|
|
Post by Dracula on Nov 18, 2024 18:22:54 GMT
Believing in backward, ancient stupidity is what would make a good artist today, is what you're saying? If it's so backwards, ancient, and stupid then why did Christians like Bach make such better music than atheists like Lil Nas? A big part of the problem with modern music is that so much of it is done by atheists and therefor has no soul or actual cultural impact. Nonreligious are indeed jealous about how much more significant Christians were to the fine arts in history so they try to downplay it, but its an immutable fact. Yeah man great argument, because every musician who isn't religious is no better than Lil Nas, is what you're saying? Were The Beatles terrible? And not that this even matters, but what you're getting wrong is that even Lil Nas is not atheist. He even has a single called "J Christ" and has often talked about his "spirituality." The guy just said that "at one point" he was atheist, not that he's atheist now. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Nov 18, 2024 18:26:14 GMT
Well, there is a lot of that actually. Why do you think we have so many branches, from Sunni, Shia, Orthodox Judaism, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Southern Baptist, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc? Of course there is. But that doesn't make it right. And by the miraculous grace of God, the branches closer to home happen to be closer to understanding the rules correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by DalekFred on Nov 18, 2024 18:36:37 GMT
every musician who isn't religious is no better than Lil Nas, is what you're saying? Were The Beatles terrible? Half the Beatles were very religious.
(as were Governor Tarkin and Richard Nixon, apparently LOL)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on Nov 18, 2024 18:43:55 GMT
Yes, big difference and terrible analogy. Those skills are required to get through life and for many people to get the jobs they want. Whether they're learned in a school or wherever is irrelevant. Religion though isn't required for anything. I disagree. Religion is required for a better life. (At least a proper interpretation and usage of religion.) Well, that's just stupid. If religion was required for a better life, there wouldn't be all the countless masses of people with great lives who have never given a rat's ass about religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on Nov 18, 2024 18:49:41 GMT
If it's so backwards, ancient, and stupid then why did Christians like Bach make such better music than atheists like Lil Nas? A big part of the problem with modern music is that so much of it is done by atheists and therefor has no soul or actual cultural impact. Nonreligious are indeed jealous about how much more significant Christians were to the fine arts in history so they try to downplay it, but its an immutable fact. Yeah man great argument, because every musician who isn't religious is no better than Lil Nas, is what you're saying? Were The Beatles terrible? And not that this even matters, but what you're getting wrong is that even Lil Nas is not atheist. He even has a single called "J Christ" and has often talked about his "spirituality." The guy just said that "at one point" he was atheist, not that he's atheist now. I never thought I'd meet someone dumb enough to defend the "art" of Lil Nas, but now I've identified who his target audience is. People with brain damage and an irrational hatred of Christianity. Lil Nas has literally made a career out of the least subtle mocking of Christianity, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe he's a Christian.
And yeah, the Beatles were pretty terrible compared to classical composers. They started out good enough, having been raised and influenced by Christians, but then they drifted away further from it, ultimately atheism killed the band and John Lennon wrote the 2nd most cringe song of the 20th Century (the first being Mrs American Pie). I mean, if you like The Beatles, fine, but it's pretty stupid to compare their musical artistry to people like Bach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on Nov 18, 2024 18:50:25 GMT
I disagree. Religion is required for a better life. (At least a proper interpretation and usage of religion.) Well, that's just stupid. If religion was required for a better life, there wouldn't be all the countless masses of people with great lives who have never given a rat's ass about religion. And there aren't. |
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on Nov 18, 2024 19:04:27 GMT
Yeah man great argument, because every musician who isn't religious is no better than Lil Nas, is what you're saying? Were The Beatles terrible? And not that this even matters, but what you're getting wrong is that even Lil Nas is not atheist. He even has a single called "J Christ" and has often talked about his "spirituality." The guy just said that "at one point" he was atheist, not that he's atheist now. I never thought I'd meet someone dumb enough to defend the "art" of Lil Nas, but now I've identified who his target audience is. People with brain damage and an irrational hatred of Christianity. Lil Nas has literally made a career out of the least subtle mocking of Christianity, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe he's a Christian.
And yeah, the Beatles were pretty terrible compared to classical composers. They started out good enough, having been raised and influenced by Christians, but then they drifted away further from it, ultimately atheism killed the band and John Lennon wrote the 2nd most cringe song of the 20th Century (the first being Mrs American Pie). I mean, if you like The Beatles, fine, but it's pretty stupid to compare their musical artistry to people like Bach. I wasn't defending Lil Nas nor do I even like Lil Nas. My point was that there are obviously nonreligious musicians much more talented than Lil Nas so your argument of the difference between him and Bach is stupid as if Lil Nas would be the best that comes from a nonreligious musician. Either you have a severe reading comprehension problem or you just like making an ass of yourself, or you do this on purpose as a lame attempt at getting a rise out of who you're talking to. |
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Nov 18, 2024 19:42:00 GMT
It's what they've been taught. How best to be a victim at all times.
