Poll for religious people

[cmg]

Dear Pianistimo,

I had to go to bed and only just returned to find this thread still perking.  You are a model of steadfastness and, yes, tolerance.  You have tolerated our apostasy and blasphemy in the name of Reason. And you've never resorted to name-calling or nastiness.  Additionally, you live day in and day out with a Dissenter (i.e. your husband) and speak of him with love and admiration. 

If your unique intelligence and your kindness and gentleness are the result of your beliefs, then I have to honor your decision to believe.  I think most of us are arguing against those American believers out there who -- unlike you -- use their faith as a political weapon.  This you never do.  You use it to find beauty in cadences and suspensions. 

In your honor, I offer (against my better judgment) a challenge to the expanding universe notion.  To quote Henny Youngman, "if the universe is expanding, then why can't I find a parking spot?"

That also reminds me of my favorite Henny joke:  "A hooker comes up to me and says 'I'll do anything you want for $50." 

"Paint my house!"

Pace, dear pianistimo.


--Michael

[mephisto]

Why haff six pøhsons voted: I is PIANISTIMO

-DA mEPH

[pianistimo]

dear michael,

thats the most disarming thing to my next message about ice ages.  but, because i cannot simply let a man schmooze his way into my painting his house - i must ask one more question.

ok. as scientists say - it takes tens of thousands of years to pass through an ice age.  then they go and explain ice ages and the possibilites of how they happened.  they say that the earth goes from a circular orbit (which produces regular temps) to an elliptical orbit which produces much cooler winters and warmer summers.  but, the entire earth undergoing an ice age for tens of thousands of years - would then be obliterated by the next summer. 

also, if everything died out - how did it suddenly thaw and the earth become repopulated again.  in terms of what i think - if there was a previous creation - it had a different sun.  the earth was entirely frozen for a point - and then, was thawed - water was over the face of the 'deeps' and God's spirit moved to 'recreate' a new earth with a new sun and new moon.  what is impossible about this idea? 

another possible reason, some scientist say - for ice ages are volcanic activity on a massive scale which produces ash and dust in the sky so that the sun cannot give as much light- thereby making the temperatures considerably colder.  but, again some scientists then also say - only in the last 10,000 years has all of HUMAN history occurred in the current condition it is.  so - they are saying that because of intense heat or cold - ntohing would survive these ice ages.  and they say there has been 3-4 of them. and not just one.

what if they would just say - possibly the mastadon's that were eating grass in montana or wherever they were found -were not even found in a FROZEN state.  but had grass in their stomach.  what if they were covered in sediment from a world FLOOD.  what if they had the same sun that we do?  to produce plant and animal life that would be within (i say 6,000 years) but they say 10,000. 

scientists cannot argue fact when they find it - and their dating is coming much closer nowdays to the bible renditions.  interesting!

[pianistimo]

dear cmg,

i couldn't help myself on that last post...and yet - it amazes me (because i know my limits) that you all have the patience of my husband.  really, to discuss things with someone who knows very little of mathematics and science - and bother to talk with them is quite nice.  and - despite what some might think - i do think about what you all say.  and not just 'can i disprove it.' 

the only time that i get into 'disprove' mode - is when something is still theory in my mind and is not a totally proven fact TO ME.  now, proven fact for me - might take billions of years on some topics.  say - i listen to richard dawkings and he starts using some complicated mathmatical formulas that i don't even know.  how would it prove anything to me?  i cannot comprehend the logic.

so - i sit here - with soda in hand - thinking of how to simplify things so i can fully comprehend why i am here.  what purpose?  i would say that of all the knowledge that i have learned - the most pleasant has been being married and having children.  i've learned that giving and sharing can be done whether one is single or married - though - and that you learn the most being married and having children because not everyone is forced to get up at three in the morning to 'feed the baby.'  you start loving someone not because of what they give you - but because they just are.  they are a living being.  someone created in your image and likeness.  you see yourself in their faces and even actions.  i cannot explain why my youngest daughter is just like me.  even my dad says that she has many of the same mannerisms, actions, way of talking, etc.  if it were only a matter of reproduction and seeing one's own child - i would believe in God on the basis of the awesomeness in how he creates babies in their parents image.  and no two are alike.  science cannot understand many things - but seeks to find answers.  some are mysteries, imo, and though sought - the answers may stay with God.

