Now THIS will CERTAINLY get us composers RILED UP

That's very nice, but it has absolutely no relevance to what I said...

Look I'm not disagreeing what the purpose/requirements/whatever of Christianity entail. I was merely pointing out the fallicy of Ravel's implied assertion that athiests perform good deeds under a false impression that they will subsequently get to heaven.

Bolero's orgasm? I never knew that a woman's orgasm was sick and twisted...hmm, now I feel bad.

Uhhh...I really couldn't be bothered to read more than a few sentences. It didn't even sound like he knew what he was attacking---the church? The music? satan? What exactly was he against here? My eyes just couldn't absorb more than a few words it was such nonsense.

P.S. - Did you know that Ravel's Bolero is supposed to be symbolic of a women's orgasm? That is great classical music with a twisted hidden meaning.

I'd be very curious to know where you found this interpretation of the Bolero.

from my understanding of the work, and from Marcel Marnat's lengthy biography of Ravel (800 some pages), there is no reference anywhere to any sexual connotation in Bolero. Unless... you could be confusing the implied sexuality of that dreadful movie, perhaps?

This sums it up with out all the pigheadedness and egocentric lolligag.

Music is reflective of philosophy. Ordered and melody centered = Biblical foundation i.e. creationist, right and wrongs, their is a God, etc. Messy, chaotic, atonal = evolutionary based, no right or wrong, Godless society, etc.

Umm... no.

See, Olivier Messaien, who wrote a lot of messy, chaotic, and atonal works, wrote strictly to Catholic ideology. He was a religious fundamentalist in his own way. Igor Stravinsky, who wrote much atonal music, was also extremely religious. His atonal liturgical choral works are famous. I could go on and on...

I recently read a BBC article about the "evil tritone" formerly prohibited by the Church for being the work of the devil, laden with "sexual overtones".

New philosophies say that the diminished seventh is actually the most perfect chord, because it consists of three thirds, reflecting the aspects of the Trinity.

That guy's crazy. He wants tonal dominant music, yet he says that composers are unoriginal nowadays? Atonal music came about from desire of originality. Oh well, it was quite amusing.

Dissonance was actually banned in the early church, and they used the same argument; dissonance is inheritly evil. Using a minor key was prohibited, yet alone atonality. Must have been pretty boring.

The concept of "minor" didn't exist in the early church. They used the Greek/church modes.

I do not care one bit wither they were "religious". Being "religious" doesn't have anything to do with the way you think. There are too many people who call themselves "religious" and do not think like the Bible says to think. For instance, there are way too many Catholics and Mormons and etc. that do not believe in Creationism or in a God at all. The Bible definitely says there is a God and a creation and that the God created the universe from nothing. This means that people with "relgion" - esp. non-Christian (including Catholics) - could also be ones who would think like an evolutionist or an exestentialist. They would be espoussing their philosophies through their music. This would result in a general chaotic, random, atonal, modern mess.

Sorry, again, but you missed responding to the whole Messaien section. He believed in strict creationism. He believed that music should glorify God. My point is that the structure of music does not explicitly parallel the philosophy of the composer. Just because a piece is atonal does not mean that it is the product of creationist/chaotic/Godless philosophy.

To say that is like saying, "Because that man wears a pink shirt he's clearly gay," or, perhaps more accurately, "Because that painting is comprised entirely of straight lines, it means the artist doesn't believe in God."

Will, you are dangerously close to hate-speech territory, and we don't tolerate that here. In the estimation of some, you may already have crossed over.

I want to say that I can't imagine where you get some of your ideas, but actually I'm all too well acquainted with where they come from...and it ain't the Bible. I'm disappointed. I really thought you were better educated than that, even if you have been sheltered. I've been trying hard to respect you and your devotion to your ideas. Now you show yourself to be nothing but a common bigot. I'm very disappointed.

Show me ONE verse that says ANYTHING that's REMOTELY SPECICIFIC at ALL concerning WHAT the BIBLE SAYS on what to WEAR? I'm not talking about vagueness. I'm talking about, "You shall wear..." or "You shalt not wear" and I'm looking for specific materials, specific colors, specific EVERYTHING

Pink shirt either equals gay or it equals a support of the gay community or it equals an I don't give a damn whether gays do what they want or not.

However, if someone looks at their composition and seriously says that they never had one bit of motivation to compose that piece (whether it be a event in life, a thought in their head about life, a certain sound that they would like to create, or a situation that they thought would make into a nice piece) then they can say that the piece is not reflective of their philosophy. Other than that, compositions reflect the worldviews of the composer of the composition.

1. You have GOT to be kidding me. Colors are fundamentally neutral things, aren't they? Many businessmen (yes, straight businessmen, who may or may not support the gay community) wear pink dress shirts because it matches a blue suit rather well, and looking well-dressed in a black, blue, or gray suit is often a requirement of office jobs. Pink means NOTHING.

