# Does Religious Music exist?



## Johnnie Burgess

Does Religious Music exist?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Can we see if someone can just say no it does not exist?


----------



## Guest

Is this a joke?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Traverso said:


> Is this a joke?


Why would it be a joke?


----------



## Woodduck

Traverso said:


> Is this a joke?


It's a "gotcha" question. More mental games, I think.

The simple answer is that religious music is not a genre. Many genres of music serve religious functions.

"Does religious music exist?" and "Is there a genre called religious music?" are two different questions.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

Woodduck said:


> It's a "gotcha" question. More mental games, I think.
> 
> The simple answer is that religious music is not a genre. Many genres of music serve religious functions.
> 
> "Does religious music exist?" and "Is there a genre called religious music?" are two different questions.


That is not the goal of this poll. I just want to see what people think about this, is that wrong? And there is religious music outside classical music.


----------



## Guest

it's a firecracker :devil:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

No and how long will this Thread last, any bets...........


----------



## Woodduck

It's redundant with

http://www.talkclassical.com/45399-there-no-such-thing.html

but might get more attention because it's in the form of a poll. People like polls.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

If the answer turns out to be no, we should delete this subsection of the forum.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> If the answer turns out to be no, we should delete this subsection of the forum.


I'll vote for that :devil:


----------



## SixFootScowl

I voted yes in the sense of the complete religious work words and music together. Yes there is religious music, just listen to the words and you will see it is religious. Yes, you can peel away the words and set secular words or no words to the non-vocal part and then it will not be religious any more but simply music in the general sense.


----------



## Woodduck

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> If the answer turns out to be no, we should delete this subsection of the forum.


:lol: ..............


----------



## Guest

Johnnie Burgess said:


> Does Religious Music exist?


It rather depends what you mean by "Does" and "exist"!


----------



## Pugg

Traverso said:


> it's a firecracker :devil:


And not even New Years Eve jet .


----------



## millionrainbows

If religious music fell over in the woods, would anyone hear it except John Cage and Me?

But the answer must be "yes," because God is the ultimate creator, and "non-existence" or "nothingness" would contradict this. Creation is being, and being is existence. Check your watches, gentlemen. Non-existence is not part of being, or time. The doctrine of Privatio Boni states this.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

What is the sounds of one hand clapping, God knows or doesn't know depending on your beliefs- for me it is irrelevant because God does not exist.


----------



## ArtMusic

Yes, there is definitely church music (the correct term) in the sense of say, Bach's church cantatas. The music itself is not religious per se, as in a church-goer may be religious. Pure semantics (which I don't like).


----------



## millionrainbows

I can't believe how many people get on the internet and declare that they are atheists.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Religious is defined as "relating to or believing in a religion." Of course there is music relating to religion/religions. Thus, religious music exists. 

This sounds pretty simple. I'm sure I'm missing something.


----------



## Xaltotun

I guess there exists no music that "positively and quantifiably _smells of God_ even when observed in laboratory conditions... by a person from _Alpha Centauri._"

But "religious music" exists for sure.


----------



## millionrainbows

I will not argue with you if you say that "religious music" means music which was written and used in a specific religion, or in specific rituals or settings. A Baptist hymn is an example of religious music, or a mass.

But 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 "religious music" which enhances this state.

From this beginning, all awareness and music proceeds.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I will not argue with you if you say that "religious music" means music which was written and used in a specific religion, or in specific rituals or settings. A Baptist hymn is an example of religious music, or a mass.
> 
> But the term 'religious' is limiting, in that it refers to religion


Well that would be right. Curiously, it's what this thread is discussing, not spirituality.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Well that would be right. Curiously, it's what this thread is discussing, not spirituality.


I don't see the point of this discussion, then.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I don't see the point of this discussion, then.


The point, my dear million, is to respond to the OP. I presume the poll was initiated in response to the discussion launched by Klassic, in a desire to check how many agreed with Klassic's proposition that religious music does not exist.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> The point, my dear million, is to respond to the OP. I presume the poll was initiated in response to the discussion launched by Klassic, in a desire to check how many agreed with Klassic's proposition that religious music does not exist.





> (Religion is) what this thread is discussing, not spirituality.


