Of gods and language.

[AeolianHarp]

I see what you are saying, but what you are overlooking is a quite simple point about Beethoven. He was what we would call a "progressive." He believed in the forward progress of mankind - which of course, apart from some medical improvements, is complete nonsense.

Robert I do not seek to label dear Ludwig as anything. To believe and have hope in progress of humanity ( let's include women here shall we?) is crucial to improving what we are and what we could be. It is not nonsense, for if it were, we would stagnate. Have you read below my posts of the words Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh? This is what true progress is- the greater cultivation of compassion and spirituality. I expect Ludwig would have liked what this monk practises and teaches.

He suspected that only Revolution - violent revolution, because how else could you deal with the 'forces of reaction'- would do the job.

I have never read anything that Ludwig said stating violence was the way forward.

We who regard him so highly in musical terms - and he was a progressive, or avant-guarde - composer should not be blind to his faults. He was very naive but he did try to get a better perspective on things.

Everyone has faults, and he was fully aware of them- one only has to read his letters and diary entries to see that. Naive he was not- he was well read and a deep thinker.

Prof. Ken Minogue often used to say that the greatest invention of Britain was oppositional politics. This was simply unknown, or incredible, to Beethoven who lived in a crumbling absolutist empire.

Well, that is not perfect either. There is no perfection, but we should strive to improve ourselves and spirituality is one way to do so- to look at others and see no other- to recognise the soul in all sentient beings.

I fear dear Beethoven would have fallen for the 'modernizing' propaganda of Mr. Blair - and we all know how that one worked out.

You have got to be joking! Beethoven could see right through liars!

It was a mercy that Beethoven did not live to see two world wars. That would have simply destroyed him as a caring human being, and like Stefan Zweig he may have given up completely on his human project.

He would have been appalled indeed.

[AeolianHarp]

Of course many atheists lead perfectly good and moral lives, in many cases more so than those in the Church who have been shown to be corrupt. The trouble is there is no logic to that from an atheistic perspective because your morality is relative. Where does this 'natural goodness' come from that you speak of?

It comes from within. It lives within us. My morality is high and yet I don't believe in God. I don't need gods or religion to tell me what is compassion. All things can be said to be relative- as we relate to each other. Even animals can show morality and altruism. To help others is natural- co operation makes for community, sharing and survival. We are not robots.

Had you lived in the 17th century it is quite likely you would have like the majority of people considered it right to turn up for the local hanging. If you lived at the time of Jesus, like the majority of people you would have considered it right to stone a woman for adultery - this is where Jesus' teaching was new and so revolutionary when he said 'let those amongst you without sin, cast the first stone.'

I am not in the 17th century and many people then didn't agree with such horrible actions.
And in the old Testament the god there tells people to kill others and approves animal sacrifice! I need no god to tell me what is compassionate, what loving deeds are and what is not.

People are and can be moral without god. Some of the most moral people I know are atheists.I remember arguing this with adults as a child when my mother was Jehovah's Witness and I had to go to their meetings. I never believed what they tried to condition me to believe. Even as a child I could see the lies.


It is possible to be moral without God
We should recognise and celebrate good wherever we come across it, while being ready to acknowledge and counter the darker side of human nature.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...religion.world

Now, I am not saying people are not moral if they believe in God- but those who believe in god and then abuse others are not moral. Belief in god does not make one moral in itself.


Who is more moral? The atheist who devotes their life to social justice, works in an ethical company and supports local community projects and sustainability or the church goer who goes every sunday yet buys from unethical companies, uses pesticides, hurts animals and is intolerant to homosexuals and immigrants? You get my drift here Peter?????

Didn't Jesus say by their acts they will be known?



Are you familiar with the Vietnamese monk Thich Nhat Hanh? He brought US ex veterans and Vietnamese families together in very moving, profound healing and been nominated for the Nobel Peace. He doesn't believe in God- so where does his extraordinary compassion for all living beings come from then? It comes from within.


“My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground on which I stand.”

Thích Nhất Hạnh.

“We often think of peace as the absence of war, that if powerful countries would reduce their weapon arsenals, we could have peace. But if we look deeply into the weapons, we see our own minds- our own prejudices, fears and ignorance. Even if we transport all the bombs to the moon, the roots of war and the roots of bombs are still there, in our hearts and minds, and sooner or later we will make new bombs. To work for peace is to uproot war from ourselves and from the hearts of men and women. To prepare for war, to give millions of men and women the opportunity to practice killing day and night in their hearts, is to plant millions of seeds of violence, anger, frustration, and fear that will be passed on for generations to come. ”

Thich Nhat Hanh.