[pianistimo]

dear mephisto,

i only voted once - but somehow i feel encouraged. it is all leucippus fault.  you see he has not posted since i said that i thought he was the culprit.  perhaps made a correct guess?   

[cmg]

dear michael,

thats the most disarming thing to my next message about ice ages.  but, because i cannot simply let a man schmooze his way into my painting his house - i must ask one more question.

Well, then, Onward Christian Soldiers!!

However, I must get back to my pagan practices . . . not to mention my practicing.  But, before I go, one limerick, heralded as the longest ever written:

There once was a young man from Sparta,
Who, they say, was an excellent farta,

He could fart anything from "God Save the King"
To Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata."

First, comes a neat pizzacato, followed by a prolonged obbligato,
And then with a crash comes Bach's "B minor Mass"
And in counterpoint, "La Traviata."



--Michael

[cmg]

oops, messed up that "quote" thingie.  Didn't mean to have my poor limerick above attributed to our pianistimo!!

Okay, went back and fixed it!

[prometheus]

If you can't abandon the idea that you can't find useful historical truths in the bible you will never be able to understand reality.

[cmg]

dear cmg,

so - i sit here - with soda in hand - thinking of how to simplify things so i can fully comprehend why i am here.  what purpose?

 

But you've already demonstrated that you KNOW why we are here:  to take care of one another, firstl and foremost, and to develop pearly scales and sparkling octaves, secondly.

--Michael

[thalbergmad]

dear term,

you assume we are the center of the universe.  if the sun was as old as the Big Bang theory - it would be moving faster and farther away and the moon wouldn't be giving much light to us either.  face it- these theories are theories that are being disproven by the relative constancy of our universe which was created with BOUNDARIES. 

science is aways trying to make little chinks in the bible. and then blow them out of proportion - but what they don't realize is they cannot corroborate black matter because it is INVISIBLE.  what is it? could it be God Himself?  Does He keep the universe stable?  Does He make the constellations the same as they were 'billions and billions' of years ago.  if they were spreading out (as with other galaxies) we would have a totally new constellation system.

but we see the same things as our earliest ancestors.  in babylon they have extremely old astrological stuff that matches our own star formations in the sky - and with regularity they are for 'signs and for seasons.'

in evolution - supposedly everything is changing constantly.  if this were so over 'billions' of years - things would be terribly different in terms of what we find archeologically.  but, our sun must have allowed for the current creation - and the ICE AGE was before the SUN.  how could we even have the POLAR REGIONs frozen to the mass that they once were - and gradually thawed.  if it were BILLIONS of years - the polar regions would have caused flooding way before now.  although it appears that we will see somewhat how much water God actually used in NOah's flood.

It was the church that used to hang onto the notion that we were at the centre of the unvierse, not science. Of course the sun is not as old as big bang theory, it is only 6,000 years old of course as previously proved by yourself from your little book of short stories. Again, do not think of localised expansion, but as a whole. Empty your mind and read Hawkinge.

What the Babylonians saw in the sky is pretty much the same as us. There is difference now, but not that would be visible to the naked eye. The procession of the equinoxis does make a difference to what we see now, but not expansion. The "plough" in a 100,000 years time would be unrecognisable. Therefore, God does not make them look the same as they were billions of years ago.

To propose that the ICE AGE was before the SUN is taking stupidity to new heights. For a different view, try reading Hapgoods Earth Crustial Displacement Theory and do some investigation into the Pire Ries Map. The Polar Regions were possibly not always The Polar Regions.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, then, Onward Christian Soldiers!!

Well, then - you asked for it. Here is the dreadful ditty of the Victorian English Bible-beater Sabine Baring-Gould as transcribed not so much by a Latter-day Saint as by an extremely unsaintly latter-day Godowsky...

"Onward, Christian soldiers, posting with decorum,
With the cross of Jesus hanging o’er this fourm
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see our Pianistimo!

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

At the sign of triumph Thalbergmad doth flee;
Hurling great flat earths at Christianity!
Hell’s for our Prometheus, sane as are his ways;
Brother Pianowolfi must keep out of Susan’s gaze!

