Author Topic: The things you can't do  (Read 2275 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sprtslvr1973

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 713
  • "Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #45 on: June 08, 2012, 07:55:12 PM »
Sometimes, I come across a quote from a saint, a post on a blog or something like that, which makes it look as if we aren't allowed to enjoy ourselves. Until so far I have heard of the following being described as something not to be practised:

Dancing
Singing
Whistling
Laughing
Reading science fiction or fantasy litterature
Listening to music that is not ecclesiastic or classic.

Is it really so bad to do all these things? I know that certain examples of each of these things might not be beneficial but to renounce them completely just seems a little extreme.

you forgot talking needlessly.

Dissipation is likewise a sin ... failing to reach the mark.

An example of dissipation would be telling a needless joke....

Funny you should bring that up. When I first saw this thread, I was reminded of a online dialogue I had with a guy who said that tell a joke is a form of lying.
"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #46 on: June 08, 2012, 08:03:21 PM »
Sometimes, I come across a quote from a saint, a post on a blog or something like that, which makes it look as if we aren't allowed to enjoy ourselves. Until so far I have heard of the following being described as something not to be practised:

Dancing
Singing
Whistling
Laughing
Reading science fiction or fantasy litterature
Listening to music that is not ecclesiastic or classic.

Is it really so bad to do all these things? I know that certain examples of each of these things might not be beneficial but to renounce them completely just seems a little extreme.

you forgot talking needlessly.

Dissipation is likewise a sin ... failing to reach the mark.

An example of dissipation would be telling a needless joke....

Funny you should bring that up. When I first saw this thread, I was reminded of a online dialogue I had with a guy who said that tell a joke is a form of lying.

As is all speech
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline sprtslvr1973

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 713
  • "Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2012, 11:47:00 AM »
Sometimes, I come across a quote from a saint, a post on a blog or something like that, which makes it look as if we aren't allowed to enjoy ourselves. Until so far I have heard of the following being described as something not to be practised:

Dancing
Singing
Whistling
Laughing
Reading science fiction or fantasy litterature
Listening to music that is not ecclesiastic or classic.

Is it really so bad to do all these things? I know that certain examples of each of these things might not be beneficial but to renounce them completely just seems a little extreme.

you forgot talking needlessly.

Dissipation is likewise a sin ... failing to reach the mark.

An example of dissipation would be telling a needless joke....

Funny you should bring that up. When I first saw this thread, I was reminded of a online dialogue I had with a guy who said that tell a joke is a form of lying.

As is all speech

Explain. Not sure I follow that one
"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2012, 03:44:54 PM »
Sometimes, I come across a quote from a saint, a post on a blog or something like that, which makes it look as if we aren't allowed to enjoy ourselves. Until so far I have heard of the following being described as something not to be practised:

Dancing
Singing
Whistling
Laughing
Reading science fiction or fantasy litterature
Listening to music that is not ecclesiastic or classic.

Is it really so bad to do all these things? I know that certain examples of each of these things might not be beneficial but to renounce them completely just seems a little extreme.

you forgot talking needlessly.

Dissipation is likewise a sin ... failing to reach the mark.

An example of dissipation would be telling a needless joke....

Funny you should bring that up. When I first saw this thread, I was reminded of a online dialogue I had with a guy who said that tell a joke is a form of lying.

As is all speech

Explain. Not sure I follow that one

Anytime someone says or writes anything, the exact words they use, precisely what they mention and what they leave out, what tone and facial expressions they use, etc., etc., are done - consciously or unconsciously - in order to make the truth appear to be what they want the truth to be, in order to twist the truth, and consequently all language is a lie.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 03:45:27 PM by JamesRottnek »
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,775
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2012, 03:50:35 PM »
Quote
Anytime someone says or writes anything, the exact words they use, precisely what they mention and what they leave out, what tone and facial expressions they use, etc., etc., are done - consciously or unconsciously - in order to make the truth appear to be what they want the truth to be, in order to twist the truth, and consequently all language is a lie.

So, James, is your priest lying when he delivers a sermon?

It is true that we can use bodily language, especially head shakes and eye movements to betray the lie, but if a person has acquired the Holy Spirit, like St. Seraphim of Sarov, or St. Nectarios, I doubt that they would lie.

« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 03:57:35 PM by Maria »
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2012, 03:51:21 PM »
Quote
Anytime someone says or writes anything, the exact words they use, precisely what they mention and what they leave out, what tone and facial expressions they use, etc., etc., are done - consciously or unconsciously - in order to make the truth appear to be what they want the truth to be, in order to twist the truth, and consequently all language is a lie.

So, James, is your priest lying when he delivers a sermon?

It is true that we can use bodily language, especially head shakes and eye movements to betray the lie, but if a person has acquired the Holy Spirit, like St. Seraphim of Sarov, or St. Nectarios, I doubt that they would lie.

Yes.  Anyone who has ever used language is a liar, whether they meant to be or not.
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline Jason.Wike

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,046
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2012, 03:55:10 PM »
Pagans thought whistling called demons, its sad to hear about Christian leaders teaching pagan superstitions.

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,775
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2012, 03:55:57 PM »
Quote
Anytime someone says or writes anything, the exact words they use, precisely what they mention and what they leave out, what tone and facial expressions they use, etc., etc., are done - consciously or unconsciously - in order to make the truth appear to be what they want the truth to be, in order to twist the truth, and consequently all language is a lie.

So, James, is your priest lying when he delivers a sermon?

It is true that we can use bodily language, especially head shakes and eye movements to betray the lie, but if a person has acquired the Holy Spirit, like St. Seraphim of Sarov, or St. Nectarios, I doubt that they would lie.

Yes.  Anyone who has ever used language is a liar, whether they meant to be or not.

In your pronoun "anyone" above, does that include Christ our God?
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,775
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2012, 03:58:59 PM »
James,

I also think that Noam Chomsky would disagree with your hypothesis as well.

Do you have any references for this opinion that "all language is a lie?" After all the Word of God, Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, instilled this awesome "language machine" in us.  Yes, I am paraphrasing Noam Chomsky. Note that he is unfortunately an atheist who does not believe in Christ, but some of his teachings about words and how we acquire language are awesome. A child does not have to be taught language, but he masters his language around the age of 5 simply by hearing people talk.

Our words are the result of the breath of God which has enlivened us..

.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 04:02:56 PM by Maria »
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2012, 04:08:20 PM »
Quote
Anytime someone says or writes anything, the exact words they use, precisely what they mention and what they leave out, what tone and facial expressions they use, etc., etc., are done - consciously or unconsciously - in order to make the truth appear to be what they want the truth to be, in order to twist the truth, and consequently all language is a lie.

So, James, is your priest lying when he delivers a sermon?

It is true that we can use bodily language, especially head shakes and eye movements to betray the lie, but if a person has acquired the Holy Spirit, like St. Seraphim of Sarov, or St. Nectarios, I doubt that they would lie.

Yes.  Anyone who has ever used language is a liar, whether they meant to be or not.

In your pronoun "anyone" above, does that include Christ our God?

This question may be above my paygrade.
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2012, 04:08:57 PM »
James,

I also think that Noam Chomsky would disagree with your hypothesis as well.

Do you have any references for this opinion that "all language is a lie?" After all the Word of God, Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, instilled this awesome "language machine" in us.  Yes, I am paraphrasing Noam Chomsky. Note that he is unfortunately an atheist who does not believe in Christ, but some of his teachings about words and how we acquire language are awesome. A child does not have to be taught language, but he masters his language around the age of 5 simply by hearing people talk.

Our words are the result of the breath of God which has enlivened us..

.

Chomsky is...well...yeah

And this wouldn't actually contradict anything I've said, anyways.
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,775
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2012, 04:12:15 PM »
Quote
Anytime someone says or writes anything, the exact words they use, precisely what they mention and what they leave out, what tone and facial expressions they use, etc., etc., are done - consciously or unconsciously - in order to make the truth appear to be what they want the truth to be, in order to twist the truth, and consequently all language is a lie.

So, James, is your priest lying when he delivers a sermon?

It is true that we can use bodily language, especially head shakes and eye movements to betray the lie, but if a person has acquired the Holy Spirit, like St. Seraphim of Sarov, or St. Nectarios, I doubt that they would lie.

Yes.  Anyone who has ever used language is a liar, whether they meant to be or not.

In your pronoun "anyone" above, does that include Christ our God?

This question may be above my paygrade.

