Anything good about religion at all?

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Quite like Bach's cello sonatas in b minor....and illuminated manuscripts

Ohhh-I love illuminated manuscripts...and stained glass windows..and the smell of frankincense...

coffee_cake

Bach cello suites > *

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

Bach cello suites > *

are sexy :cool:

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Mozart's Mass in C minor is great, especially the Kyrie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hieCzEZwRw4

Or, Fauré's requiem, the Libera Me and near the Angus Dei, truly haunting.

Angus Dei (watch out for "Lux Aeterna" at 1:58):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs8sMjIJ4eI

Libera me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksvNattfn3o

Or Verdi's Requiem, especially the Dies Irae, of course:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdT1Mw4QJT8

One period of musically history that's often overlooked is during the Renaissance. An absolute liturgical masterpieces of that era is Miserere Mei by Allegri I linked earlier. The Pope banned any unauthorised copies or performances of the piece under pain of excommunication until the 18th century. Probably the best liturgical composers of that era were G. Palestrina, William Byrd, Thomas Tallis and T. Victoria. Examples:

Palestrina most famous piece is probably his "Missa Papae Marcelli", I've linked the Gloria and Angus Dei from that mass below:

Gloria:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIvs7C2nW88

Agnus Dei:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhJTMa8iq3I

I also found Palestrina's Super Flumina and Sicut Cervus nice:

Sicut Cervus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mdmco61Htk

Super Flumina:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUp-EgsqZnw

Here's some from the English composers William Byrd and Thomas Tallis. Some argue that England's golden age of choral music was during the Renaissance.

Ave Verum Corpus by Byrd (my favourite of his):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFZZMF7SRRo

O Nata Lux by Thomas Tallis -note the haunting chord (i.e., the false relation) at the end:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4pwX_ru7fc

Spem In Alium:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cn7ZW8ts3Y

Here's the Angus Dei from Missa O Magnum Mysterium by Tomás Luis de Victoria of Spain. It's famous for it's amazing suspensions throughout.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqSZFb4rUy4

O Magnum Mysterium by Victoria also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeKvNxYMDxE

Undergod

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

One period of musically history that's often overlooked is during the Renaissance. An absolute liturgical masterpieces of that era is Miserere Mei by Allegri I linked earlier. The Pope banned any unauthorised copies or performances of the piece under pain of excommunication until the 18th century. Probably the best liturgical composers of that era were G. Palestrina, William Byrd, Thomas Tallis and T. Victoria. Examples:

Spem In Alium:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cn7ZW8ts3Y

Yes yes yes.

Sir Pompous Righteousness

Undergod wrote: »

Yes yes yes.

Oh mother of the immaculate shite, it was already linked on the first page. Sorry about that guys.

Undergod

Sir Pompous Righteousness wrote: »

Oh mother of the immaculate shite, it was already linked on the first page. Sorry about that guys.

Tallis always bears repeating.

Dades

Calibos

Dades wrote: »

Oh Brother, Where art thou?

Obliq

bluewolf wrote: »

Bach cello suites > *

Oh yeah! so it is:o

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

are sexy :cool:

Oh yeaaah, so they are

nozzferrahhtoo

gothictwilight wrote: »

Alas, if only you understood my point.
I was trying to put across the point that religion has been used by the Persian Empire right up to the US as a tool to unite people.

Disagreeing with your point is not synonymous with not understanding it I am afraid. I well understood "your" point. I have heard it made many times before and yours is far from the best rehash of it. It simply is not a good point and I disagree with it. Religion is divisive and often a conversation stopper. I do not see it, especially in the present day, of being the unifier some imagine it to be.

gothictwilight

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Disagreeing with your point is not synonymous with not understanding it I am afraid. I well understood "your" point. I have heard it made many times before and yours is far from the best rehash of it. It simply is not a good point and I disagree with it. Religion is divisive and often a conversation stopper. I do not see it, especially in the present day, of being the unifier some imagine it to be.