But as I saw it, Klassic went much further than simply saying that "religious music does not exist." He went on to say:




Klassic said:


> ...fortunately for us (and Gene Roddenberry knew it well) there is no such thing as *the sacred.* Religion is literally founded on empty words, the same is true of religious music...





Klassic said:


> Religious people talk about religious music like it's special. The _music might be special, but the words are just as empty as the texts upon which religion is based. T__here is music, and then there are religious words that people add to music._



So Klassic is making a metaphysical statement which cannot be proven: that all religious ideas (such as the existence of God, etc.) are false; and also that "the sacred" does not exist.

Sacred means "the state of being holy or sacred; considered worthy of *spiritual respect *or devotion.

"Sacred" is connected to "spiritual respect" by this definition, so this is fair territory for discussion.

By your strictly separating the spiritual aspect of Man from his religion, it sounds like you are saying that religion (such as scripture, belief, and faith) work by themselves apart from any connection to our psychology as "spiritual" humans. How could that be?

It sounds as though you are postulating a "religion without people." In order to preserve the "objective" meaning of religion, you are prepared to exclude all of the human elements which you say make it secular, psychological, and ultimately "not religious."

What, then is the meaning of 'religious' 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."

Music was never a completely "objective" art; it has always involved human input.


----------



## Manxfeeder

millionrainbows said:


> I can't believe how many people get on the internet and declare that they are atheists.


"I can't _believe_ declaring atheists"? Well, I guess you have to take it on faith.


----------



## millionrainbows

I guess Klassic is one of those atheists who has not fully settled in to his role. The rest of these atheists seem to be much more tolerant. They probably even help little old ladies across the street. 

On the other hand, I will never be able to "settle in" to my role as a "spiritual," since I believe that all people are inherently spiritual. It's part of their being, and their physical existence.

See there? I waved my hand, and now you're all spiritual.:lol:

I suspect that there is a large majority of people who accept this, though, since we have laws which prohibit killing. Being is sacred, and that's part of our existence.


----------



## millionrainbows

Manxfeeder said:


> "I can't _believe_ declaring atheists"? Well, I guess you have to take it on faith.


That's the same as a religious person going on line and saying "I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" all the time.


----------



## Ingélou

'Early' music does not exist, because when people were composing & performing this music they did not realise that they were 'early': they thought they were 'on time'.


----------



## Torkelburger

millionrainbows said:


> That's the same as a religious person going on line and saying "I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" all the time.


No, it isn't. It's the same as a religious person going on line and saying "I'm a theist" or "I'm a Christian".


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> No, it isn't. It's the same as a religious person going on line and saying "I'm a theist" or "I'm a Christian".


Both are espousing subjective, personal beliefs which are metaphysical and unprovable. I would find it a little embarrassing.

My "spiritual" idea applies universally, regardless of religion or no religion, or denial of religion. The term might get in the way, or provide a ***** in the argumentative armor, but its essential applicability is there regardless. That's because being itself is spiritual, and sacred.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

millionrainbows said:


> I can't believe how many people get on the internet and declare that they are atheists.


Why, do you have another place you expect people to declare they're atheists?


----------



## millionrainbows

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Why, do you have another place you expect people to declare they're atheists?


Yeah, on Saturday night, in the parking lot of a Southern Baptist Church in Texas, during dove hunting season.

Uhhh, I almost forgot: while Bach's Mass in B minor is playing. Gotta stay on subject.


----------



## millionrainbows

Why don't people think that Atheists are sociopaths? Anybody who doesn't believe in something must be socially maladjusted. Look at what happened to Madeline Murray O'Hare.

Which brings me to the question: Does Atheist music exist?

If it doesn't, should it?

Can someone write an anti-Mass? What would it sound like?

I guess the music would be the same as any other, but the words would espouse some sort of unprovable metaphysical point, which Klassic would like.

Ideas for Atheist hymns:

What An Enemy We Have in Jesus

No, that's too biased in the opposite direction. That would be like a Satanist, so that is "religious."

How about:

What An Unprovable Entity We Have In Jesus
Suspended Emotions Lifted Me
Nobody Loves the Little Children
No Entity Has the Whole World in its Inappropriately Anthropomorphic "Hands"


----------



## Manxfeeder

millionrainbows said:


> That's the same as a religious person going on line and saying "I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" all the time.