“When we walk like (we are rushing), we print anxiety and sorrow on the earth. We have to walk in a way that we only print peace and serenity on the earth... Be aware of the contact between your feet and the earth. Walk as if you are kissing the earth with your feet.”

Thích Nhất Hạnh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A...t_H%E1%BA%A1nh

Buddhists are atheists, yet the teachings are profoundly moral.

On love:

"You look into their eyes and you say, "Darling, you know something? I'm here for you." You offer him or her your presence. You are not preoccupied with the past or the future; you are there for your beloved. The second mantra is, "Darling, I know you are there and I am so happy." Because you are fully there, you recognize the presence of your beloved as something very precious. You embrace your beloved with mindfulness. And he or she will bloom like a flower. To be loved means to be recognized as existing. And these two mantras can bring happiness right away, even if your beloved one is not there. You can use your telephone and practice the mantra."

If the world was based on this type of morality it would be a far better life.

On bringing peace to the world:

"Dear friends, dear people, I know that you suffer. I have not understood enough of your difficulties and suffering. It's not our intention to make you suffer more. It is the opposite. We don't want you to suffer. But we don't know what to do and we might do the wrong thing if you don't help us to understand. So please tell us about your difficulties. I'm eager to learn, to understand." We have to have loving speech. And if we are honest, if we are true, they will open their hearts. Then we practice compassionate listening, and we can learn so much about our own perception and their perception. Only after that can we help remove wrong perception. That is the best way, the only way, to remove terrorism."

"When we come to the table, we shouldn't negotiate right away. We should spend time walking together, eating together, making acquaintance, telling each other about our own suffering, without blame or condemnation. It takes maybe one, two, three weeks to do that. And if communication and understanding are possible, negotiation will be easier. So if I am to organize a peace negotiation, I will organize it in that way."



Imagine of the world leaders had such moral and spiritual integrity as this monk. Can you even imagine how it would feel to live in such a world?

The logic of your position is that there is no such thing as good or evil, because what is considered good and right by society is on shifting sand - it varies within different ages and societies.

Funny, but in the heyday of Christianity they burnt women for being "witches" and tortured heretics. They had their morality.
But in a modern secular age we don't agree with that and it is this age that has outlawed torture, capital punishment and the death penalty. Since you mentioned logic below, it is true to say that the secular age in general has brought in greater human rights, equality and freedom - though we still have a ways to go ( the Illuminati are still afoot....but that is another issue).

As I said at the start though this doesn't mean I think atheists are all immoral, but they are illogical.

This is how he knows...

"The question can be answered when you can answer this: What happens in the present moment? In the present moment, you are producing thought, speech, and action. And they continue in the world. Every thought you produce, anything you say, any action you do, it bears your signature. Action is called karma. And that's your continuation. When this body disintegrates, you continue on with your actions. It's like the cloud in the sky. When the cloud is no longer in the sky, it hasn't died. The cloud is continued in other forms like rain or snow or ice. Our nature is the nature of no birth and no death. It is impossible for a cloud to pass from being into nonbeing. And that is true with a beloved person. They have not died. They have continued in many new forms and you can look deeply and recognize them in you and around you."

"I am a mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river. And I am the bird that swoops down to swallow the mayfly.... I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones, my legs as thin as bamboo sticks. And I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to Uganda. I am the 12-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat, who throws herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea pirate. And I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and loving.... Please call me by my true names, so I can hear all my cries and laughter at once, so I can see that my joy and pain are one. Please call me by my true names, so I can wake up and the door of my heart could be left open, the door of compassion."

I confess reading this monk's words brings a few tears to my eyes- so profoundly moving.

http://www.oprah.com/spirit/Oprah-Ta...hich-Nhat-Hanh

All that is illogical how? When such profound feeling, spirituality and healing is going on...

Today it is considered perfectly acceptable for people to have sex outside marriage with multiple partners

There is a difference between sex and making love. The latter is the higher, spiritual connection between two people. It makes no difference if they are married or not.

and to abort the inconvenient product of selfish behaviour and to infect each other with diseases.

These are indeed not admirable actions.

Tomorrow it may well be acceptable to abort any foetus that isn't the right sex or has any abnormality. We are on a very dangerous path.

The former isn't aceptable; the former may be so when the baby would be born to suffer greatly and die within a few days of birth.

[RobertH]

He didn't go to Mass as an adult no.



Beethoven niave? Absolutely not! He understood very well that power corrupts! Like any deeply spiritual person, he was aware of that and understood why the people wanted a Revolution, but that revolutions often end in bloodshed.



Oh yes he knew that too. He read Eastern and ancient Greek philosophies too.

