Music and Religion/Music as Religion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    The original Jesus Christ Superstar studio album is fantastic.  It's somewhat overlooked as a classic album, in fact.



    The album may be overlooked as a classic, but the musical is still going strong.   It's routinely performed by groups all across the map.    

    I remember that it won the Tony Award for Best Revival of a Musical last year.  It was so gratifying to hear that it had won.   It's timeless.   

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    I've thought of a couple of more songs that relate to religion by two of my favorite musical artists. Van Morrison's "She Gives Me Religion" uses the word religion in the way I was intending it for this thread; as a feeling that lifts us up and inspires us. I relate to this song because it expresses how I feel about my wife. 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nb9wfeQpcE

    The other song is by the great Sam Cooke, who started off in the Gospel group the Soul Stirrers. "Touch the Hem of His Garment" is a straight ahead religious inspirational song of hope and faith. I enjoy this song too.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKADAdCwpYI

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    I could best be described as an agnostic, but I consider "Amazing Grace" to be one of the most beautiful songs ever written.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    I say yes too mate, yet I also believe devinely inspired.  Mortals yes, but not mere mortals.  Mozart was writing Minuets when I was working on "See Spot jump".  That ain't natural.

    Natural?  Maybe not.  (certainly not typical).

    But still inexorably human.

      

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    That's me in the corner. That's me in the spotlight losing my religion.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

     

    I say yes too mate, yet I also believe devinely inspired.  Mortals yes, but not mere mortals.  Mozart was writing Minuets when I was working on "See Spot jump".  That ain't natural.

     

     

    Natural?  Maybe not.  (certainly not typical).

    But still inexorably human.

      

     




    I disagree

     

     



    Respectfully, I'll also agree to disagree.  Mozart was human and quite mortal (at age 35).

     

    Not sure how to continue this debate without coming off as offensive...

    ...so I'll stop now unless further entreated.

     

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    Based on what?

    As you know, I don't believe in any God (though I certainly cannot disprove its existence).....  so from my perspective you touch on something I've wondered about.

    How can a human, believing in God, venture to proclaim what things humans can and cannot accomplish alone, particularly where he necessarily believes God created humans and therefore was the one responsible for determining what they are capable of?

    Not to get too much into a religious debate of that sort, but this sort of thinking has always puzzled me. As with the "intelligent design" people. How can someone say "I believe in an omnipotent God, and I know that I know virtually nothing as a mere mortal...... oh, but I can say that this is something that no human (created by God) could have done."

    How does the necessarily inferior designed get to thinking he can tell what is and is not designed by a creator? Doesn't that require an assumption by the designed that he knows at least as much as the creator he says he believes in? One would need such knowledge in order to be able to distinguish between man-created and God-created/inspired/whathaveyou.



    Many people will believe what they want to believe.  To me it's all a mystery.  I don't know if God exists, but fortunately I see signs of forces in the universe that are both powerful and benevolentl, and art, along with love in all its forms, is in the highest order of those.  So I can understand that people would associate something like a Mozart symphony with the human approaching the divine.  

     

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Elekktra. Show Elekktra's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    Enjoying this thread immensely.  Did anyone mention Beeth's "Ode to Joy"? 

    I am completely humanist and have been since grade school, but I have always been humbled by the beauty and majesty of the masterpieces you all have listed.  

    On a parallel and just as ironic note, i'm still crazy about a lot of the drugged out tracks from the sixties -- loved "Cocaine" (the song not the substance), but I never did more than smoke a few joints, and not even peer pressure could induce me to experiment with anything else.  

    I don't believe in astrology!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    Where a musician draws his or her inspiration makes no never mind to me. Dear God by XTC, Jesus by Queen, Black Sabath by Coven - it just doesn't matter. If the song tickles my fancy, I will not care whether I agree or disagree with the content.