Of course, faith is the essence of Christianity, so it isn't as strange a concept as an atheist guided by faith.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, on Saturday night, in the parking lot of a Southern Baptist Church in Texas, during dove hunting season.
> 
> Uhhh, I almost forgot: while Bach's Mass in B minor is playing. Gotta stay on subject.


That's nice. Good to see you harbor no ill will for people who don't share your religions beliefs.

And, yes, Bach's Mass in B minor is a great example of religious music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

millionrainbows said:


> Why don't people think that Atheists are sociopaths? Anybody who doesn't believe in something must be socially maladjusted. Look at what happened to Madeline Murray O'Hare.


Because believing that atheists are sociopaths is a very delusional belief. You must have an extremely biased and misinformed mind to hold such a belief.

This thread is so getting shut down ...


----------



## millionrainbows

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> That's nice. Good to see you harbor no ill will for people who don't share your religions beliefs.
> 
> And, yes, Bach's Mass in B minor is a great example of religious music.


I don't harbor ill will, although I know that other people do. How do these atheists get away with saying things like that? Don't they get ostracized, or are they already exiled from the human race? I thought people wanted everybody to be a "good citizen" and contribute something good. How can you do that if you don't believe in anything? Don't they want to sing "For the Beauty of the Earth" in a choir?

And what's the flip side to all of this? Are people who ARE religious supposed to accept every kind of human behavior? I can't think of which is worse, being an Atheist or being a "new" sort of reformed Christian. Neither one seems to comply to society's new demands. Are we supposed to love everybody?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

millionrainbows said:


> Why don't people think that Atheists are sociopaths? Anybody who doesn't believe in something must be socially maladjusted. Look at what happened to Madeline Murray O'Hare.
> 
> Which brings me to the question: Does Atheist music exist?
> 
> If it doesn't, should it?
> 
> Can someone write an anti-Mass? What would it sound like?
> 
> I guess the music would be the same as any other, but the words would espouse some sort of unprovable metaphysical point, which Klassic would like.
> 
> Ideas for Atheist hymns:
> 
> What An Enemy We Have in Jesus
> 
> No, that's too biased in the opposite direction. That would be like a Satanist, so that is "religious."
> 
> How about:
> 
> What An Unprovable Entity We Have In Jesus
> Suspended Emotions Lifted Me
> Nobody Loves the Little Children
> No Entity Has the Whole World in its Inappropriately Anthropomorphic "Hands"


Did some one call..................


----------



## millionrainbows

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Because believing that atheists are sociopaths is a very delusional belief.


Isn't that what religion is for, to produce healthy, well-adjusted people who love Humanity? What can an Atheist do in that regard? I guess we are supposed to just trust in their inherent goodness as human beings?
I think there is a lot of potential there for sociopathic behaviors to emerge. After all, they don't go to church as a group together. Are they even organized? This makes them more isolated than a religious person. I mean, who gets trusted to that degree, that we can expect an atheist to be "self-regulating?"

"Sociopath" is a word that gets thrown around all the time these days. Dr. Phil uses it all the time. Such as "Nixon was a sociopath, Lance Armstrong is a sociopath, Bill Cosby is a sociopath, Dan Rather is a sociopath, George Bush Jr. is a sociopath, Bill Clinton is a sociopath, JFK was a sociopath, Edward Snowden is a sociopath, Trump is a sociopath, etc.

Delusion? That's just a belief that is possibly wrong, and possibly right, to a certain degree of accuracy.



> You must have an extremely biased and misinformed mind to hold such a belief.


What happened to your _"Good to see you harbor no ill will for people who don't share your…beliefs?" _:lol:



> This thread is so getting shut down ...


And just think! You were actually a part of it!

BTW, what is this thread's purpose?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

millionrainbows said:


> Isn't that what religion is for, to produce healthy, well-adjusted people who love Humanity? What can an Atheist do in that regard? I guess we are supposed to just trust in their inherent goodness as human beings?
> I think there is a lot of potential there for sociopathic behaviors to emerge. After all, they don't go to church as a group together. Are they even organized? This makes them more isolated than a religious person. I mean, who gets trusted to that degree, that we can expect an atheist to be "self-regulating?"
> 
> "Sociopath" is a word that gets thrown around all the time these days. Dr. Phil uses it all the time. Such as "Nixon was a sociopath, Lance Armstrong is a sociopath, Bill Cosby is a sociopath, Dan Rather is a sociopath, George Bush Jr. is a sociopath, Bill Clinton is a sociopath, JFK was a sociopath, Edward Snowden is a sociopath, Trump is a sociopath, etc.
> 
> Delusion? That's just a belief that is possibly wrong, and possibly right, to a certain degree of accuracy.
> 
> What happened to your _"Good to see you harbor no ill will for people who don't share your…beliefs?" _:lol:
> 
> And just think! You were actually a part of it!
> 
> BTW, what is this thread's purpose?