Alas you still seem to misunderstand "my" point.
I'm very sorry but perhaps I wasn't making "myself" clear.
The "point" I tried to "rehash" is actually a documented historical fact.
Religion has been used by ruling elites to unite a society to achieve economic, strategic or military goals.
Wether those goals are moral or desirable depends on the context.
Islamic Caliphates used "Jihad" as a powerful miliary motivator for their troops from the crusades on.
You may disagree with these aims and methods but it doesn't make them any less effective.
Also this is not a defence of this strategy no matter how militarily effective it sometimes can be.
Again, just to make myself clear. Religion has and still is been used to motivate/convince/manipulate populations to achieve goals that the ruling elites of that society find desireable. Religion has also been used/is been used in attempts to unify empires/city states/countries,etc.
Again, this is not a defence of religion per se but an example of what "Good" it is for.
As for religion been a conversation stopper it depends what that converstaion is about.
Mentioning religion in a conversation about religion, I think, would fail to stop that conversation. However, mentioning religion in a swingers party may raise a few eyebrows.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again disagreeing with your point is not the same as not understanding it. I thought I just explained that.

Also you are talking of history. If you read my first post which you replied to but apparently did not actually read, I already distinguished between history and present day. So perhaps you are the one not understanding the points being made here, not I.

While historically religion might have had some unifying effect, I do not think it often does so today. And where it appears to have such effects one must remember the difference between correlation and causation. How does one assert that religion is what is doing the unifying, or where the people in quetion already unified and they rubber stamp that with religion. Take the divide between Catholics and protestants in Belfast for example. While the divide is along that line on the surface, when one digs down the unifications and divides very much more than religion.

And where it might have such little effects, the overall result is not so. What little use it might have in that direction is not worth the damage in the other directions.

kylith

gothictwilight wrote: »

Alas you still seem to misunderstand "my" point.
I'm very sorry but perhaps I wasn't making "myself" clear.
The "point" I tried to "rehash" is actually a documented historical fact.
Religion has been used by ruling elites to unite a society to achieve economic, strategic or military goals.
Wether those goals are moral or desirable depends on the context.
Islamic Caliphates used "Jihad" as a powerful miliary motivator for their troops from the crusades on.
You may disagree with these aims and methods but it doesn't make them any less effective.
Also this is not a defence of this strategy no matter how militarily effective it sometimes can be.
Again, just to make myself clear. Religion has and still is been used to motivate/convince/manipulate populations to achieve goals that the ruling elites of that society find desireable. Religion has also been used/is been used in attempts to unify empires/city states/countries,etc.
Again, this is not a defence of religion per se but an example of what "Good" it is for.
As for religion been a conversation stopper it depends what that converstaion is about.
Mentioning religion in a conversation about religion, I think, would fail to stop that conversation. However, mentioning religion in a swingers party may raise a few eyebrows.

I understand the point you're making, but in what way is does this manipulation of people tie in with the topic of good things coming from religion? In most people's opinion manipulation and control are generally seen as Bad Things.

nozzferrahhtoo

That would be my position too. Manipulation is not a good thing so listing it thusly is rather suspect. Further even if we were to imagine it a good thing we have to look at the full picture and look also at what price is paid for any good thing in religion. We can not simply cherry pick the good things and hold them up. The cost paid, the side effects suffered and more need to be considered too.

ShooterSF

Wafaa79 wrote: »

Fair enough, but does it matter in the end?
If I give 1000 € to charity because I think it is going to get me to Heaven or if I give it because I feel this is the right thing to do, do you really think the charity is going to care either way?
Do you really think that the lepers that Mother Theresa helped cared that she was doing it in the name of Jesus? Bottom line is that she was doing it no matter what her motivation was.

Of course not. When we're in need we take what we get but that doesn't mean when we are comfortable we can't strive for the best. So it can make an onlooker sad to see someone only help as a way to get their merit badge rather than because they want to see their fellow human happier. It can also be disheartening to think that if some people cast off religion and it's negative sides they might also stop acting like better people as selfish motivations would lead to different actions in such mindsets. Can you not see that point of view too whilst holding yours?

In some ways, I find atheists as annoying as fundamentalists. I don’t understand this need to prove that religion is a bad thing, and to go round saying that religious people are kidding themselves, as if they cared about what you think.

I have no need to prove religion is a bad thing. My opinion that it lacks evidence is enough for me to oppose it. The truth whether positive or negative is all I seek.