Yeah. Good copout.
Hey, you stole that phrase from someone. Cannot mention who, but you get the drift.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 04:12:54 PM by Maria »
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2012, 04:15:42 PM »
Quote
Anytime someone says or writes anything, the exact words they use, precisely what they mention and what they leave out, what tone and facial expressions they use, etc., etc., are done - consciously or unconsciously - in order to make the truth appear to be what they want the truth to be, in order to twist the truth, and consequently all language is a lie.

So, James, is your priest lying when he delivers a sermon?

It is true that we can use bodily language, especially head shakes and eye movements to betray the lie, but if a person has acquired the Holy Spirit, like St. Seraphim of Sarov, or St. Nectarios, I doubt that they would lie.

Yes.  Anyone who has ever used language is a liar, whether they meant to be or not.

In your pronoun "anyone" above, does that include Christ our God?

This question may be above my paygrade.

Yeah. Good copout.
Hey, you stole that phrase from someone. Cannot mention who, but you get the drift.

Who says it's a copout?  It's an admission that, when made a theological issue (by bringing in Christ, Who is God), I do not feel competent enough to tackle the question.  If someone asks me about theoretical physics, almost any possible question will be one where I would answer likewise.  I wasn't aware it is a copout to say "I am not competent to answer this question."
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline dzheremi

  • No longer posting here.
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,383
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2012, 04:53:47 PM »
This might upset some people, but one of my professors (in linguistics, in which I am trained in the Functionalist/"anti-Chomskyan" tradition) pointed out a few years ago in a unit on child language development that it is actually, in some sense, a neurological or neurolinguistic milestone when a child begins to lie, as it shows a certain development in their awareness that they are able to manipulate language this way. I agree, though of course not from a moral viewpoint. :)

I would say to James, with this observation in mind, that it is language that is manipulated, rather than language itself a priori manipulating the truth by virtue of it being used to express some proposition, as though language in and of itself is corrupting of the truth. While you may be afraid to touch this question, James, I think our Lord Jesus Christ provided a very good example of this in action during his famous antitheses presented in the Gospel of St. Matthew: "You have heard it said..., but I say unto you". Christ our Lord was certainly not lying in either clause, but purposely manipulating language via this carefully constructed framework in order to reveal the truth, not to conceal or manipulate it.

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,775
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2012, 05:10:16 PM »
This might upset some people, but one of my professors (in linguistics, in which I am trained in the Functionalist/"anti-Chomskyan" tradition) pointed out a few years ago in a unit on child language development that it is actually, in some sense, a neurological or neurolinguistic milestone when a child begins to lie, as it shows a certain development in their awareness that they are able to manipulate language this way. I agree, though of course not from a moral viewpoint. :)

From a linguistic perspective, a milestone in linguistics occurs with the use of determiners as infants do not use determiners when they first start speaking. If an infant were to use determiners and speak in complete sentences, then that might be an indicator of Aspergers, if that diagnosis is still listed in the newly revised APA manual. And lying is pathological, although modernists would disagree.

Another important linguistic milestone is the use of the past and the future.
Quote

I would say to James, with this observation in mind, that it is language that is manipulated, rather than language itself a priori manipulating the truth by virtue of it being used to express some proposition, as though language in and of itself is corrupting of the truth. While you may be afraid to touch this question, James, I think our Lord Jesus Christ provided a very good example of this in action during his famous antitheses presented in the Gospel of St. Matthew: "You have heard it said..., but I say unto you". Christ our Lord was certainly not lying in either clause, but purposely manipulating language via this carefully constructed framework in order to reveal the truth, not to conceal or manipulate it.

+1

Certainly, language can be manipulated.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 05:14:16 PM by Maria »
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,067
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2012, 11:40:12 PM »
I've never really understood how someone can defend classical music and condemn popular music, except if they think their personal preferences are what determine moral acceptability.

Hi James,

To some extent you are presenting a false dilemma and it has nothing to do with moral acceptability. I am not sure how to defend my position based on what is a clear and strong bias on your part.

For the most part, modern popular music is meaningless to me, stirs no emotions, is a mild irritant, and only one step removed from a vacuum/white noise.