It pains me to say this about Molly, but I think she made quite a good point in relation to the various religions papa listed. Which is probably why a relatively large and diverse range of posters here liked her post. One doesn't have to be a fan of the poster, on even on good terms with them, to be able to acknowledge when they are right and have made a valid point. papamihel , No, she did not make a good point, JC. What she did was parroting a Marxist view on human history which is both unscientific and totally disconnected from the human nature. Human cultures are born, grow and change to answer challenges in their environment. It's the same evolutionary process as the one which governs all life on Earth. Religion was invented to provide a... Cultural backbone so that a culture could survive and thrive. The fact that at some point religion turned into institutions involved in politics changes nothing. That's not what religion is for. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Nov 18, 2024 20:06:38 GMT
It pains me to say this about Molly, but I think she made quite a good point in relation to the various religions papa listed. Which is probably why a relatively large and diverse range of posters here liked her post. One doesn't have to be a fan of the poster, on even on good terms with them, to be able to acknowledge when they are right and have made a valid point. papamihel , No, she did not make a good point, JC. What she did was parroting a Marxist view on human history which is both unscientific and totally disconnected from the human nature. Human cultures are born, grow and change to answer challenges in their environment. It's the same evolutionary process as the one which governs all life on Earth. Religion was invented to provide a... Cultural backbone so that a culture could survive and thrive. The fact that at some point religion turned into institutions involved in politics changes nothing. That's not what religion is for. Maybe you're right and I was just trying to be nice to Molly to make up for all the awful things I have said to them in the past papa, but I also think she makes a valid point when it comes to religion. Which doesn't mean I am not grateful I was brought up in the loving bosom of the Anglican Church. I like the Methodist Church too. Of course the Reverends and Bishops in these churches spoke out fearlessly against apartheid in their sermons and in public, so they were always kinda cool and very brave in my eyes. I didn't grow up seeing any female priests in these churches, but the Methodist Church near me now has one - who presided, wonderfully, over my atheist Auntie Doreen's funeral. I used a female lay preacher for Sonja's funeral. Both these woman were fantastic, and the lady preacher at Sonja's funeral taught me more about coping with grief and guilt and loss than anyone else ever has. It is growing late, I've had a hectic afternoon, thus I am growing weary and looking for lighter fare from these threads at the moment, so that's all I have for now papa. Not much substance I'm afraid, but hopefully my reply was entertaining. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 18, 2024 20:15:52 GMT
I never thought I'd meet someone dumb enough to defend the "art" of Lil Nas, but now I've identified who his target audience is. People with brain damage and an irrational hatred of Christianity. Lil Nas has literally made a career out of the least subtle mocking of Christianity, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe he's a Christian.
And yeah, the Beatles were pretty terrible compared to classical composers. They started out good enough, having been raised and influenced by Christians, but then they drifted away further from it, ultimately atheism killed the band and John Lennon wrote the 2nd most cringe song of the 20th Century (the first being Mrs American Pie). I mean, if you like The Beatles, fine, but it's pretty stupid to compare their musical artistry to people like Bach. I wasn't defending Lil Nas nor do I even like Lil Nas. My point was that there are obviously nonreligious musicians much more talented than Lil Nas so your argument of the difference between him and Bach is stupid as if Lil Nas would be the best that comes from a nonreligious musician. Either you have a severe reading comprehension problem or you just like making an ass of yourself, or you do this on purpose as a lame attempt at getting a rise out of who you're talking to. So true. I noticed Based Chad has not tried to defend the music of Stacie Orrico or Sixpence Non The Richer against the music of Rimsky-Korsakow or Shostakovich. I wonder why... not. The quality of music usually hasn't much to do with the religious affiliation. Another thing: The Beatles are as significant to pop music as Mozart is to classical music. And anybody who claims point blank that classical music is better than pop music isn't anyone whose opinion on music I have to take seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Nov 18, 2024 20:24:16 GMT