Where are you getting your info about atheists? Are you sure you're not confusing atheist with rapist? They both end in "ist" and the way you speak of atheist one would think every single one is committing wicked crimes left and right.

Just because one does not believe in a divine deity, it does not mean one does not believe in anything or has no love for humanity.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> BTW, what is this thread's purpose?


Something other than what some of the ludicrous, narcissistic ranting I'm seeing is turning it into.


----------



## millionrainbows

Manxfeeder said:


> Religious is defined as "relating to or believing in a religion." Of course there is music relating to religion/religions. Thus, religious music exists.
> 
> This sounds pretty simple. I'm sure I'm missing something.


Yes, you are; this thread is in response to Klassic's assertion that all religion is empty words, and that the sacred does not exist; therefore, "religious music," i.e. music which embodies the actual truth of a religion, does not exist.

You can see that the flaw in all this is in the attempted "objectification" of religious music, as if it were an object with an independent existence. It is, in a sense, but this is way too simplistic and literal.

Religious music, like all art, is symbolic and talismanic; it is a "magical object of veneration" or a talisman. It is a carrier and transmitter of meaning; it embodies the religious beliefs of the believers.

Perhaps it is this which is so disturbing to many here; Klassic was trying to attack the talismanic and symbolic category/object which is so charged with meaning to religious believers, especially Christians, since this is a Western classical music forum.

So yes, the talisman exists. Yet people act as if "religious music" is something that they can "take or leave" as mere music, or "objectify" it and separate it from its talismanic nature. This does a great disservice to both the music and the listener.

DeProfundis may be seen as "off" to many, but at least he believes in something. I notice that Klassic, who seems to be an atheist, was banned and seems to be in less than stellar standing among the status quo. I guess he is a "bad atheist."

Now it seems that all the "good atheists" are coming out of the woodwork to decry his approach, and appear as "good citizens." :lol: They're as bad as religious zealots!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Something other than what some of the ludicrous, narcissistic ranting I'm seeing is turning it into.


"Narcissist" is another very popular Dr. Phil word. He loves to use that one.

What's ludicrous? Gimme a point-by-point, and I'll respond in kind.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> "Narcissist" is another very popular Dr. Phil word. He loves to use that one.
> 
> What's ludicrous? Gimme a point-by-point, and I'll respond in kind.


Why do you assume I'm talking about you?


----------



## millionrainbows

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Where are you getting your info about atheists?...the way you speak of atheist one would think every single one is committing wicked crimes left and right.


Is there a reference book, or handbook I should read?



> Just because one does not believe in a divine deity, it does not mean one does not believe in anything or has no love for humanity.


We can't be sure of that. I suppose we are just expected to trust in your good nature.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Why do you assume I'm talking about you?


Because I'm giving this the look and feel of a "rant" to keep it interesting. Klassic does the same thing, only he's too blatant. I personally like this sort of thing. This forum tends to get very…sedate sometimes. I appreciate your righteous indignation, Woodduck, at all those "legal insults" I hurled at you. You know what I mean; you like to keep it interesting as well.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, you are; this thread is in response to Klassic's assertion that all religion is empty words, and that the sacred does not exist; therefore, "religious music," i.e. music which embodies the actual truth of a religion, does not exist.
> 
> You can see that the flaw in all this is in the attempted "objectification" of religious music, as if it were an object with an independent existence. It is, in a sense, but this is way too simplistic and literal.
> 
> Religious music, like all art, is symbolic and talismanic; it is a "magical object of veneration" or a talisman. It is a carrier and transmitter of meaning; it embodies the religious beliefs of the believers.
> 
> Perhaps it is this which is so disturbing to many here; Klassic was trying to attack the talismanic and symbolic category/object which is so charged with meaning to religious believers, especially Christians, since this is a Western classical music forum.
> 
> So yes, the talisman exists. Yet people act as if "religious music" is something that they can "take or leave" as mere music, or "objectify" it and separate it from its talismanic nature. This does a great disservice to both the music and the listener.
> 
> DeProfundis may be seen as "off" to many, but at least he believes in something. I notice that Klassic, who seems to be an atheist, was banned and seems to be in less than stellar standing among the stays quo. I guess he is a "bad atheist."
> 
> Now it seems that all the "good atheists" are coming out of the woodwork to decry his approach, and appear as "good citizens." :lol: They're as bad as religious zealots!


