Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Posts 251 to 300 of 345
  1. #251

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by NSJ View Post
    The article doesn't reference any PARTICULAR religion.

    I'm sorry you don't know what the Onion is-they lampoon everyone.

    The sad thing us there are many articles today that people have to warn-"this is actually not the Onion".

    This article was clearly the Onion at its witty best.
    Yet they choose to not be at their witty best by lampooning Allah or The Profit Muhammad. Also, if you can't connect the dots in the references to Christianity or catholicism . . then you're intentionally trying to avoid seeing it as such. It's sad, yet telling that you would find such an artical as being "at its witty best".
    Patrick2 . . Heritage representative (now former)

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #252

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by NSJ View Post
    C'mon its just the Onion having a laugh at whole science and religion intersection. A topic that's been discussed here.
    This reminds me of a line from a favorite book, "The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric" by Sister Miram Joseph, C.S.C.:

    "...because man is rational, he can see that something is funny; because he is an animal, he can laugh."

    For a more intelligent look at the intersection of science and religion, I recommend again Antony Flew's "There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind."

    Since mentioning this book recently, I have obtained it from the library and re-read the first half. (I read the whole a few years ago; I will finish the second half this weekend.) It's good stuff from a sharp philosopher who spent much of his professional life writing in defense of atheism. He changed his mind late in life, but not as a result of a personal revelation or a religious experience. Indeed, he claimed to have become a deist for two reasons: better philosophical arguments and modern science.
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  4. #253

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2 View Post
    I don't know who or what "The Onion" is . . but I find it offensive and out of line to have been publised at all and even more so to have been posted here.

    We're living in a time where Christians are being persecuted all over the world . . and in some parts of the world slaughtered. Christianity is constantly under attack here in the USA. Then, a post like this pops up from a forum member with the last name of Singh . . one whom might not be a Christian believing in God . . . and might possibly be of the Hindu or Muslim faith . . and there is no dialog to accompany the offensive post, so the intentions behind posting it were left open to interpretation.

    Would you have posted this if it compared Allah or The Profit Mohammad to a chimpanzee . . or if it suggested that either of them were descendants of the chimpanzee? Would The Onion have even published such an article?

    Totally out of line to have been posted.
    "The Onion" is satire. It's a shame that in your haste to be offended by someone "whom might not be a Christian believing in God . . . and might possibly be of the Hindu or Muslim faith" you missed this.

  5. #254

    User Info Menu

    I'm not interested in engaging in a debate on this subject or even reading most of the replies, so sue me. I just wanted to throw in my experience quickly and then step out.

    Music is totally and completely, FOR ME, a spiritual experience. For me it can be nothing else. And I mean spiritual. Not denominational, not in a religious organized way. Humans were spiritual beings since long before they took their first breath, as far as I can tell. It has nothing whatsoever to do with christian or the religions of Abraham, or Buddha. Not a God with flowing white hair demanding justice or worship. Music is the expression of BEING. Being-ness is spiritualness. It is knowingness. It is not materialness, or corporal, flesh, matter.

    That's all I have to say. Enjoy your debate.

  6. #255

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jckoto3 View Post
    "The Onion" is satire. It's a shame that in your haste to be offended by someone "whom might not be a Christian believing in God . . . and might possibly be of the Hindu or Muslim faith" you missed this.
    Well, now that you've chosen to step in and defend The Onion as satire . . and the person who posted what I find to be a reprehensible an article from it . . . perhaps you can pull up something satirical from The Onion where they reference the spiritual leaders of other faiths as decendants of chimpanzies.

    By the way . . . what's your faith?

    You found the article to be humorous . . then feel free to laugh at it. But don't be judgemental of my interpretation of such a post as being hasty. There was no haste. I feel the same way now when I first posted 3 hours ago . . . and I'll feel the same way tomorrow.
    Patrick2 . . Heritage representative (now former)

  7. #256

    User Info Menu

    The onion's not in the habit of repeating themselves, but they're pretty much an equal opportunity offender.
    Jeff Matz, Jazz Guitar:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/jeffreymatz

    "Jazz is like life...it goes on longer than you think, and as soon as you're like 'oh, I get it,' it ends."