I wasn't defending Lil Nas nor do I even like Lil Nas. My point was that there are obviously nonreligious musicians much more talented than Lil Nas so your argument of the difference between him and Bach is stupid as if Lil Nas would be the best that comes from a nonreligious musician. Either you have a severe reading comprehension problem or you just like making an ass of yourself, or you do this on purpose as a lame attempt at getting a rise out of who you're talking to. So true. I noticed Based Chad has not tried to defend the music of Stacie Orrico or Sixpence Non The Richer against the music of Rimsky-Korsakow or Shostakovich. I wonder why... not. The quality of music usually hasn't much to do with the religious affiliation. Another thing: The Beatles are as significant to pop music as Mozart is to classical music. And anybody who claims point blank that classical music is better than pop music isn't anyone whose opinion on music I have to take seriously. How about Wagner, who flip-flopped between operas with heavily pagan themes (Ring Cycle) and some of the most magnificently haywire Christian-themed music ever (Tannhauser)? For the uninitiated: in Tannhauser, a perpetual virgin Christian and a pagan sex goddess inexplicably compete for the affections of an utter douchebag who does not deserve either one of them. I love it. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 18, 2024 20:28:03 GMT
So true. I noticed Based Chad has not tried to defend the music of Stacie Orrico or Sixpence Non The Richer against the music of Rimsky-Korsakow or Shostakovich. I wonder why... not. The quality of music usually hasn't much to do with the religious affiliation. Another thing: The Beatles are as significant to pop music as Mozart is to classical music. And anybody who claims point blank that classical music is better than pop music isn't anyone whose opinion on music I have to take seriously. How about Wagner, who flip-flopped between operas with heavily pagan themes (Ring Cycle) and some of the most magnificently haywire Christian-themed music ever (Tannhauser)? Not really my cup of tea, but sometimes enjoyable. The ride of the Valkyries is enjoyable, as is the song of the Steuermann from the Flying Dutchman. |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on Nov 18, 2024 20:48:26 GMT
It’s the same for all three. Control over people. Mostly women. In all three. I don't usually engage with you but you can't be THAT ignorant. Do you seriously believe that a religious belief of any other part of a culture, for that matter, forms as a conspiracy? There's nothing conspirational about it bro. Religions and their tenets were all crafted by individuals looking to give themselves and their organizations authority and power over the masses. Why do you think church and crown were the only two entities that mattered until the modern era? |
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on Nov 18, 2024 21:05:05 GMT
I wasn't defending Lil Nas nor do I even like Lil Nas. My point was that there are obviously nonreligious musicians much more talented than Lil Nas so your argument of the difference between him and Bach is stupid as if Lil Nas would be the best that comes from a nonreligious musician. Either you have a severe reading comprehension problem or you just like making an ass of yourself, or you do this on purpose as a lame attempt at getting a rise out of who you're talking to. So true. I noticed Based Chad has not tried to defend the music of Stacie Orrico or Sixpence Non The Richer against the music of Rimsky-Korsakow or Shostakovich. I wonder why... not. The quality of music usually hasn't much to do with the religious affiliation. Another thing: The Beatles are as significant to pop music as Mozart is to classical music. And anybody who claims point blank that classical music is better than pop music isn't anyone whose opinion on music I have to take seriously. Rimsky-Korsakov was Russian Orthodox. You can even see it in his work like in his Russian Easter Festival Overture, which incorporates elements of Orthodox liturgical chants. And Shostakovich was in Communist Russia where it was illegal to profess to be anything but atheist. And there certainly is some evidence to the contrary of him being atheist. But anyways, if I want to listen to great Christian music inspired by Christianity, there is no shortage of classical music to choose from. It's phenomenal how many people work on a performance and the degree of talent. Meanwhile, the Beatles were four dudes high on LSD for some of their songs. Hardly inspires the same gusto which is why we hear Mozart far more often than the Beatles being played today. Sure, there's plenty of not so great Christian music too....especially when it tends to imitate the secular music. |
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on Nov 18, 2024 21:17:22 GMT
I never thought I'd meet someone dumb enough to defend the "art" of Lil Nas, but now I've identified who his target audience is. People with brain damage and an irrational hatred of Christianity. Lil Nas has literally made a career out of the least subtle mocking of Christianity, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe he's a Christian.
And yeah, the Beatles were pretty terrible compared to classical composers. They started out good enough, having been raised and influenced by Christians, but then they drifted away further from it, ultimately atheism killed the band and John Lennon wrote the 2nd most cringe song of the 20th Century (the first being Mrs American Pie). I mean, if you like The Beatles, fine, but it's pretty stupid to compare their musical artistry to people like Bach. I wasn't defending Lil Nas nor do I even like Lil Nas. Actually, you kinda were. It's just that your brain damage has gotten so severe that you can barely do any reading comprehension at all. It's sad to see since you used to be smart. K. So show me the nonreligious musicians on the level of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et cetera. Your brain damage makes me truly sad. What happened? How did it happen? Is that why you don't believe in God? Because an accident happened four years ago that left you emotionally crippled? |
|