I see what you are saying, but what you are overlooking is a quite simple point about Beethoven. He was what we would call a "progressive." He believed in the forward progress of mankind - which of course, apart from some medical improvements, is complete nonsense. He suspected that only Revolution - violent revolution, because how else could you deal with the 'forces of reaction'- would do the job. We who regard him so highly in musical terms - and he was a progressive, or avant-guarde - composer should not be blind to his faults. He was very naive but he did try to get a better perspective on things. He came to admire the parliamentary system because he saw a way how opposition elements could be blended into the sytem, but things could still get done without Revolution. Prof. Ken Minogue often used to say that the greatest invention of Britain was oppositional politics. This was simply unknown, or incredible, to Beethoven who lived in a crumbling absolutist empire.
I fear dear Beethoven would have fallen for the 'modernizing' propaganda of Mr. Blair - and we all know how that one worked out.
It was a mercy that Beethoven did not live to see two world wars. That would have simply destroyed him as a caring human being, and like Stefan Zweig he may have given up completely on his human project.

[Peter]

Not true Peter- athiesm doesn't eschew morality- the Buddhist precepts and Ten Commandments are practically identical and come from a natural, logical set of values- humanism. Get a hundred people in a room of various belief systems and everyone would agree that murder, stealing etc are not good acts. I know many athiest activists who spend time on social justice marches, camps etc and met tons of athiests at Friends of the Earth meetings. They didn't have a religion of any sort but are still motivated to do good- by their own natural goodness.

Of course many atheists lead perfectly good and moral lives, in many cases more so than those in the Church who have been shown to be corrupt. The trouble is there is no logic to that from an atheistic perspective because your morality is relative. Where does this 'natural goodness' come from that you speak of? Had you lived in the 17th century it is quite likely you would have like the majority of people considered it right to turn up for the local hanging. If you lived at the time of Jesus, like the majority of people you would have considered it right to stone a woman for adultery - this is where Jesus' teaching was new and so revolutionary when he said 'let those amongst you without sin, cast the first stone.'

Today it is considered perfectly acceptable for people to have sex outside marriage with multiple partners and to abort the inconvenient product of selfish behaviour and to infect each other with diseases. Tomorrow it may well be acceptable to abort any foetus that isn't the right sex or has any abnormality. We are on a very dangerous path.

The logic of your position is that there is no such thing as good or evil, because what is considered good and right by society is on shifting sand - it varies within different ages and societies. As I said at the start though this doesn't mean I think atheists are all immoral, but they are illogical.

[AeolianHarp]

I believe Beethoven was a lapsed Catholic.

He didn't go to Mass as an adult no.

As we all know was profoundly influenced by the French Revolution. He had a lot of deep difficulties in trying to fathom the violence and blood shed that resulted from the Revolution and we all know how he came to loathe Napoleon.
I don't think Beethoven ever shook off his great sympathy for the Revolution and it accounts I think for his political naivity. He didn't understand that absolute power corrupts.

Beethoven niave? Absolutely not! He understood very well that power corrupts! Like any deeply spiritual person, he was aware of that and understood why the people wanted a Revolution, but that revolutions often end in bloodshed.

My own view is that he was very taken with Robes Pierres idea of the supreme being. But he didn't seem to understand these people were simply criminals who regarded religion as a racket like everything else. It may be that he came back to his religion on his deathbed.

Oh yes he knew that too. He read Eastern and ancient Greek philosophies too.

[AeolianHarp]

Your post though again overlooks the enormous contribution to science and education made by Catholics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholi...ch_and_science.

I have been watching a programme on women artists on BBC iplayer. It was the Catholic church that actually gave women a space to practise their art- there is actually a Last Supper painting by a female artist and some sculptures.

OK you object to the moral teachings of the Catholic church, that is your own choice and no one is denying you that. You presumably do lead your life as you wish, so why so angry? You say we don't have to look further than Ireland - what do you mean? The violence has nothing to do with the Church which is opposed to all forms of violence, hatred and intolerance. The violence comes from people justifying themselves according to their own values.

I think Albert might be referring to the Magdalene laundries women were put in run by nuns who would make them work long hours for no pay and abuse them.

From an atheistic point of view there can be nothing wrong with this, because this is precisely what atheists claim we should do - live our lives according to our own values. Thus we arrive at the only logical conclusion as defined by Dostoevsky in the Brothers Karamazov and put into action by the Nazis and Communists “If God did not exist, everything is permitted”.