    --The Ghost of Duke Ellington

  8. #257

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    This reminds me of a line from a favorite book, "The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric" by Sister Miram Joseph, C.S.C.:

    "...because man is rational, he can see that something is funny; because he is an animal, he can laugh."

    For a more intelligent look at the intersection of science and religion, I recommend again Antony Flew's "There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind."

    Since mentioning this book recently, I have obtained it from the library and re-read the first half. (I read the whole a few years ago; I will finish the second half this weekend.) It's good stuff from a sharp philosopher who spent much of his professional life writing in defense of atheism. He changed his mind late in life, but not as a result of a personal revelation or a religious experience. Indeed, he claimed to have become a deist for two reasons: better philosophical arguments and modern science.
    The fascinating question for me is: when science cannot explain phenomenon (i.e., the existence of time and space BEFORE the big bang), the question for science becomes irrelevant or moot. I.e., there cannot be speculation without the backing of at least a modicum evidence. But where the laws of science have no bearing, it means there can exist no evidence.

    It's like the foundational question: what existed before matter was created, before there was time and space? Science can explain the creative moment. But how can there be nothing? Secondary question: the universe is expanding--how can there be boundaries beyond the actually existing universe?

    No doubt there have been fascinating questions for human beings, believers and non-believers alike. Particularly for musicians and other artists.
    Navdeep Singh.

  9. #258

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by NSJ View Post
    The fascinating question for me is: when science cannot explain phenomenon (i.e., the existence of time and space BEFORE the big bang), the question for science becomes irrelevant or moot. I.e., there cannot be speculation without the backing of at least a modicum evidence. But where the laws of science have no bearing, it means there can exist no evidence.

    It's like the foundational question: what existed before matter was created, before there was time and space? Science can explain the creative moment. But how can there be nothing? Secondary question: the universe is expanding--how can there be boundaries beyond the actually existing universe?

    No doubt there have been fascinating questions for human beings, believers and non-believers alike. Particularly for musicians and other artists.
    "Before" there was time?????

  10. #259

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pkirk View Post
    "Before" there was time?????
    That was back before time split away from anti-time.

  11. #260

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pkirk View Post
    "Before" there was time?????
    The more appropriate query is to contemplate a period where time and space have no relevance in any scientific way or basis. What is time and space before the Big Bang ? It appears to be unknowable .
    Navdeep Singh.

  12. #261

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo View Post
    That was back before time split away from anti-time.
    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2013...e-the-big-bang
    Navdeep Singh.

  13. #262

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2 View Post
    Is there an underlying reason you would post something as offensive as this . . . and then try to avoid ownership of it by not posting any dialog along with it?

    I can pretty much see this thread being shut down now.
    Not meaning to but-in but are you serious? I think the Onion is making fun of the know-it-alls on both sides of the debate.

    "multicelled, sponge-like deity"

    Sorry, that was funny. I think bananas are awesome too.

  14. #263

    User Info Menu

    That chimp is better looking than me.

  15. #264

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by L4CESN View Post
    I've been listening to "A Love Supreme", which is a high benchmark for me in terms of authenticity, purity of intent, and prayerfulness expressed through improvisation.

    What is the place of spirituality in your playing? Where do you go in your head when you're improvising? Does your music have a spiritual imperative?

    Replying before reading the thread and looking forward to what the take of others on this might be.

    I don't feel that the music I express has a spiritual imperative. I don't believe in religions (in part because there are so many and almost all claim they are exclusively correct, yet each has exactly the same amount of objective evidence to support their rightness: none) and don't belong to one. Whatever anyone else wants to believe is up to them and is none of my business. Who knows, they may even be right and I may be wrong.

    But what does the music I play express? That's an interesting question. Today I think that the music I play expresses my affection for my fellow musicians on the bandstand and my appreciation of their creativity. Intuitive improvisational composition interacting with others is a tremendously intimate process. Ultimately I hope that my music expresses "humane-ness" and unity.