    Like many here, being raised in a strict Italian Roman Catholic family, I was urged to follow a similar path. Thankfully I had a father who always expressed his desires that his children seek out truth in all forms. So instead of taking religion as it was interpreted by those around me, I took the time to read all scripture including all the Holy Books of the Jewish, Christian/Catholic and Muslim faiths along with the older Eastern religions and those of mythology. What I found made it very simple for me to leave the path of any divinity and concentrate on the human race and how we treat each other. I declared myself an atheist until I found so many atheists turning a non-belief into a religion unto itself. Now that it pretty pathetic.

    There are still so many questions to be asked and I find that listening to music has  become my one true belief. Well, that and women - but that is another story.

    All hail Rock and Roll.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Based on what?

    As you know, I don't believe in any God (though I certainly cannot disprove its existence).....  so from my perspective you touch on something I've wondered about.

     

    How can a human, believing in God, venture to proclaim what things humans can and cannot accomplish alone, particularly where he necessarily believes God created humans and therefore was the one responsible for determining what they are capable of?

    Not to get too much into a religious debate of that sort, but this sort of thinking has always puzzled me. As with the "intelligent design" people. How can someone say "I believe in an omnipotent God, and I know that I know virtually nothing as a mere mortal...... oh, but I can say that this is something that no human (created by God) could have done."

    How does the necessarily inferior designed get to thinking he can tell what is and is not designed by a creator? Doesn't that require an assumption by the designed that he knows at least as much as the creator he says he believes in? One would need such knowledge in order to be able to distinguish between man-created and God-created/inspired/whathaveyou.



    You think too much.  :)    That's the first sign that you're not, and could never be, a believer in the phenom called "divine inspiration" or the concept of having a "calling"  -- or whatever name you want to give the concept that a "divine" or "higher" force resides within or propells / inspires (etc.) some rare individuals, otherwise known as "human beings" or mere mortals.  

    You're dominated by your left-brained thinking; you want to analyze it.   It's not a left brain issue.   You can't get anywhere with a believer if you try to analyze, let alone ask for proof.   (I suppose people who know the Bible inside-out could come up with Biblical "proof" of sorts, but even there, a non-believer doesn't take the Bible literally, so that's still not proof).   

    The emotional response might just be that, all emotion, but people who believe there's more within us than DNA, or than meets the eye, believe it in their gut.  The "proof" is the output of those rare individuals.   The output is *perceived*, felt, and sensed.  If you believe Michelangelo created the Pieta out of nowhere and nothing, that's fine.   Others feel very strongly that it is a work of divinity.  Divine grace.  No one can prove it.  Even if an artist said that he had no control over his hands, that a divine force put his hands to work on a chunk of marble and voila! -- s/he can't prove it.   Those who believe don't need proof; it's core.    I am of this ilk, to a *certain* extent, so this is my take.    I'm at peace with the way I perceive and feel, despite the fact that I am not a religious person.   I know what I feel; some people have a gift that is inexplicable.   Rare, very rare.   

    I'm not talking about seeing Jesus' face in on the surface of a piece of toast, either.   Or people flocking to a river to get blessed by someone who claims he has healing powers.  There are people who believe in "all that", too.   Maybe because they just *have* to.   Even if that's the case, why judge them?   Just hope they're not paying $$ for the blessing.  :)

    Know the story of Joan of Arc?  :)   If not, check it out.  She's a heroine to many.   

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    Not sure how to continue this debate without coming off as offensive...

    ...so I'll stop now unless further entreated.

    Is it hokey to you?   Unreasonable because it can't be reasoned?  Intellectually without merit?  I can understand that it's not possible to believe in divine providence if you don't believe in God per se, but that still doesn't mean that an atheist wouldn't see, sense of feel other ways that rare humans are given gifts from an unexplained, unidentifiable (UFO?! :) ) source?    No?   

    Just asking.   Is it simply a matter of believing that we are who we are, derive all of our gifts from nature and nurture?   No matter what the output, no matter how extraordinary, no matter at all?    That's not the least offensive, and I am not offended by you, or anyone, who refutes divine providence, or whatever term is used to describe this other belief system that "saith" : there's more.  