2. Got to disagree here, too. Igor Stravinsky was devoutly Russian Orthodox, and yet he wrote Rite of Spring, which is influenced by Pagan rituals (note here the CORRECT use of the word "Pagan": one who adheres to an earth-based faith), because at the time he wrote it, there was a revival of interest in the indigenous history of Europe - everything that came before the Roman Empire. For the same reason, Debussy wrote "Pagodes," because at the time, there was an interest in the exotic and the Far East.

You are - obviously - entitled to your view.

The standard clothing that you speak of arises from convention and shared orientation, not anything Biblical, except sometimes the ranting of priests who still love to rant since their power has been eroded so in the last century.

I'm inclined to treat Genesis with great scepticism...remember it was Moses talking, he purportedly chatted with God about these things. But the Biblical book is an exoteric explanation to inform the masses and/or shut them up. Moses wanted to reinforce power to the priesthood - he wanted women kept out of it for certain hidden reasons (and until very recently they're remained mere chattels and baby-making machines).

He had a few problems to deal with - the Jews in Egypt etc, and he needed to enforce his law. He was a clever man and spotted the huge business benefits of his work. He was also wise and some of his pronouncements make good common sense today.

But a cursory glance at Genesis tells you there's far more to it. The snake wasn't Satan - that old diabolo didn't come into it for many a year! Esoterically, the snake means something quite different - wisdom...which cannot be gained through innocence.

And why are those vital objects to human development, the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge, merely glossed over? These feature HUGE in Hebrew esoteric teachings.

How come if Adam and Eve were the first and only people on the planet, that one of their kids buzzed off to distant lands and 'gat' himself a wife? Was she the product of some other God? Even Moses first use of the word "God" (can't do the Hebrew letters here, sorry) is So ambiguous - you bet the varieties of orthodox Christian derivatives hoped to keep it quiet. But it hasn't escaped the more esoteric enquirer.

Even the name 'Adm' has special numerical connotations to Hebraic teaching, and the more generic God name, or JHVH* (*H final is a different symbol and value) is partly decoded for you in the opening chapters of Ezekiel, a most amazing book.

If I get a moment today I'll look through Genesis to see if God did indeed instruct Adam and Eve to wear clothes - let's hope with their zero resources, the pair knew how to make them.

Oh well, I'll probably get done for this post. But I can't remember God making his creations ashamed of their nudity and telling them to don clothes appropriate to their gender.

As an aside:

I concluded that if someone wants to BE a Christian, then they have to follow the teachings of Christ, not a load of babbling bishops whose incomes hung on their pronouncements. To lead a good life, one only need read and adopt the Sermon on the Mount (see Matthew, round about chapter 7 if memory serves me correctly).

Cheers.

Paragraphs of repetitive rhetoric we've all heard before, Will...and you're still nothing but a common bigot with a narrow mind. You can quote scripture all you like, but you can't re-write the board rules to suit you. We looked very closely at what Chris Shaver said to you, and while repulsively vulgar, it doesn't constitute hate speech. You saying what you said stereotyping a whole group of people, and your ridiculous statements about colour and clothing got you where you are at this moment. There aren't too many people here who have a warning on their profile, but you have one. Happy now? Are you really accomplishing anything by this? How in the world do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

I actually cannot believe my eyes, even for RRR.

The Bible can potentially be construed to command us to wear clothing but gender/sexuality-specific colour conventions are completely down to societal conventions and association. There is no Biblical basis on which you can say that certain colours have any connotations or associations with gender or sexuality, and indeed you failed to quote any scripture in your post, surprise surprise. Instead, it's brainwashing and the media which has given you this false belief, and it's also by the influence of the media on your weak mind that you fell into your past trap of saying that no Arabs had ever been good contributing citizens and that all Muslims were "greedy money driven hack jobs". Absolutely pathetic. In fact, you're so stupid, you're barely even offensive.

Let us next examine the history of the colour pink. Firstly, it has NOT always been associated with femininity. Source: http://historywired.si.edu/object.cfm?ID=477. Secondly, the reason the gay community has historically embraced it is because homosexuals were forced to wear an inverted pink triangle in Nazi concentration and death camps set up during the Third Reich. Pink has been a symbol of gay pride not because it is a "gay" colour but because it acted as a reminder that with the combination of weak minds like yours and brainwashing on hand, people have been imprisoned if not mass-murdered in the past solely on the basis of their sexuality. Maybe now you'll show a little more respect towards the association.

I'm curious if any of the righteous Christians on this thread (at least those old enough to, and of the right gender) shave their faces?

I wonder, do any of the righteous Christians on this thread wear clothes that are of mixed fabric? (yup, that poly-cotton shirt/blouse)

How many of them eat pork?