  16. #265

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2 View Post
    Christianity is constantly under attack here in the USA.
    Many believe this truism and yet it is not true. It is a recurrent trope on various media outlets and from a few pulpits to rally outrage and maintain ratings and profitability. A wonderful hot-button issue to trigger anger, mainly because angry people are really easy to manipulate. If one believes things that are unsupported by reality, one will find those beliefs challenged on a daily basis.

    Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the US Constitution by the prohibition against the government establishing a state religion. This is not at attack on Christianity or on any other faith. What is under attack constantly in the US is the right to be free of religion. "God" is on our money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, prominently displayed in government buildings, etc. Everyone has the right to believe in a religion as they wish; they do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

    Sorry for wading into somewhere that I did not intend to go when I started reading the thread. Spirituality != religion != Christianity. There is more to the world than that.

  17. #266

    User Info Menu


  18. #267

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunamara View Post
    Many believe this truism and yet it is not true. It is a recurrent trope on various media outlets and from a few pulpits to rally outrage and maintain ratings and profitability. A wonderful hot-button issue to trigger anger, mainly because angry people are really easy to manipulate. If one believes things that are unsupported by reality, one will find those beliefs challenged on a daily basis.

    Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the US Constitution by the prohibition against the government establishing a state religion. This is not at attack on Christianity or on any other faith. What is under attack constantly in the US is the right to be free of religion. "God" is on our money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, prominently displayed in government buildings, etc. Everyone has the right to believe in a religion as they wish; they do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

    Sorry for wading into somewhere that I did not intend to go when I started reading the thread. Spirituality != religion != Christianity. There is more to the world than that.
    oh really?

    according to you, what kind of events, trends, legislation, policy changes, and discourse would one have to observe before they could reasonably declare it to be true?

  19. #268

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunamara View Post
    Many believe this truism and yet it is not true. It is a recurrent trope on various media outlets and from a few pulpits to rally outrage and maintain ratings and profitability. A wonderful hot-button issue to trigger anger, mainly because angry people are really easy to manipulate. If one believes things that are unsupported by reality, one will find those beliefs challenged on a daily basis.

    Freedom of religion is guaranteed under the US Constitution by the prohibition against the government establishing a state religion. This is not at attack on Christianity or on any other faith. What is under attack constantly in the US is the right to be free of religion. "God" is on our money, in the Pledge of Allegiance, prominently displayed in government buildings, etc. Everyone has the right to believe in a religion as they wish; they do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

    Sorry for wading into somewhere that I did not intend to go when I started reading the thread. Spirituality != religion != Christianity. There is more to the world than that.
    I find 'In God We Trust' on money to be extremely offensive. Who's God? And what's the deal with the Commandments? Are there 10 or 11?

  20. #269

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol View Post
    I find 'In God We Trust' on money to be extremely offensive. Who's God? And what's the deal with the Commandments? Are there 10 or 11?
    no need to be offended, "we" didn't include you. See how easy that was?

    Furthermore, you've probably noticed by now that nobody really gives a shit what offends an atheist. Most of the world's population belong to some sort of religion. Besides you guys appear to be angry and are always getting your panties in a wad over the notion that someone's faith is somehow offensive to your belief in nothing at all. What a phony injustice.
    Last edited by fumblefingers; 04-13-2014 at 01:30 AM.

  21. #270

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers View Post
    no need to be offended, "we" didn't include you. See how easy that was?

    Furthermore, you've probably noticed by now that nobody really gives a shit what offends an atheist. Most of the world's population belong to some sort of religion. Besides you guys appear to be angry and are always getting your panties in a wad over the notion that someone's faith is somehow offensive to your belief in nothing at all. What a phony injustice.
    You have a point. I believe in God very much, just not your God.

  22. #271

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers View Post
    no need to be offended, "we" didn't include you. See how easy that was?