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    Please take this as the tongue in cheek humor I intend. God has the greatest job. He gets credit for everything good and no blame for everything bad.

    I didn't intend this thread to become a religious debate, but it has led to some very interesting, thought-provoking posts regarding belief in God or "religion" in the broadest sense.

    In my heart I "know" what is true, but I also realize that I really don't "know" anything for certain. I prefer not to label myself publicly as a believer or not, I save that information for those closest to me. I feel it is a better way to present myself to the world, hoping they will judge me by my actions and my character more than by any proclamations from my lips.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    Not sure how to continue this debate without coming off as offensive...

    ...so I'll stop now unless further entreated.

     

     

    Is it hokey to you?   Unreasonable because it can't be reasoned?  Intellectually without merit?  I can understand that it's not possible to believe in divine providence if you don't believe in God per se, but that still doesn't mean that an atheist wouldn't see, sense of feel other ways that rare humans are given gifts from an unexplained, unidentifiable (UFO?! :) ) source?    No?   

    Just asking.   Is it simply a matter of believing that we are who we are, derive all of our gifts from nature and nurture?   No matter what the output, no matter how extraordinary, no matter at all?    That's not the least offensive, and I am not offended by you, or anyone, who refutes divine providence, or whatever term is used to describe this other belief system that "saith" : there's more.  



    I'm comfortable with the idea that people need a way to describe things they cannot understand.  Humans have done that throughout their existence, whether they believe in one omnipresent god or a nymph in every pond and a sprite in every tree.

    To that end, "divine" to me is just another superlative, like "genius" or "masterpiece" (or "universal"...which means something different now than it did 1000 years ago) which gets thrown around at art objects like rice at a wedding.  I'm also wary of sanctification for its own sake.

    The Pieta is a religious-themed, church-commissioned work based on the gospels, but it is also a sculpture of two people rendered in a moment of emotional distress.  The fact is that it can be both things regardless of what the artist intended or even how pious he/she was.  If some read more into the godly implications of it, that's fine by me.  But in the end, it's still just a sculpture of a woman cradling a dying man (or mother cradling a son, et al.).

    The Renaissance is conspicuous by its expansion beyond the purely religious into the (partially) secular, and the art of the time progressively distinguished itself thus.  Just like in other eras and places, art found themes and motivations to address beyond the hegemony of the church.

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    God is Omnipotent or at least that is what believers feel. All I can say to this is "Pblttttttttttt". If there is an Omnipotent God, then starvation in the 21st century would not exist. Hitler, Stalin, etc. would have been eliminated before they did what they did. I can name another 1,000 instances. And please, no one need make the statement that God gave us free will. This statement tends to make my eyes bleed.

    If there is a higher power, I would venture to guess that it is a more advanced civilization from another universe or dimension than a supreme being floating on a cloud.

    bwaaaaaaaaaaaa.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Of course, my thoughts are a little more complicated on that matter. I tend to think that the only way the believed-in God could be as described by most major religions - good and loving, etc. - this entity would have had to create the universe and then decided never to intervene.



    You articulate this stuff very well.  I used to spend a lot of thought trying to understand, but at a certain point I decided to give it up.  I know there is an ultimate truth but I also know that truth is completely independent of whatever I think or believe.  One thing is for sure, the existence of the world at least confirms that much is possible.  

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to jesseyeric's comment:

    If there is an Omnipotent God, then starvation in the 21st century would not exist. Hitler, Stalin, etc. would have been eliminated before they did what they did. I can name another 1,000 instances.



    Well their answer would be that because God is omnipotent, then clearly he must be right to allow some degree of evil.

     

     

    Of course, my thoughts are a little more complicated on that matter. I tend to think that the only way the believed-in God could be as described by most major religions - good and loving, etc. - this entity would have had to create the universe and then decided never to intervene.