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Like the US army moves the church of God;
Brothers, Sue keeps preaching – never mind how odd.
Though they’re all derided, all Pianistimi,
One in hope and doctrine? – nah, all alone, that’s She.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

What the Bible tells Her, that She holds for true
What the saints believèd, She believes it too.
Long as earth endureth, She the faith will hold,
Kingdoms, nations, empires, all in our Susan’s mould.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Flesh and bones may perish, dollars rise and wane,
But the church of Susan drives us still insane.
Gates of hell can never gainst our Suze prevail;
She has Christ’s own promise, while we’re all beyond the pale.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Onward then, ye forum members, join our happy throng,
Blend with ours your voices in the fugal song.
Glory, laud and honor unto Sue the Queen,
Though She might despise us coz She don’t know where we’ve been.

Onward, Christian Susan, preaching ever sure,
Making cross our forum; who could bore 'em more?!


Now there you are - another love poem for you, Susanistimo, ma chère...

(No offence meant - just abit of good - no, bad, clean - no, unclean, fun...)

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

P.S.

I was sorley tempted to use an opportunity during the above to make a rhyme between "Suze" and "schmooze" (a word pianistimo clearly loves), but on reflection I thought it better not to be led untio temptation and to try instead to adhere faithfully(!) to the Reverend Baring-Gould's original rhyme scheme...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Nice one Hinty, you should put some music to it.

Thal

[ada]

Ok you poor foolish believers in science and scientists and empirical evidence and historical records. It's time to absorb some points, as taught to us all by the flying spaghetti monster.

1.The universe revolves around the Earth.

2. People are at the centre of the universe, cos we are so important cos the flying spaghetti monster created us.

3. The earth is flat. F. L. A. T. Like, obviously. Like otherwise we'd fall off, wouldn't we? Huh? You answer that you smarty pants scientists out there.

4. Ok so once there was a different sun. But it got like all frozen, cos it's really cold in space. So all the stuff on the earth (which was so flat) got frozen too into an ice age.

5. But then the spaghetti monster came with his big hair drier and melted it cost he was bored.

6. Then he thought, wow, this is still really boring. I'm gonna make some people. So he did. But when he was making brains he ran out of ingredients so some people missed out.

That was like, about, 100 years ago.

So people! Beware! Do not ever walk too far or you'll fall off the end of the earth.

Hail the spaghetti monster!

[pianowolfi]

Nice one Hinty, you should put some music to it.

Thal

Yes that's what I thought too.

[ada]

dear cmg,

  someone created in your image and likeness.  you see yourself in their faces and even actions.  i cannot explain why my youngest daughter is just like me.  even my dad says that she has many of the same mannerisms, actions, way of talking, etc.  if it were only a matter of reproduction and seeing one's own child - i would believe in God on the basis of the awesomeness in how he creates babies in their parents image. 

Yeah the spaghetti monster does that too. He's got like moulds that he uses to make sure our kids look just like us and he moulds little mini-mes before putting them in our tummies.

Some weirdo cultists used to think it was all because of DNA. Sheesh. Some people have wacky ideas  

[ahinton]

Nice one Hinty, you should put some music to it.

Thal

Thanks for the invitation, but what's wrong with the "original" "music"? "Everything you could imagine", of course - but that's why it fits the text so well, don't you think?

Best,

Alessandro non poeta

[ramseytheii]

Well, then - you asked for it. Here is the dreadful ditty of the Victorian English Bible-beater Sabine Baring-Gould as transcribed not so much by a Latter-day Saint as by an extremely unsaintly latter-day Godowsky...

"Onward, Christian soldiers, posting with decorum,
With the cross of Jesus hanging o’er this fourm
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see our Pianistimo!

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

At the sign of triumph Thalbergmad doth flee;
Hurling great flat earths at Christianity!
Hell’s for our Prometheus, sane as are his ways;
Brother Pianowolfi must keep out of Susan’s gaze!

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Like the US army moves the church of God;
Brothers, Sue keeps preaching – never mind how odd.
Though they’re all derided, all Pianistimi,
One in hope and doctrine? – nah, all alone, that’s She.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

What the Bible tells Her, that She holds for true
What the saints believèd, She believes it too.
Long as earth endureth, She the faith will hold,
Kingdoms, nations, empires, all in our Susan’s mould.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Flesh and bones may perish, dollars rise and wane,
But the church of Susan drives us still insane.
Gates of hell can never gainst our Suze prevail;
She has Christ’s own promise, while we’re all beyond the pale.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.