I don’t really agree with what they believe but I could not care less that is some of them think they will go to Heaven and I won’t. And if religion bring them comfort and a purpose, why should that bother me?

It shouldn't but religion is rarely a private individual creature. It interferes at state and local levels. That's where most on this forum have issue. See education and gay marriage threads for examples.

In this thread it really feels that the admin and most participants are just sharing the same unilateral thought.
I was hoping for some interesting exchange of point of views but what we got is people patting themselves on the shoulder while they all agree and sneer at people who have different opinions (who wanna bet that I am going to get banned for that comment?).
Just the title “anything good about religion at all??” proves that the answer expected is: “of course not, religion is evil because of A, B and C”.

You guys need to understand that you will NEVER be proven wrong or right because there is no simple answer to that topic. It’s not all black and white.

Yes you can't prove an opinion. Doesn't stop people holding them though does it?

gothictwilight

kylith wrote: »

I understand the point you're making, but in what way is does this manipulation of people tie in with the topic of good things coming from religion? In most people's opinion manipulation and control are generally seen as Bad Things.

Depends on wether you are manipulator or manipulatee. If you're some Roman emperor claiming you're a god its a good thing. If you're some pleb in a roman slum, not so good.

To be honest though, if you are an atheist with no belief in the supernatural or a higher being I think you may have very little use for religion.(unless you are a dictator or politican).
Now if you are religious you may find religion very useful.

Hotblack Desiato

Ugh. Just had to post this to purge the classical music horribleness of the previous page :pac:

John Lydon is of Catholic Irish descent on both sides of his family, therefore on-topic here, right? Wikipedia: Lydon's parents raised him and his brothers in the Roman Catholic faith, but he "never had any godlike epiphanies or thought that God had anything to do with this dismal occurrence called life."

Bannasidhe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUXWvRPQSAg

Hotblack Desiato

Thought that was John Cooper Clarke for a sec.. I'll admit to never having heard First Edition, but I was seven years of age when it came out. Metal Box is fcuking excellent.

aja123

religious in fact gives you the people a hope(false hope) but many have found their way through the religion. so i guess a buddhism or hinduism is far better than other religions

Hotblack Desiato

If you think Hinduism is a cuddly fluffy religion, you're obviously not paying attention.

robindch

aja123 wrote: »

so i guess a buddhism or hinduism is far better than other religions

Ayodhya:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/28/ayodhya-mosque-india-guardian-report

Sir Pompous Righteousness

ninja900 wrote: »

Ugh. Just had to post this to purge the classical music horribleness of the previous page

What you just posted is such tripe in comparison that I'm not even going to quote that video you linked.

Hotblack Desiato

Thought long and hard over that username did you :pac:

Bannasidhe

I enjoy classical music and PIL - John Lydon has been making me laugh since 1976 .

X-Factor crap on the other hand :mad:

Barr125

jank wrote: »

A fairly easy question to answer yourself. Would a world without religion be perfect? No, it would not, therefore religion cannot be blamed for all the ills of the earth. People do bad things to each other, yet I never hear that we should ban people!

you were doing so well, right up until.......

Then of course one can look at atheist societies and see that they were far from a utopia.

...here

I don't think anyone is blaming religion for ''all the ills of the earth''. We're just blaming it for the things that it has caused.

Also what line of logic brought you from ''religious societies aren't bad'' to ''atheist societies are bad''. That completely implodes your entire point.

But as for said atheistic societies, Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries in Europe at 23% in 2005 (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf) and is one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world, having legalized same-sex acts since 1944 (compared to us in 1992) and marriage in May 2009 with 261 votes to 22 (most of the 22 coming from the Christian Democrats). They're also ranked no. 1 in the world in terms of gender equality by the Global Gender Gap 2006. Oh and abortion is legal up until the 18th week and totally up to the woman, for whatever reason they wish to give.

Basically Sweden is a.) the most atheistic country in Europe and b.) the most equal in terms of treating humans as they would like to be treated. Are you saying Sweden is dystopia?

Undergod

I don't think telling jank Sweden has liberal abortion laws is going to get you anywhere...

Barr125

Undergod wrote: »

I don't think telling jank Sweden has liberal abortion laws is going to get you anywhere...

I've gotta try......for humanities sake, I have to.........