instrumental in reinvigorating Islamic expansion.


It all depends upon whose interpretation you read. Quite a different scenario from this source:
http://www.umich.edu/~marcons/Crusades/topics/arab/arab.html


----------



## Dan Ante

History always favors the author.


----------



## Strange Magic

Fritz Kobus said:


> It all depends upon whose interpretation you read. Quite a different scenario from this source:
> http://www.umich.edu/~marcons/Crusades/topics/arab/arab.html


I see much agreement among what we both posted; the only difference being that your source completely ignores the enormous wave of the Ottoman expansion, from the capture of Constantinople to the approach to the very walls of Vienna.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Dan Ante said:


> History always favors the author.


Until the facts are investigated and hopefully verified. History itself is littered with rejected accounts of history that have fallen short. The trick is take from many sources and not merely rely upon the one that confirms one's prejudices and desires.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Strange Magic said:


> I see much agreement among what we both posted; the only difference being that your source completely ignores the enormous wave of the Ottoman expansion, from the capture of Constantinople to the approach to the very walls of Vienna.


Ok. I'll have to give that you know a whole lot more about it than I do and that I do no fully understand the crusades. I was biased in that the main memory from Medieval, Renaissance, and Reformation Europe class (yes, that was all packed into one class) in college was of Charles Martel and his successful campaign against the Moors (Islamic invaders). But Charles was before the Crusades in the strictest sense of the term crusade. Anyway, just wanted to wrap this one up.


----------



## Dan Ante

Fritz Kobus said:


> Anyway, just wanted to wrap this one up.


Oh Lord above can't you hear us pining confusion in our head
Send down that mod with the power of Fredrik 
And close this effing thread!


----------



## SixFootScowl

Dan Ante said:


> Oh Lord above can't you hear us pining confusion in our head
> Send down that mod with the power of Fredrik
> And close this effing thread!


Ok, what I meant was wrap up on my error, not necessarily wrap up the whole thread, but that is not a bad idea either.


----------



## Dan Ante

Fritz Kobus said:


> Ok, what I meant was wrap up on my error, not necessarily wrap up the whole thread, but that is not a bad idea either.


Its OK Fritz just a bit of Kiwi humour not directed at you.:tiphat:


----------



## Larkenfield

Dan Ante said:


> History always favors the author.


I thought it was 'history always favors the winners.'


----------