All three of the above are "abominations in the eye of the Lord".

Oh come on! These are a few of the most fundamental strictures of the Bible! You can't just go and pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will follow.

True enough. Jesus did say that "not one jot or tittle of the Law [Torah] shall be changed."

Of course, this point of the argument is merely sophomoric. But it's an interesting one nonetheless.

I mean, you can take as much of the Bible as you believe to be true as true, and allow for the other parts to be historical consideration that applied to the culture and time period it was written, but it's still interesting.

Simply put, if a piece of music is honestly meant by a person to glorify god (in any way), it is pleasing to god. If the piece does not, it is not pleasing. God does not look at the material, he looks at our heart, what we meant a piece of music to be. If we meant a piece of music to glorify god, god would be pleased with it, even if it was atonal and sounded like pure crap. If any of you have read the ending of the short story "The Happy Prince" by Oscar Wilde (an atheist) you would know.

And about the point that many athesists lead excellent lives while some Christians are moral blackouts:

you should learn that you should NEVER JUDGE A SYSTEM BY ITS ABUSE. and anyway, humans were never meant to be perfect. God wants us to honestly come to him in out imperfection and HONESTLY ask for forgiveness. That is one of the fundamental pillars of the christian faith. Someone who sins, knows it, and does not ask for honest forgiveness is not a Christian.

Master Qccowboy, you have interprested some scriptures wrongly. :D The law did not merely refer to the literal laws in the old testament, but what the bible advocated as a whole, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS IN THE LAWS MADE BY JESUS. Jesus and his disciples worked on the sabbath, healed people on the sabbath, and peter was made to eat "unclean food" and preach to Gentiles. The laws made in the old testament (like those you quoted, as well as the laws of sacrifices) focus so much on the cleaniness of the literal body because the Saviour had not yet come. When Jesus came, he paid the ultimate sacrifice to cleanse us once and for all, so all these laws (those regarding sacrifices and abstinence from particular foods, clothes, e.t.c)

become redundant, as Jesus has liberated us.

Master Qccowboy, you have interprested some scriptures wrongly. :D The law did not merely refer to the literal laws in the old testament, but what the bible advocated as a whole, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS IN THE LAWS MADE BY JESUS. Jesus and his disciples worked on the sabbath, healed people on the sabbath, and peter was made to eat "unclean food" and preach to Gentiles. The laws made in the old testament (like those you quoted, as well as the laws of sacrifices) focus so much on the cleaniness of the literal body because the Saviour had not yet come. When Jesus came, he paid the ultimate sacrifice to cleanse us once and for all, so all these laws (those regarding sacrifices and abstinence from particular foods, clothes, e.t.c)

become redundant, as Jesus has liberated us.

Thanks for the explanation!

I also very much appreciated your views on music and intention:

God does not look at the material, he looks at our heart, what we meant a piece of music to be. If we meant a piece of music to glorify god, god would be pleased with it, even if it was atonal and sounded like pure crap.

I hold very similar views in my own non-Christian way.

You do know that jesus wore a dress, and so did moses? Well, at least they didn't wear pants back then...

so all these laws (those regarding sacrifices and abstinence from particular foods, clothes, e.t.c)

become redundant[/b]

And that means all of them.

Le Gasp! I have seen the error of my ways and shall never compose again. Thank you John Cannon, I have seen the errors of my ways and shall shortly walk into my room and pray for my numerous musical sins. You have taught me the truth, I now know Satan invented harmonics. Thank you.

Montpellier quotes:

"Most perplexing - how can any sound, however organised (or not) be inherently good or evil? It HAS to be in the ear of the beholder".

That should be reinitialized into the conundrums of errors.

:)

Hah!

Then here's one for the Book of Wisdom:

Nolle flatulare nisi clunes tuae paratae sunt.

This will be my last post on this matter.

I saw a program not so long ago about a well known composer.

Though I do not remember the name (it is irrelevant here for now)

It tells of how this composer traveled back to his home land after many years.

His goal at that time was to help the music community.

By trying to arrange an orchestra to play some well know piece's.

Though there was one predicament that I recall.

Of how theses two cello players one of the players was from Israel and the other was from Palestine.

(These country's are at war both having conflicts not been able to resolve their differences

in Politics & religion).

On the first day the two cello players could not play in harmony together.

For there was much tension between them for the same reason's of differences above.

I think during the second day,as they came to a segment within the piece that called for

both of them to play in unison.At the same pitch,at the same time,at the same volume.

A resolve must have hit them,for at that moment it did not matter what race or creed.

What religion of belief,what distance of cultures to what distance of views they both

did have from each other.

At the end it did not matter,as it became apparent they both had to listen to each other.

To hear each others sound each others voice,to achieve to play as one.

For you see both of their goals were the same.

Enough now the wizard must disappear untill next time if ever needed.