    Furthermore, you've probably noticed by now that nobody really gives a shit what offends an atheist. Most of the world's population belong to some sort of religion. Besides you guys appear to be angry and are always getting your panties in a wad over the notion that someone's faith is somehow offensive to your belief in nothing at all. What a phony injustice.
    Actually I'm with you all the way. The US and the 4 BRIC countries are too big to be democracies anyway so putting God on money is just being honest. We're a business. Let's advertize it.

  23. #272

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers View Post
    no need to be offended, "we" didn't include you. See how easy that was?

    Furthermore, you've probably noticed by now that nobody really gives a shit what offends an atheist. Most of the world's population belong to some sort of religion. Besides you guys appear to be angry and are always getting your panties in a wad over the notion that someone's faith is somehow offensive to your belief in nothing at all. What a phony injustice.
    What is a religion? What makes something a religion?

  24. #273

    User Info Menu

    The hiatus of ignorance!..It has to be filled with something!!.....

  25. #274

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2 View Post
    Well, now that you've chosen to step in and defend The Onion as satire . . and the person who posted what I find to be a reprehensible an article from it . . . perhaps you can pull up something satirical from The Onion where they reference the spiritual leaders of other faiths as decendants of chimpanzies.

    did you read it? the "article" does not refer to "the spiritual leaders" of any religion, but rather to the Ancient One Himself. ("by whichsoever ye will invoke Him, He hath most excellent names")...

    irreverent, to be sure, but not offensive...
    "Beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror, which we still are just able to endure, and we are are so awed because it serenely disdains to annihilate us." -- Ranier Maria Rilke

  26. #275

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by NSJ View Post
    The more appropriate query is to contemplate a period where time and space have no relevance in any scientific way or basis. What is time and space before the Big Bang ? It appears to be unknowable .
    "unknowable"...hmmm..."inaccessible at present" is more accurate, i think...
    "Beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror, which we still are just able to endure, and we are are so awed because it serenely disdains to annihilate us." -- Ranier Maria Rilke

  27. #276

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by randalljazz View Post
    did you read it? the "article" does not refer to "the spiritual leaders" of any religion, but rather to the Ancient One Himself. ("by whichsoever ye will invoke Him, He hath most excellent names")...

    irreverent, to be sure, but not offensive...
    absurd. it would be offensive to anyone who believed. being irreverent to God himself is offensive to anyone who believes. and reducing him to a shit throwing chimp no less. you have to be kidding.

    furthermore, it placed the satirical bogus story in Berkeley so that placed it in a country that is largely Christian, and Judeo-Christian. It also used the phrase Lord our God, in caps, as Christians do. That was no mistake, that was part of the "humor".

    I suppose turning the other cheek invites attacks, especially from cowards. Just try that shit in a mosque, if you've got the balls. Turning the other cheek ain't part of their program.
    Last edited by fumblefingers; 04-13-2014 at 12:06 PM.

  28. #277

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers View Post
    absurd. it would be offensive to anyone who believed. being irreverent to God himself is offensive to anyone who believes. and reducing him to a shit throwing chimp no less. you have to be kidding.

    furthermore, it placed the satirical bogus story in Berkeley so that placed it in a country that is largely Christian, and Judeo-Christian. It also used the phrase Lord our God, in caps, as Christians do. That was no mistake, that was part of the "humor".

    I suppose turning the other cheek invites attacks, especially from cowards. Just try that shit in a mosque, if you've got the balls. Turning the other cheek ain't part of their program.
    Who are you to decide when everyone should turn the other cheek? To turn the other cheek have to be able to take a punch first. I can definitely take a punch. Sometimes you fight and sometimes you wait. It's called strategy.

    In addition that Onion article didn't single out Christians. I'm not big on satire but it doesn't hurt to know what it is. Stop pretending to be hurt. You're not in charge. No one is going to take away your religion or beliefs.