I at a loss of how to explain this, but I will start with an example. There are some pieces of music that I avoid because they overwhelm me emotionally. One of them is the second movement (Andantino con moto, quasi allegretto) of Sibelius Symphony No. 3. A seemingly pleasant enough melody, but to me it represents my death. If you look at the score you can see the birds that are the harbingers of my future if I do not change my  life. Even though I do not want to believe in toll houses (especially 23) it still reminds me of them as the musical accompaniment. A link to the piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cux1bM35e1c

I was in fact ostracized from junior high to the end of high school (I became fashionable subsequently) because I rejected the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Beach Boys, etc (I did make an exception for the Mothers of Invention).

What did impress me during this period was this song by Peter Paul and Mary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTFJxM3m-lY
To me it represents the great purity and total beauty of love and I still love this song and I wish many will take it to heart.


Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2012, 11:47:23 PM »
I've never really understood how someone can defend classical music and condemn popular music, except if they think their personal preferences are what determine moral acceptability.

Hi James,

To some extent you are presenting a false dilemma and it has nothing to do with moral acceptability. I am not sure how to defend my position based on what is a clear and strong bias on your part.

For the most part, modern popular music is meaningless to me, stirs no emotions, is a mild irritant, and only one step removed from a vacuum/white noise.

I at a loss of how to explain this, but I will start with an example. There are some pieces of music that I avoid because they overwhelm me emotionally. One of them is the second movement (Andantino con moto, quasi allegretto) of Sibelius Symphony No. 3. A seemingly pleasant enough melody, but to me it represents my death. If you look at the score you can see the birds that are the harbingers of my future if I do not change my  life. Even though I do not want to believe in toll houses (especially 23) it still reminds me of them as the musical accompaniment. A link to the piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cux1bM35e1c

I was in fact ostracized from junior high to the end of high school (I became fashionable subsequently) because I rejected the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Beach Boys, etc (I did make an exception for the Mothers of Invention).

What did impress me during this period was this song by Peter Paul and Mary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTFJxM3m-lY
To me it represents the great purity and total beauty of love and I still love this song and I wish many will take it to heart.



I think you may have misunderstood my post, or I am misunderstanding yours.  I didn't mean to imply there is anything wrong with a rejection of popular music, but rather that a belief that classical music is morally acceptable to hear but one must stay away from all popular music is an untenable position, unless a person believes that their own personal preferences are the determining factor in whether or not something is moral.  Specifically, I was speaking with regard to the view that some Orthodox (including several on Monachos) seem to have, that classical music is good for a person to hear, but popular music is sinful.  I in no way meant to imply that a person has no right to not listen to popular music if they happen to dislike it.
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,697
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #62 on: June 10, 2012, 12:02:53 AM »
I've never really understood how someone can defend classical music and condemn popular music, except if they think their personal preferences are what determine moral acceptability.

Well, you see, classical music doesn't incite the passions- which to me indicates the person making these judgements doesn't really appreciate or prefer classical music, they just find it incredibly boring.

Huh. See, I would call the feelings I get when I listen to classical music, which starts as intensely frustrating boredom, and then morphs into a frantic annoyance, to be passions.  :police:

According to Wikipedia, Mozart was brought into the Illuminati.    :P
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,067
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #63 on: June 10, 2012, 12:23:15 AM »
I've never really understood how someone can defend classical music and condemn popular music, except if they think their personal preferences are what determine moral acceptability.

Hi James,

To some extent you are presenting a false dilemma and it has nothing to do with moral acceptability. I am not sure how to defend my position based on what is a clear and strong bias on your part.

For the most part, modern popular music is meaningless to me, stirs no emotions, is a mild irritant, and only one step removed from a vacuum/white noise.

I at a loss of how to explain this, but I will start with an example. There are some pieces of music that I avoid because they overwhelm me emotionally. One of them is the second movement (Andantino con moto, quasi allegretto) of Sibelius Symphony No. 3. A seemingly pleasant enough melody, but to me it represents my death. If you look at the score you can see the birds that are the harbingers of my future if I do not change my  life. Even though I do not want to believe in toll houses (especially 23) it still reminds me of them as the musical accompaniment. A link to the piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cux1bM35e1c

I was in fact ostracized from junior high to the end of high school (I became fashionable subsequently) because I rejected the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Beach Boys, etc (I did make an exception for the Mothers of Invention).