Onward then, ye forum members, join our happy throng,
Blend with ours your voices in the fugal song.
Glory, laud and honor unto Sue the Queen,
Though She might despise us coz She don’t know where we’ve been.

Onward, Christian Susan, preaching ever sure,
Making cross our forum; who could bore 'em more?!


Now there you are - another love poem for you, Susanistimo, ma chère...

(No offence meant - just abit of good - no, bad, clean - no, unclean, fun...)

Best,

Alistair

Bravi, bravi, bravissimi!

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

Does not appear that there will be any debate tonight as the holy one is offline.

The voting is not as clear cut as the "Council of Nicaea" and perhaps not of similar importance.

I think i will retire to bed with some Bible debunking literature.

Night all.

Thal

[ahinton]

Does not appear that there will be any debate tonight as the holy one is offline.

Haven't you noticed? It's SUNDAY...

The voting is not as clear cut as the "Council of Nicaea" and perhaps not of similar importance.

Oh, I don't know; it's quite "nice 'ere" when we're not all being preached at, n'est-ce pas?

I think i will retire to bed with some Bible debunking literature.

"Bible debunking literature"? - I must confess that I've never heard of a 25ml tot of Laphroaig 30-y-o being described thus, so, as a devout born-again Scotsman, I feel bound to remain insatiably curious as to its efficacy thereas...

Best,

Alistair

[cmg]

Alas, Pianistimo!  A veritable oratorio awaits you!  "Susanistimo Agonistes," by the venerable composer Alistair Hinton!  Then, perhaps, the opera, "AbNorma(l)"!  Who knows?  I'm putting my "Henny Youngman Sampler" away to await more stentorian verse by this modern master who achieves truly Johnsonian resonance with every uttterance!  All hail, Scotland and its bards!!!!


-Michael 

[pianistimo]

dear thal,

i read a bit about hapgood's earth crustal displacement and find it odd that he was attempting to locate poles that were 100,000 years old (tracing them in 10,000 year increments).  how did he determine all these distinct pole shifts?  i'm kind of at a loss as to why it wouldn't radically change the amount of ice at the polar regions in periods of less than 10,000 years (as he says takes that amount of time between ice ages).  now, there is no mention of HOW the ice age came to be - really - excepting that all of a suddent there was a lot of ice.  ice comes from water.  where did this huge amount of water come from at the polar regions?  and -if it is so easy for the crust to be displaced- why are we not experiencing (from so many crustal displacements) a complete displacement where we are sort of just 'floating' around like a broken 'globe.'  what secures us in place after a displacement?

also, in counter to this theory look here:  https://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99cpr/learn.html
they say that recent drilling in the antarctic high plateau shows that they can go back to 135,000 to 115,000 years of ice formation.  but, if all this water was the result of a flood and combination of freshwater and ocean water - it might have happened more suddenly - at the time of noah's flood. 

when the flood happened there was freshwater that was raining down for 40 days and nights.  the water (comb of ocean 'fountains of the deep' and 'floodgates' of the sky) prevailed ... so that the mountains were covered. 

now, scientists say that the 'thermohaline circulation' that was happening with the oceans would have dramatically shifted when the 'melting of huge armadas of icebergs' provided FRESHWATER to shut down theromohaline circulation (during pole shift?) .  now - my question is HOW did the poles have so much freshwater in them in the first place?  logically it should be ocean saltwater. 

all this is really too complicated for my brain because each concept probably takes a lifetime of learning.  but, i don't really see how so much freshwater ended up at the poles - and is melting into huge freshwater lakes (one of which has made a bay now with the ocean) in the arctic. 

one source i found says that the current ice caps contain 80% of the earth's freshwater.  now, i don't doubt that if einstein said the earth's crust has a high probablity of being able to be displaced all in one 'fell swoop' - then there's probably some merit- but what it doesn't account for in recent 'ice age 'time (10,000 year period) when - assuming there is a sudden magnetic shift of poles...wouldn't they switch sides and not angles?  i mean - for anything magnetic - you see complete opposites happening.  so - and i'm just asking - so don't get angry - why are we talking north america and greenland as being possilbe places for poles to be? 