  29. #278

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers View Post
    absurd. it would be offensive to anyone who believed. being irreverent to God himself is offensive to anyone who believes. and reducing him to a shit throwing chimp no less. you have to be kidding.

    furthermore, it placed the satirical bogus story in Berkeley so that placed it in a country that is largely Christian, and Judeo-Christian. It also used the phrase Lord our God, in caps, as Christians do. That was no mistake, that was part of the "humor".

    I suppose turning the other cheek invites attacks, especially from cowards. Just try that shit in a mosque, if you've got the balls. Turning the other cheek ain't part of their program.
    I believe in God and I'm not an atheist at all. I wasn't offended by the article.

    Why don't YOU go try that in a Mosque?

    You reduce everything to some stand-your-ground BS. Lighten up.

  30. #279

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol View Post
    Who are you to decide when everyone should turn the other cheek? To turn the other cheek have to be able to take a punch first. I can definitely take a punch. Sometimes you fight and sometimes you wait. It's called strategy.

    In addition that Onion article didn't single out Christians. I'm not big on satire but it doesn't hurt to know what it is. Stop pretending to be hurt. You're not in charge. No one is going to take away your religion or beliefs.
    As ff said . . of course it singled out Christians. To deny that would require a "willful suspension of disbelief".

    I think what ff and me were deciding . . . was what we might take as offensive to our own particular faith. This isn't about turning another cheek . . at least not for me. It's about the insensitive willingness to post something which might be offensive to someone's faith. As you know, I'm the first to rail against over the top PC. I'm all for posting a black joke, or a Polish joke, or an Italian joke . . . or the tolerance of referring to a female as a chick . . all in the name of humor. However, people have been beheaded for posting far less offensive "satire" about other religious leaders, than what was shown in that article. The name Salman Rushdie ring a bell? There was a hit put out on him by . . . "religious leaders" . . . for writing something similar. Why the double standard? How would the mods have interpreted a satirical post involving The Prophet Muhammad or Allah? Would they be tolerant? Or, would they be concerned about an impending Jihad?

    I again challenge NJS to find an equally offensive article, disguised as satire by this "Onion" thing . . as it might relate to those of a faith other than Christian or Catholic. But, given the source of the post . . I challenge him, or you, to find one most specifically targeting Buddhism or Muslim.

    It was suggested here in this JGF quite some time ago . . and it's no more than common sense and proper forum decorum . . before you post something, consider if it might be offensive to anyone. If you think it might be, reconsider whether or not you want to post it. That ain't asking too much. Is it? If NJS didn't take such concerns into consideration . . than shame on him. If he did take that into concern and posted anyway . . than even more shame on him.

    It's probably best if I try to look away from this thread. I'll give it my best . . but no promises. ;-)
    Patrick2 . . Heritage representative (now former)

  31. #280

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick2 View Post
    As ff said . . of course it singled out Christians. To deny that would require a "willful suspension of disbelief".

    I think what ff and me were deciding . . . was what we might take as offensive to our own particular faith. This isn't about turning another cheek . . at least not for me. It's about the insensitive willingness to post something which might be offensive to someone's faith. As you know, I'm the first to rail against over the top PC. I'm all for posting a black joke, or a Polish joke, or an Italian joke . . . or the tolerance of referring to a female as a chick . . all in the name of humor. However, people have been beheaded for posting far less offensive "satire" about other religious leaders, than what was shown in that article. The name Salman Rushdie ring a bell? There was a hit put out on him by . . . "religious leaders" . . . for writing something similar. Why the double standard? How would the mods have interpreted a satirical post involving The Prophet Muhammad or Allah? Would they be tolerant? Or, would they be concerned about an impending Jihad?

    I again challenge NJS to find an equally offensive article, disguised as satire by this "Onion" thing . . as it might relate to those of a faith other than Christian or Catholic. But, given the source of the post . . I challenge him, or you, to find one most specifically targeting Buddhism or Muslim.

    It was suggested here in this JGF quite some time ago . . and it's no more than common sense and proper forum decorum . . before you post something, consider if it might be offensive to anyone. If you think it might be, reconsider whether or not you want to post it. That ain't asking too much. Is it? If NJS didn't take such concerns into consideration . . than shame on him. If he did take that into concern and posted anyway . . than even more shame on him.