Your references to Klassic, particularly to his past banning, are insulting and disgraceful. Insulting people, both directly and as members of groups, comes too easily to you. It's time to stop it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Your references to Klassic, particularly to his past banning, are insulting and disgraceful. Insulting people, both directly and as members of groups, comes too easily to you. It's time to stop it.


Well,anybody who wants the information, it is there in two "defense" threads he posted. Just because I mention this does not mean I am insulting him. In fact, I like him, and have exchanged numerous PMs with him.

You are just trying to lay guilt on any convenient target, namely me. I have nothing to feel guilty about.

Insulting the atheists as a "group" seems to be counter-intuitive, since they are not an organized religion. Do they get tax-exempt status? Because they are a "religion" in that they deny the existence of God. That's a metaphysical idea that cannot be proven or disproven.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

I go for *C.A.S.H. - CHURCH OF AMERICAN SECULAR HUMANISM .... 
*
With all the benefits, don't have to believe in GOD and still get tax-exempt status, beautiful I say....... Now that's a religion I want to be in!


----------



## Torkelburger

millionrainbows said:


> Both are espousing subjective, personal beliefs which are metaphysical and unprovable. I would find it a little embarrassing.
> 
> My "spiritual" idea applies universally, regardless of religion or no religion, or denial of religion. The term might get in the way, or provide a ***** in the argumentative armor, but its essential applicability is there regardless. That's because being itself is spiritual, and sacred.


No they are not. A theist espouses the belief that a god exists. An atheist simply lacks the belief that god x exists. That is what atheism means, literally. A LACK of belief in a god. Atheism is not the belief that there are no gods or the belief that a god does not exist. It is simply being unconvinced by the argument that a god exists, the positive assertion that the theist makes. The theist is the only one with the burden of proof since they are the only one making the positive assertion. The atheist has no such burden of proof since no positive assertion is being made.

All of this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, however. You just used it as a chance to preach about your hobby-horse. An atheist saying they are an atheist is not the same thing as a religious person saying, "I believe in Jesus Christ". You are using the fallacy of equivocation. You should have said it's the same as them calling themselves a theist.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

millionrainbows said:


> Is there a reference book, or handbook I should read?


You should look up what atheist actually means.



millionrainbows said:


> We can't be sure of that. I suppose we are just expected to trust in your good nature.


So you think that if a person does not believe in a god then they are wicked by default? Only a belief in heaven/hell, reward/punishment system can assure of a person's good nature?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Well,anybody who wants the information, it is there in two "defense" threads he posted. Just because I mention this does not mean I am insulting him. In fact, I like him, and have exchanged numerous PMs with him.
> 
> You are just trying to lay guilt on any convenient target, namely me. I have nothing to feel guilty about.
> 
> Insulting the atheists as a "group" seems to be counter-intuitive, since they are not an organized religion. Do they get tax-exempt status? Because they are a "religion" in that they deny the existence of God. That's a metaphysical idea that cannot be proven or disproven.


This is not about guilt, but about civility, and about not turning a thread about music into a soapbox on which to bloviate about what you think other people's beliefs say about them.


----------



## Woodduck

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You should look up what atheist actually means.
> 
> So you think that if a person does not believe in a god then they are wicked by default? Only a belief in heaven/hell, reward/punishment system can assure of a person's good nature?


You're beating your head against a wall, TFOT. He will brook no contradiction. He has to be right - even about you and others he doesn't know.


----------



## Guest




----------



## Guest

The person who started this tread does not paricipate in it.


----------



## mmsbls

Thread closed, but it's an excellent example of why we do not permit purely religious or political threads on the forum and request that people discuss these issues in the Groups.


----------