What did impress me during this period was this song by Peter Paul and Mary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTFJxM3m-lY
To me it represents the great purity and total beauty of love and I still love this song and I wish many will take it to heart.



I think you may have misunderstood my post, or I am misunderstanding yours.  I didn't mean to imply there is anything wrong with a rejection of popular music, but rather that a belief that classical music is morally acceptable to hear but one must stay away from all popular music is an untenable position, unless a person believes that their own personal preferences are the determining factor in whether or not something is moral.  Specifically, I was speaking with regard to the view that some Orthodox (including several on Monachos) seem to have, that classical music is good for a person to hear, but popular music is sinful.  I in no way meant to imply that a person has no right to not listen to popular music if they happen to dislike it.

Hi James, I thought I was at the fringe of this issue. If you have a ready link to these guys I would be interested.


Offline JamesRottnek

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,123
  • I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #64 on: June 10, 2012, 12:33:57 AM »
I will see what I can find.
I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011

Offline Maria

  • Orthodox Christian
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,775
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #65 on: June 10, 2012, 12:48:39 AM »
I've never really understood how someone can defend classical music and condemn popular music, except if they think their personal preferences are what determine moral acceptability.

Hi James,

To some extent you are presenting a false dilemma and it has nothing to do with moral acceptability. I am not sure how to defend my position based on what is a clear and strong bias on your part.

For the most part, modern popular music is meaningless to me, stirs no emotions, is a mild irritant, and only one step removed from a vacuum/white noise.

I at a loss of how to explain this, but I will start with an example. There are some pieces of music that I avoid because they overwhelm me emotionally. One of them is the second movement (Andantino con moto, quasi allegretto) of Sibelius Symphony No. 3. A seemingly pleasant enough melody, but to me it represents my death. If you look at the score you can see the birds that are the harbingers of my future if I do not change my  life. Even though I do not want to believe in toll houses (especially 23) it still reminds me of them as the musical accompaniment. A link to the piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cux1bM35e1c

I was in fact ostracized from junior high to the end of high school (I became fashionable subsequently) because I rejected the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Beach Boys, etc (I did make an exception for the Mothers of Invention).

What did impress me during this period was this song by Peter Paul and Mary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTFJxM3m-lY
To me it represents the great purity and total beauty of love and I still love this song and I wish many will take it to heart.



I think you may have misunderstood my post, or I am misunderstanding yours.  I didn't mean to imply there is anything wrong with a rejection of popular music, but rather that a belief that classical music is morally acceptable to hear but one must stay away from all popular music is an untenable position, unless a person believes that their own personal preferences are the determining factor in whether or not something is moral.  Specifically, I was speaking with regard to the view that some Orthodox (including several on Monachos) seem to have, that classical music is good for a person to hear, but popular music is sinful.  I in no way meant to imply that a person has no right to not listen to popular music if they happen to dislike it.

Some popular music is good.

I like "Come Share the Wine, you're welcome here." Please correct me if I have mislabeled this song.
It is a polka song by Al Martino, and if I am not mistaken, it sounds like a Pascha celebration.

However, a lot of popular, country, or rock music is perverted today.
There is talk of drugs, alcohol, divorce, seduction, etc.
Some popular music stimulates the passions, especially some pieces on Dancing with the Stars.

These songs which stimulate the passions, arouse sinful desires, and drive God from our souls are the songs which many (if not all) Orthodox Priests (both World Orthodoxy and True Orthodoxy) condemn.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2012, 12:51:59 AM by Maria »
Ἅγιος ὁ Θεός
Ἅγιος ἰσχυρός
Ἅγιος ἀθάνατος
ἐλέησον ἡμας

Offline Ansgar

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,056
  • Keep your mind in hell and do not despair
Re: The things you can't do
« Reply #66 on: June 10, 2012, 07:04:52 AM »
I've never really understood how someone can defend classical music and condemn popular music, except if they think their personal preferences are what determine moral acceptability.

Well, you see, classical music doesn't incite the passions- which to me indicates the person making these judgements doesn't really appreciate or prefer classical music, they just find it incredibly boring.

Huh. See, I would call the feelings I get when I listen to classical music, which starts as intensely frustrating boredom, and then morphs into a frantic annoyance, to be passions.  :police:

According to Wikipedia, Mozart was brought into the Illuminati.    :P

Which one?
Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

-St Silouan the athonite