    It's probably best if I try to look away from this thread. I'll give it my best . . but no promises. ;-)
    I don't believe it targeted Christians. Western religion in general? Probably. If satire can shake your beliefs then your beliefs need to be stronger. I believe in God even more after reading the Onion article. Live and let live is my religion.

  32. #281

    User Info Menu

    I believe anything is possible.

    I thought the Onion article was stupid.

    I believe that love is a universal truth.

    This thread has degenerated into a Christian v. Atheist debate and has moved away from the spirit of the OP. I, for one, would prefer to see it move back into a discussion of spiritualism and music, if there is any more light to be shed on that debate.
    Last edited by zigzag; 04-13-2014 at 01:40 PM.

  33. #282

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by zigzag View Post
    I believe anything is possible.

    I thought the Onion article was stupid.

    I really don't care what other people believe, as long as they don't try to impose their beliefs on me. I accept that we are largely a Western, Judeo-Christian culture. I go to an Episcopal church because I share most of their beliefs, and I like that they allow a liberal and reasoned interpretation of the Bible. That said, many of them likely do not share all of my beliefs, but that's okay.

    I believe that love is a universal truth.

    This thread has degenerated into a Christian v. Atheist debate and has moved away from the spirit of the OP. I, for one, would prefer to see it move back into a discussion of spiritualism and music, if there is any more light to be shed on that debate.
    I agree. I don't really like satire but maybe it serves a purpose. There's too much satire in the US. Just my 2 cents. I also believe love is universal truth. Maybe math too. That's debatable.

  34. #283

    User Info Menu

    The Onion article was definitely stupid. All you need is love and a passing grade on your algebra tests.

    I skipped algebra and economics. Took everything else in college. Needless to say I'm a loser.

    What does that leave? Love. Love is all you need.

  35. #284

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by zigzag View Post
    This thread has degenerated into a Christian v. Atheist debate and has moved away from the spirit of the OP. I, for one, would prefer to see it move back into a discussion of spiritualism and music, if there is any more light to be shed on that debate.
    That would suit me too.

    Here's an interview with David Leibman that talks about his view of spirituality and jazz.

    http://www.superconsciousness.com/to...rituality-jazz

    (I'm not endorsing this view, just inviting the conversation back in the direction of the OP.)
    Last edited by MarkRhodes; 04-13-2014 at 02:07 PM. Reason: Link
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  36. #285

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkRhodes View Post
    That would suit me too.

    Here's an interview with David Leibman that talks about his view of spirituality and jazz.

    Spirituality in Jazz | SuperConsciousness Magazine

    (I'm not endorsing this view, just inviting the conversation back in the direction of the OP.)
    Some of us believe there's only sacred and secular music. No middle ground. The OP raises a very difficult question.

  37. #286

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol View Post
    I don't believe it targeted Christians. Western religion in general? Probably. If satire can shake your beliefs then your beliefs need to be stronger. I believe in God even more after reading the Onion article. Live and let live is my religion.
    Well . . so much for avoiding this thread. I forgot that all new posts are forwarded to personal email. Then, of course, I've got to look at it. But, I'll try to temper my responses . . again, the functional word is try.

    It's not about anyone shaking my beliefs. I was raised as a Catholic . . but, I'm still not quite sure exactly what my true beliefs are. I believe there has to be a supreme being . . of some sort. It all had to begin somewhere.

    What it is about, is what I believe was a very controversial article being posted in a thread where it had little to no relevance . . . and posted with no qualifying dialog. Just a post saying that "God" . . "The Lord Mighty" . . terms specifically referencing Christians and catholics almost 100% of the time . . was more than likely a descendant of a monkey. It was nothing short of stupid to post that article here in an international forum. (so much for tempering my words). You say you're a catholic. I believe you. You say you believe in God. I believe you. As such, how do you think such an article would go over if read at a Sunday Mass in a catholic church? How do you think it would be received by a Bishop? A Cardinal? The Pope? Would they accept it as purely satire?