    Not once, not ever. And this has to do with two things:

    1. If this God intervened once, and didn't intervene to prevent things like the holocaust, then it is not 'good' in any sense of the word I can make out; but more importantly

    2. The notion of God is a being that exists at all times and places, as well as outside the physical universe (and hence time and space). But it at least exists at all points in space-time. Even one intervention would fix existence in a determinative universe. Unlike any normal being operating within the confines of spacetime, a God's decision to intervene simultaneously would function as a decision not to intervene in all other points in spacetime.

    There would be no free will because the things you did in life were either determined (1) by the intervention, or (2) by the decision not to intervene. They weren't really your choices in that instance. Which would make human existence the cruelest version of a game of barbie dolls. Calvinism, but worse.




    I like your take on this - I just prefer keeping it simple when it comes to these discussions, especially in the written version. But would love to sit and discuss over a beer - would make for great conversation.

    Calvinism - sweet!

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Music and Religion/Music as Religion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    You think too much.  :)

    Blasphemy!

     

    Know the story of Joan of Arc?  :)   If not, check it out.  She's a heroine to many.   

    I largely agree, but I tend to think it depends on the believer. After all, there are people very deep in analytic/logical fields - cosmologists, physicists, etc. - who are religious(Einstein himself, no less).

     

    I have to believe that they puzzle over the logic of their beliefs without abandoning them. Hell, I don't believe and I'm constantly finding myself re-analyzing my positions on the religious front in general.

    I've obviously made my own feelings on this front clear, but I'm curious to know whether they occur to someone who is religious. Particularly where there are people whose lives are raw analytics, and yet who also believe. 

     

    I didn't (mean to) imply that only one side of the brain should or could be used to have a belief system that includes God.   I was addressing what you said in a previous post re: what seemed to put the stress / focus on proof, that's all.   I, for one, don't find it hard to understand that a scientist (of any variety) could or would have a belief system that includes God, because it is ultimately a personal decision.    As for Einstein, he did not believe in a personal God, although he is the most famous example of a scientist who believes; he did not, however, believe in God on the human intervention level, "who concerns himself with fate and actions of human beings" -- so you see, Einstein carved out his own meaning and definition, he didn't speak the "party line" through organized religion.  I suspect other hard core scientists might also write their own definition, depending on the era they lived, and other circumstances.

    Einstein was not religious.   You seem to conflate the notion of believing in God with being religious.    Belief in God is only one piece of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle.   Sorry if I am misinterpreting, but this is what I see in the way you've expressed your opinions.  

    If you puzzle over "all this", then you must like the mental exercise.  Or, it's a topic you like to toss around.   You can't prove love exists, either, yet you are married.  Staying married doesn't prove it either, because there are people who believe that it's fine to marry multiple times in life, since everyone changes over time.   You can't prove someone will be a "good" doctor just because they have a diploma from a medical school, either.   Passing a test doesn't mean you have all the human traits that will make you a true healer.  You can't prove many things in this life.  Not too many guarantees, either.   Could drive yourself insane thinking about the lack of proof in this world.  

    I accept that no one, not one single person, is the same from day to day.   Not your body, not your soul, not your heart, not your mind -- nothing.   You cannot replicate any day, any feeling, any thought.   Each day, to a certain extent, a new beginning.  (unless you are Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day"  :) ).

    A feeling might reside in you every day day, but it may be more profound the next day, less so another.   In yoga, a person might notice that they are taking a pose to the next level, by taking it more deeply; the pose doesn't change, but the focus changes.   You may think you are "right" one day, and the next day feel uneasy that you made a mistake.   Spending too much of your time pondering all of the "what ifs" and "what so evers" on any given day, you may miss out on something beautiful that's right in front of your face.   I don't want to go "all Yoga" on you ... (sorry, just kididng) but living in the present moment might answer more of your questions than all the thinking you do in a month.   Quieting your mind is not as easy as it sounds -- and if you don't think it sounds easy, then you're right.  :)    Peace.  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share