but, how did hopgood determine this.  i am curious.  can we find evidence in greenland of 'gas' that is escaping that holds the 'key' to some kind of indication that these previous 'poles' were much older - or are they proving to be approximately the same ages - but melted down further?

the earth's crust - alone - is good proof for creation because you have a system that is entirely interdependent.  what happens to one area creates a heck of a lot of change in any other area of the globe.  it should all come together and confirm what happened in one location.  and visa-versa - that if one location -such as the poles were dramatically shifted - then according temperature changes would affect every  other area of the globe. 

perhaps i AM interested in this enough to at least read more of mr hopgood's theories (which, btw, were written in the 1950's) so i can imagine that much more has been discovered recently - although perhaps confirming or denying such research.  too bad mr. einstein died shortly after responding to mr hopgood about this - and encouraging him to do more research. 

[ahinton]

Alas, Pianistimo!  A veritable oratorio awaits you!  "Susanistimo Agonistes,"

Or might that be "susan Agonistimo"?...

by the venerable composer Alistair Hinton!

Whilst duly thanking you for the compliment, I have, alas, to admit that the kind of writing to which you refer might be seen to suggest that I am rather more venereal than venerable...

Then, perhaps, the opera, "AbNorma(l)"!

Well, if so, at least you could put me down for writing the pianoperatic fantasy thereon (which I would naturally dedicate to Pianistimo, since her "fantasising" is one of the more notable things that appears to have engaged several people's attention here)...

more stentorian verse by this modern master who achieves truly Johnsonian resonance with every uttterance!  All hail, Scotland and its bards!!!!

I trust that any stentorianism that I purvey is confined to the kind of thing I've just done here. I fear that "truly Johnsonian resonance" is substantially above my potential literary achievement level. I join you in saluting Scottish bards, however!!!!

Best,

Alistair non pianatheistimo...

[pianistimo]

dear cmg,

you are a tolerant soul - and do not taunt me like ahinton and the rest (excepting that limerick about farting) although ahinton makes me laugh a lot and i know it is all in good natured jest.  probably the rest is, too. 

yes - i went to church on Sunday!  with my husband.  we usually try to talk each other into coming to each other's church.  so, i went and played this electronic promagnon piano with a floppy pedal and bass that resounded to electronic dimensions beyond spiritual.  i was somewhat in heaven - though - because oddly enough - the bass didn't do much crossover from one chord to the next.  so i focused on the bass as it connected better than the treble - being that the piano had a floppy damper pedal.  we always get raving reviews from the crowd and they ask us when we are coming back.  of course, maybe that is WHY we come back.  we could probably play and sing terribly and they'd say the same thing - but i do think they appreciate quality from the food they serve at the buffet afterwards.  all homemade.  homemade brownie cake. mm.

my husband spoke today about three states of christians.  i'm sure ahinton will find more states (such as the pentecostal, etc) but i believe my husband put it in terms of: pilgrimage on earth, being in a state of our spirits 'with' God, and then the ressurrection into a totally new body (as in 'we shall all be changed, in a moment, at the twinkling of an eye - at the last trumpet).  now, hardly anybody raises the distinct possibility of our being at rest WITH God during the interum period of death.  rev. 6:9 '...i saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the Word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out which a loud voice, saying 'How long, O Lord, holy and true, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?  And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also.' 

now, if these souls had close proximity and protection under God - then we should believe - as Brahms understood by writing the German Requiem - 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on! yes! says the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them.'

i think the apostle stephen understood this - too, because he saw a vision of Christ standing at the right hand of God ready to receive him - shortly before he was stoned to death.  he said 'Lord, receive my spirit.'  if God is the keeper of our spirits or souls- then this inbetween period - of DEATH - is not really death to Christians - but a temporary closer proximity to God.  so much that we can even ask Him 'how long...' 

i would say that if there is anything HUGE - it is salvation!

[cmg]

Nevertheless, AH, I live in a country (US) and a borough (Manhattan) that has sunken to the lowest depths of cultural atrophy that one can imagine -- well, one only has to go back to Rome with the Caesars to seek a reference point.  Your bardic utterances, devalued as they are by you, sir, are a breath of fresh air.   Thanksgiving (our holiday commemorating the earliest subjugation and near-annihilation of native peoples) was marked by a parade of actors, writers and musicans through my Greenwich Village flat who created a fugue of annoyance.  They came; they preened; they ate; they commented on their wealth; they phoned their agents; and they were evicted by me, to everyone's horror.  Enough, I tell you, is enough.  Reading our Pianistimo's posts, and yours, was infinitely superior.