    A few years back, there was an art exhibit here in New York City. It showed a painting depicting The Blessed Mother, but with human feces smeared over it. When it *predictably* drew outrage from Christians and Catholics . . it was explained away as "hey man . . why are you all getting so upset? It's only art". Really? Did the artist and the museum actually think it would be accepted as such?

    I too believe in live and let live . . until someone starts treading on me, directly or indirectly.
    Last edited by Patrick2; 04-13-2014 at 02:45 PM.
    Patrick2 . . Heritage representative (now former)

  38. #287

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol View Post
    Some of us believe there's only sacred and secular music. No middle ground. The OP raises a very difficult question.
    What do you think of Ellington's "Sacred Music" Concerts? It seems to me the last stages of his career were centered on two types of projects:

    1. His Sacred Concerts
    2. His assorted Suites about people and places: Latin American, Far East, New Orleans

    Is there a big "bright line" dichotomy or cleavage amidst these two categories?
    Navdeep Singh.

  39. #288

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol View Post
    Who are you to decide when everyone should turn the other cheek? To turn the other cheek have to be able to take a punch first. I can definitely take a punch. Sometimes you fight and sometimes you wait. It's called strategy.

    In addition that Onion article didn't single out Christians. I'm not big on satire but it doesn't hurt to know what it is. Stop pretending to be hurt. You're not in charge. No one is going to take away your religion or beliefs.

    i'm not. you missed it. i'm not talking about me by a long shot. i'm no pacifist.

    the point is that Christian's are easy to make fun of because their religion preaches a type of pacifism. mostly, and ironically, they are mocked by children of Christian's. You see, in the 1960's the baby boomers (like me) became enamored with rejecting every standard of establishment that their parents and grandparents built and taught them. now some of that was positive, but much of it was, and is, destructive. one of the things that the liberal hippies and their progeny have found useful is to be rid of a belief in God in general, and of Christianity in particular. Too many buzz kills with all those rules, man.

    and what I'm saying is that its easy to mock Christians. it takes no courage. why? because Christians forgive, they love their enemy, and they turn the other cheek, sometimes to the point of martyrdom.

    and what i'm further saying is that the whiny, cowardly atheist does not dare talk the same shit to other religions, and for some pathetically transparent reasons:

    1. they don't want to be seen as anti-semitic (because of the holocaust),
    2. they don't dare insult the religion of a person of color - oh no!,
    3. and they sure as hell don't want to be held to account by the no-nonsense Muslims, who display zero tolerance to any mocking of their prophet, and frequently murder those who do so.
    Last edited by fumblefingers; 04-13-2014 at 08:21 PM.

  40. #289

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol View Post
    I believe in God and I'm not an atheist at all. I wasn't offended by the article.

    Why don't YOU go try that in a Mosque?

    You reduce everything to some stand-your-ground BS. Lighten up.
    i have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.

  41. #290

    User Info Menu

    of course the other side of the satirical article in the onion is the Berkeley angle. did you catch it?

    in other words, "leave it to the flakes at Berkeley to come up with something so cockamamie", northern California people being the flaky liberals that they are, etc., etc..

    but it wasn't that funny, and got lost in the much larger narrative.

  42. #291

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by NSJ View Post
    What do you think of Ellington's "Sacred Music" Concerts? It seems to me the last stages of his career were centered on two types of projects:

    1. His Sacred Concerts
    2. His assorted Suites about people and places: Latin American, Far East, New Orleans

    Is there a big "bright line" dichotomy or cleavage amidst these two categories?

    No rules. It's just easier for some people to think sacred and secular. Bach- sacred. Mozart-secular. American Gospel- sacred. Bird-secular.

  43. #292

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol View Post
    No rules. It's just easier for some people to think sacred and secular. Bach- sacred. Mozart-secular. American Gospel- sacred. Bird-secular.
    Perhaps the most interesting comparison would be two singers like Bessie Smith and Mahalia Jackson.