Not true Peter- atheism doesn't eschew morality- the Buddhist precepts and Ten Commandments are practically identical and come from a natural, logical set of values- humanism. Get a hundred people in a room of various belief systems and everyone would agree that murder, stealing etc are not good acts. I know many atheist activists who spend time on social justice marches, camps etc and met tons of atheists at Friends of the Earth meetings. They didn't have a religion of any sort but are still motivated to do good- by their own natural goodness.

[Peter]

No Albert it is you who have not got the point because you are misrepresenting the facts in accordance with the popular distortions of the press and you don't seem to recognise that you are displaying the very same intolerance that you accuse religion of! The difference between what I believe and what you believe is summed up in your last sentence - I would never wish to see anyone condemned to hell and the Catholic church is forgiving of even the most heinous crimes, provided that is that the person recognises they need forgiveness. Christ preached love and forgiveness. If the world lived by Christ's commandments we wouldn't have the mess that we do - it is as simple as that. Your anger seems solely directed at Religion as though it is responsible for human nature. We have seen the appalling consequences of societies that have banned religion, have no lessons been learnt?

[Albert Gans]

For those who have still not got the point: it is about power and influence. Rules about behaviour have been set by religious institutions for ages. Don't be gay, adultery is a sin, the sun circles the earth, etc.... The big differences between these institutions and non-religious ones is that the hand of god is behind it. The threat that one ends up with eternal damnation. I don't mind if the catholic church does not grant equal rights to women. What I do take very badly is that by instituting this for so long, women still have to fight for equal rights today. This is just one example.

As for a list of things why I get angry about the Catholic Church... how long a list do you want? Persecution of Jews for 1500 years in various shapes? Slavery condoned for centuries? The persecution of homosexuals, their stigmatisation, right up to today? The Inquisition? The helping of the escape of Nazis after World War II? The Index? The condemnation of Galileo, because he dared to question 'the truth'?

Yes, great works of art were made, I fully agree. But what was the cost? The wealth of the Church in those days is in stark contrast with the poverty of the people. In fact, it still is. I always feel strange when I visit such places.

Anyway, I've said my piece. If there is a hell, I hope to see the leaders of these institutions there. I'm pretty sure that if there is such a thing as a god, they will end up there with me. At least, if there is a just god.

[Megan]

I believe Beethoven was a lapsed Catholic.
As we all know was profoundly influenced by the French Revolution. He had a lot of deep difficulties in trying to fathom the violence and blood shed that resulted from the Revolution and we all know how he came to loathe Napoleon.
I don't think Beethoven ever shook off his great sympathy for the Revolution and it accounts I think for his political naivity. He didn't understand that absolute power corrupts.
My own view is that he was very taken with Robes Pierres idea of the supreme being. But he didn't seem to understand these people were simply criminals who regarded religion as a racket like everything else. It may be that he came back to his religion on his deathbed.

[Symphony7]

"The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine — but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight."
- Hilaire Belloc

[Symphony7]

I hold the Catholic Church at least co-responsible for the millions of deaths of AIDS-sufferers, of the death of many women who have had, have and will abort in back-streets and unsanitary conditions and so on.

On the contrary, what is responsible for AIDS deaths and abortion deaths (it's not just grown women who risk death from abortion by the way, obviously!) is people not adhering to Church moral teaching.

[Symphony7]

...If it were up to the Church, we would still believe the earth is flat....

The Church never said the earth was flat.

[Symphony7]

Beethoven was Catholic.

[RobertH]

Albert's point seems to be that he is against the institution of the church though he accepts it has good people in it.
In the words of Macduff in Macbeth, ''for that relief, much thanks''.
The church is an institution for a pretty simple reason. The claim is that the church was handed the keys by the founder of Christianity. What keys?
Well basically, where people are going to spend their eternity. LIfe is short and eternity is long. Not to think so is naive. People have free will and are perfectly free to accept or reject this. Where's the problem?
A lot of atheists just seems to have this obsession with the church. They are clearly fascinated by the whole thing about religion and especially Christianity. For people that say they don't believe , they seem to spend an awful lot of time dwelling on the non existence of God. The Church on the other hand spends virtually no time in thinking about the non existence of God or atheism, but just gets on with its job.
How odd.

[Peter]

I understand you Albert. I am spiritual but an athiest in the sense I don't believe in God.

I have to listen to evangelists shouting hell fire and other nasty things in my city centre. They have shouted unpleasant things such as :

Women are unclean.

Jesus is haunting you now and he will be haunting you when you are dead.

Fornicators will go to hell!

At the last one I said to a passerby:

"How nice, we have Jesus and the utility companies haunting us! Hardly cheers one up on a cold day!"

They also have placards with the words whoredom on them in the street.

This is supposed to be the twenty first century not the 1600s..

There are always extremists in any walk of life.