Write on, sir.  And please provide a link so that I may to discover your compositions for piano.  Chopin, with his unholy demands, is working my last nerve.  You won't do the same, will you?  I have a damnable day-job that supports my piano habit. . .

--Michael

[pianistimo]

stock broker?  well, that would be enough to live in manhattan.  how do you do it?

say, did you know the researcher 'ballard' found evidence recently of ancient dwellings 300 feet under the black sea.  i think some of these areas were definately flooded at the time of noah and ballard - who used to be a 'science only' man - is now combining science with a new respect for the possiblity of the noatian flood.  btw, ballard is the guy who discovered the remains of the titanic- as you all probably know.

also, in turkey - it is said that the remains of noah's ark remain high (although broken into pieces now) on mt. ararat.  the same mountain that the bible says it is. 

i don't know much about historical time before the bible (say between gen 1:1 and 1:2) where the earth was covered by water - but it seems that our CORE is some kind of liquid (probably water) and that is what God built upon.  therefore, if genesis 2:4 says 'in the day the earth and heavens were made'  then - the earth and heavens were made on the FIRST day.  meaning 6,000 plus or minus years.  perhaps we will have reason all the more to believe that if there is a 7,000 year cycle (as God seems to like numbers) that we are truly living in 'the last days.' 

mention was made of festivities like rome.  i'm sure that the romans enjoyed many laciviously natured festivities no matter if they started pagan or religious.  interestingly, the indians - also, had their share of 'pagan' customs.  although leaving room for 'the Great Spirit.'  did you know that despite the terrible treatment of the indians by other settlers - that william penn was quite the opposite and treated the indians with all honesty and fairness!  also, there were quite a few willing to die to spread 'the gospel' with the indians.  one such man was john eliot, who came over to america in 1631.  eliot learned the language of the massachusetts indians and began to translate the bible into their tongue.  it took him nearly thirty years of patient work to do this - his bible was one of the first books printed in america, and many of his 'praying indians' as his indian followers were called - learned to read it.

eliot also showed his kindness by speaking up when people tried to sell the indians as slaves. 

roger williams was another missionary to the indians.  he left a large colony in 1636 to set up his own colony.  usually the indians would kill a white man living by himself, because the white men stole their land - but this man was different.  he soon became friends because he offerred to buy land from them rather than taking it.  also, he saw that the indians were men (like him) and that they needed to hear the gospel.  so for many years he taught the indians the bible and witnessed to them about Christ.

a third man, who wanted the indians to know more about Christ was david brainerd.  he lived in the early 1700's and was a brilliant bible scholar.  he decided to leave his large new england church and spend his life preaching to the indians in the wilderness.  he knew that winning souls for Christ was more important than living in comfort.  his hard work and poor conditions caused him to die when only 29.

john wesley also brought good news of salvation to the indians.  he was amazed at the indians desire to learn more about the Word of God.  one indian told him, 'we would not be made christians as the spaniards make christians:  we would be taught before we are baptized.' 

sequoia finished all this off ( in terms of east coast indians) by translating the cherokee language into symbols - the syllabary - and the cherokee indians quickly learned how to read and write in their own language.  the new testament was translated. 

[cmg]

Pianistimo, you humble me.  The essence of all life (after practicing the piano) is service.  You and your venerable husband, do exactly that.  I have no argument with that, certainly.  In fact, I admire both of you, though I am an unrepentant Pagan.  

I live in New York City (Sodom) and spirituality is a hard-won commodity here.  Just yesterday, I went to the Metropolitan Museum for the exhibit "Glitter and Doom," a powerful display of portraits from the Weimar Period by Dix and Beckman.  I was horrified, not by what I saw, but by how nothing of humans ever changes.  Death, war, avarice.  And this month's National Geographic with its stunningly disturbing black and white images of soldiers maimed by that unholy war in Irag.  Full circle.  