    As to your list, as a secular person, I can't get enough of Bach's Sacred Cantatas. Beautiful beyond words.
    Navdeep Singh.

  44. #293

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers View Post
    i have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.
    Thank God for that.

  45. #294

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by NSJ View Post
    Perhaps the most interesting comparison would be two singers like Bessie Smith and Mahalia Jackson.

    As to your list, as a secular person, I can't get enough of Bach's Sacred Cantatas. Beautiful beyond words.
    Chaconne does it for me. Old man Yehudi in the church.

  46. #295

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol View Post
    Thank God for that.
    Which God should we thank?
    Patrick2 . . Heritage representative (now former)

  47. #296

    User Info Menu

    ^^^

    You're asking me? I don't care. Take your pick.

  48. #297

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers View Post
    and what i'm further saying is that the whiny, cowardly atheist does not dare talk the same shit to other religions, and for some pathetically transparent reasons:

    1. they don't want to be seen as anti-semitic,
    2. they don't dare insult the religion of a person of color - oh no!,
    3. and they sure as hell don't want to be held to account by the no-nonsense Muslim, who display zero tolerance to the mocking of their prophet, and frequently murder those who do.
    You might be right about this, but somehow it seems much easier to criticise a culture that one is a part of. I know the Christian church through years of experience from child untill now. So IMO my points of views are well informed. I also have some strong opinions on Islamic culture having lived with a Muslim who believed his wife should be a doctor who cleaned his sheets and by the way expected to be a virgin by marriage. All the while he attented prostitutes. This should not account for my view on all Muslims though (I certainly hope not).

    I don't mind Christianity at all, but it is peculiar to see someone get offended by a satirical article. If you believe in something it should be hard to get provoked, because you know what you stand for and nothing will change your mind about that.

  49. #298

    User Info Menu

    This could be a good thread if we get off the evolution debate. It's supposed to be about spirituality and music. There's no connection for me personally.

    I became a musician because of a guy named Charlie Christian. I don't know if that means anything. I though he embodied everything great about American music. My parents love swing. I failed as a musician probably because I never wanted to be one.

    I know there must be a supreme being, no doubt, but my God on this earth is CC. In a way I like that people don't understand his music. They say it's primitive. OK, that's fine. I'm primitive too.
    Last edited by Stevebol; 04-13-2014 at 06:46 PM.

  50. #299

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol View Post
    Some of us believe there's only sacred and secular music. No middle ground. The OP raises a very difficult question.
    I see a distinction between sacred and secular music, but I don't think "spirituality" (-as used in the OP) fits wholly into either of those categories. It's unclear (to me, at least) just what the OP meant by "spirituality." Perhaps this was deliberate, an invitation to a very open-ended talk on "spirituality" (and jazz) however members may define it. Such conversations can get messy---people may mean very different things though they use the same words for them---but they can also provide insights and food for thought.
    "Learn the repertoire. It’s all in the songs. If you learn 200 songs, you will have no problem improvising."
    Frank Vignola

  51. #300

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by yaclaus View Post
    You might be right about this, but somehow it seems much easier to criticise a culture that one is a part of. I know the Christian church through years of experience from child untill now. So IMO my points of views are well informed. I also have some strong opinions on Islamic culture having lived with a Muslim who believed his wife should be a doctor who cleaned his sheets and by the way expected to be a virgin by marriage. All the while he attented prostitutes. This should not account for my view on all Muslims though (I certainly hope not).

    I don't mind Christianity at all, but it is peculiar to see someone get offended by a satirical article. If you believe in something it should be hard to get provoked, because you know what you stand for and nothing will change your mind about that.
    that last sentence is pure BS. the provocation comes not from weak faith, but from being directly and intentionally mocked, and about something which is the furthest thing from trivial (to the target that is, not the self-centered atheist asshole. of course faith is trivial to them, and its all about them and their noise making right?).
    Last edited by fumblefingers; 04-13-2014 at 08:26 PM.