Diana Krall's Christmas Songs

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I sort of see that as hypocritical. You call it a crock of ****...yet you will sing the songs which celebrate it. It would be different if it were "Jingle Bells" or "Walking in a Winter Wonderland"...but you are singing "O COME, O COME EMMANUEL"!!!

I don't think it's hypocritical. One doesn't have to agree with an editorial to appareciate how well-written it is.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Not really. It's just singing songs for Christmas concerts and performances. When I was a member of high school and college vocal groups, we really didn't have the ability to say- "I'm not going to sing this song".

The religious songs that were commissioned by the church are now part of the choral songbook. You can't really avoid them if you want to get a degree in vocal music. For me, singing about three kings and jeebus is as grounded in reality as Puff the Magic Dragon. The immaculate conception/son of god routine is just as much fiction/mythology as Aphrodite spawning from the head of Zeus or Circe encountering Odysseus and turning his men into pigs.

Then why sing the songs? We didn't have to sing spiritual songs in chorus...if we objected then we were excused from singing it. If you are going to profess you don't believe in something, then don't disrespect others by singing it as if you did believe it.

and btw...the immaculate conception has nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with Mary!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by dissention

I don't think it's hypocritical. One doesn't have to agree with an editorial to appareciate how well-written it is.

Well I agree with that. But don't go around "singing" the editorials praises...

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

I think most humans are nearly incapable at this time of accepting that kind of responsibility, and incapable of accepting their own true nature, and that they may actually be the ones controlling their lives, to a large degree responsible for their own destinies. It's hard to think that. It may be painful. Some people are also simply incapable of understanding things beyond a certain scope, a certain tangible scope, so all they really have is faith to explain things to themselves.

Marvelously put. I've always thought that most people cling to their faith and religion, which is really nothing but organized superstition, out of fear. Fear of not having something to point to that would explain things for them. They need a reason for what goes on in the world and "God," for them, is that reason. When they can point to "God" as the reason for why things happen and why things are, it gives them comfort. Like you said, it's much easier to put faith in an intangible "God" instead of actually looking at things from a perspective where logical reasoning plays a more prominent role.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by dissention

Marvelously put. I've always thought that most people cling to their faith and religion, which is really nothing but organized superstition, out of fear. Fear of not having something to point to that would explain things for them. They need a reason for what goes on in the world and "God," for them, is that reason. When they can point to "God" as the reason for why things happen and why things are, it gives them comfort. Like you said, it's much easier to put faith in an intangible "God" instead of actually looking at things from a perspective where logical reasoning plays a more prominent role.

But is it really illogical to think that I am more than just a universal accident.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Then why sing the songs? We didn't have to sing spiritual songs in chorus...if we objected then we were excused from singing it.

I was in class. I was in a degree program in college. The conductors come up with the program and the singers sing the songs. It doesn't matter if you're hindu, buddhist, christian, muslim, atheist- you're given a part and you sing the songs. A very large number of classical choral works were commissioned by the church. Those works are performed sometimes for Xmas occasions, however, they are more often performed as a showcase of the work itself. Singing the songs has more to do with the musical work of the composer than the (hired hand paid for) lyrics assigned to the melodies and voicings.

If you are going to profess you don't believe in something, then don't disrespect others by singing it as if you did believe it.

Another crock. As if people requested to perform a specific piece of music has anything to do with a direct commitment to the content of the work.

and btw...the immaculate conception has nothing to do with Jesus and everything to do with Mary!

The immaculate conception is another crock. Jeebus/mary, ares/hera, it's all pounds, shillings and pence to me.

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

But is it really illogical to think that I am more than just a universal accident.

The only people who use the term "universal accident" are fundies who are purposefully misinterpreting science in order to discredit it.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by The Tower

The only people who use the term "universal accident" are fundies who are purposefully misinterpreting science in order to discredit it.

Huh? I am not trying to discredit science...science is great stuff.

What do you call it then?

In otherwords...is it so illogical to try to find some reason for my being?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

But is it really illogical to think that I am more than just a universal accident.

"Universal accident"? Crikey.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by dissention

"Universal accident"? Crikey.

Maybe that wasn't the best term...

But I think you get what I was trying to say...right?

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

What do you call it then?

Evolution.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Evolution.

I believe in Evolution...

That doesn't take away from my belief in God.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

In otherwords...is it so illogical to try to find some reason for my being?

When you find the reason for being, let me know, because I'd be interested in hearing it. There is no reason for being, we just are.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Marvelously put. I've always thought that most people cling to their faith and religion, which is really nothing but organized superstition, out of fear. Fear of not having something to point to that would explain things for them. They need a reason for what goes on in the world and "God," for them, is that reason. When they can point to "God" as the reason for why things happen and why things are, it gives them comfort. Like you said, it's much easier to put faith in an intangible "God" instead of actually looking at things from a perspective where logical reasoning plays a more prominent role.

Thanks. Yes - faith is just to believe, it requires very little critical thought - and very little to no actual knowledge. which is not to say that people to not think critically about religion - obviously they do - and not to say that all people who subscribe to a religion have no knowlege - obviously many do.

But the abstract nature of religion is that they wouldn't have to have knowlege or think critically to be fully functional in a religion. They would only have to believe.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by dissention

When you find the reason for being, let me know, because I'd be interested in hearing it. There is no reason for being, we just are.

...in your opinion.

Please be sure to add that.