It's just that Christianity, with its posture towards peace, achieves none of that, because ALL religions set up conflict:  Our God vs. Your God.  Our values against Your values.  That's the problem, don't you see?  Conflict.  We are, in reality, one.  God (or Whatever) is One.  Let it be.  Dogma is the product of frustruated politicians seeking power and ego aggrandisement.  They feed off the goodwill and intellgence of fine people like Pianistimo.

I think we need AH to create a stunning mass to Agnosticism.  Text by Henny Youngman and myself, of course!    

[cmg]

Stockbroker?  You wound me, Pianistimo.  Try psychoanalyst.  That's bad enough.  I'm a pariah in my professional community for rejecting much of Freudian thought.  Which is ridiculous, of course, since Freud rejected much of his earlier thought himself!!

[pianistimo]

sorry. you don't really seem the stockbroker kind.  but, i was curious how you made enough to manage to live there.  psychoanalyst.  ok.  how am i doing?  am a sane or do you consider the fact that there are now apparently six of me - that i am too self absorbed. 

how can i become less self absorbed and fulfill my desire to be a true christian?  must i stop using the word i - too much?  how does one forget themselves - truly- in a world which places great emphasis on individual thought and reason? 

when will i be able to just shut up and listen.  who can teach me to just shut up.  i must learn to shut up.  it is too hard right now.  i must do it in little increments.  like when i feel saying something about what I think - then maybe try to go into a mode of 'being thal '  or
'being ahinton' or 'being whomever.'  to try to understand perspectives.

it is very hard not to use i - because usually i use it before saying imo or 'i think.'

perhaps for as long as i can (which may be 20 minutes) i shall read something other than the bible (when i read).  tonight - it will be the reader's digest (as i don't have thal's, ahinton's, or prometheus suggested reading - and probably a few others).  the trouble with me - possibly - is that i want to do many things at once and feel somewhat a failure at doing anything as well as i want.  i want pearly scales (which i actually can do ) but i want them within the context of leroy anderson's first pc - which wanted to learn months ago.  this will be my nyears resolution early.  i shall celebrate wednesday (which is payday) by going online and purchasing it finally.  along with 'sleigh ride.' 

ps  sometimes i do read - but it is usually about 3 days out of the year.  then, it's ten books at once.  although, seriously, i read a lot online about music and wish i had access to jstor.  but i don't want to purchase it just yet - because of limited time.

pss do they actually allow you to paint the walls of manhattan apartments?  i thought it had to be white or something - you know - rules.  but, of course, there are many things one can do with fabric and art and - well, you need (if you want decor) that lady on divine design.  shall i write in and get her to come to your apt?  she is the best!  according to me.  www.divinedesign.tv/master.asp

[cmg]

You should never "shut up and listen."  Your thoughts are as vaild as anyone's and probably more earnest than most. 

But you mention an important concept:  the "I."  It is the ego.  And what is that?  It is a compendium of all we have been taught or experienced.  It is cognitive synthesis of our history.  Does it truly represent what we are?  No.  What we are, lives purely beneath all of this.  Our essence.  Free of dogma and education.  Odd, isn't it, that all we really want is to love and be loved.  That, I believe, is the proof of, well, "God."  Pianistimo, you are already there.  Relax.  Let the thinking go, the intellectualizations to prove the Scriptures as the Law . . . let all of this go.  Just be.  And love those around you, as you do.

Years ago, I almost died in an elevator accident in NYC.  When I thought, well, this is it, I am going to die, something amazing happened.  The "I," the me that wanted fame and fortune, slipped away and something else replaced it -- an awareness of the "me" before religion, prejudice, dogma, etc. and it seized my consious thinking.  With that awareness, I felt free.  A part of it all.  I felt a net supporting me.  Indra's Net, a Hindu concept, I learned later.  I was part of it all.  No better, no worse, just one of the many atoms that make up existence.  I was still "alive."  I was no longer afraid.  That feeling remains to this day.  I don't believe in Eternity.  Only the absence of Time.  Time is something we have created.  When we end it, we live.  Truly. 


--Michael (who must eat dinner and get some rest!) 

[cmg]

Thanks for the decorator ideas, but we really are allowed to go crazy with color here if we want to! Nothing in New York, like London, is really impossible, it's just expensive. 

Guten nacht!

--Michael

[pianistimo]

spahkoynoy nochee ('good night' in russian)
codladh samh  (irish) 

[donjuan]

this thread is making me nauseous..

[ahinton]

yes - i went to church on Sunday!  with my husband.  we usually try to talk each other into coming to each other's church.

So you belong to different churches, then? To which kind does each of you belong? (just curious!)...

so, i went and played this electronic promagnon piano

Do you mean "cro-magnon"?

with a floppy pedal and bass that resounded to electronic dimensions beyond spiritual.

Sounds painful...

i was somewhat in heaven - though - because oddly enough - the bass didn't do much crossover from one chord to the next.

There's more than enough "crossover" around already, surely (and I mean the so-called "musical" kind, not some kind of heretical conflation between the cross and Passover)...

so i focused on the bass as it connected better than the treble - being that the piano had a floppy damper pedal.

Perhaps you could have recorded your performance on a floppy disc, then...

we always get raving reviews from the crowd and they ask us when we are coming back.

I think you actually meant "rave" reviews, although I do tend to agree that "raving" sounds more plausible in the place where it occurred...

of course, maybe that is WHY we come back.  we could probably play and sing terribly and they'd say the same thing - but i do think they appreciate quality from the food they serve at the buffet afterwards.  all homemade.  homemade brownie cake. mm.

OK - so now we know why you attend church - to sing and play on hideous instruments and then partake of a feast afterwards. That's all understood, then...

my husband spoke today about three states of christians.  i'm sure ahinton will find more states (such as the pentecostal, etc)

On the contrary, I make it a principle never to try to find pentecostalists...

but i believe my husband put it in terms of: pilgrimage on earth, being in a state of our spirits 'with' God, and then the ressurrection into a totally new body (as in 'we shall all be changed, in a moment, at the twinkling of an eye - at the last trumpet).

...or - as you would yourself presumably out it -  "at the twinkling of a slab of homemade brownie cake - at the last electronic promagnon piano" (which latter reminds me that there were surely better musical instruments revealed in the Revelation...)

now, hardly anybody raises the distinct possibility of our being at rest WITH God during the interum period of death.  rev. 6:9 '...i saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the Word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out which a loud voice, saying 'How long, O Lord, holy and true, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?  And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also.'

Are you surprised? YOU never give it a "rest" at all, do you?! Not even so much as a demisemiquaver one!(that's a 32nd-note one to your Philadelphians).

now, if these souls had close proximity and protection under God - then we should believe - as Brahms understood by writing the German Requiem - 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on! yes! says the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them.'

I yield to none in my admiration for Brahms, but please do not credit him unwarrantably; Brahms wrote no such thing - he most wisely confined himself to writing the music in that work, did he not?

i think the apostle stephen understood this - too,

Well - good for "stevie"...

because he saw a vision of Christ standing at the right hand of God ready to receive him - shortly before he was stoned to death.  he said 'Lord, receive my spirit.'  if God is the keeper of our spirits or souls- then this inbetween period - of DEATH - is not really death to Christians - but a temporary closer proximity to God.  so much that we can even ask Him 'how long...' 

I thought that the phrase "how long, oh Lord? - how long?" came from St. Joan, by Shaw...

i would say that if there is anything HUGE - it is salvation!

Now do be careful, susanistimo, dear - you're laying yourself wide open here (if you see what I mean)...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Nevertheless, AH, I live in a country (US) and a borough (Manhattan) that has sunken to the lowest depths of cultural atrophy that one can imagine -- well, one only has to go back to Rome with the Caesars to seek a reference point.  Your bardic utterances, devalued as they are by you, sir, are a breath of fresh air.   Thanksgiving (our holiday commemorating the earliest subjugation and near-annihilation of native peoples) was marked by a parade of actors, writers and musicans through my Greenwich Village flat who created a fugue of annoyance.  They came; they preened; they ate; they commented on their wealth; they phoned their agents; and they were evicted by me, to everyone's horror.  Enough, I tell you, is enough.  Reading our Pianistimo's posts, and yours, was infinitely superior.

Nicely put - except that in the midst of these "lowest depths of cultural atrophy", Elliott Carter is still alive and working in the very same Greenwich village - and thanks for the kind compliment.

Write on, sir.  And please provide a link so that I may to discover your compositions for piano.

https://www.sorabji-archive.co.uk/hinton/scores.php

Chopin, with his unholy demands, is working my last nerve.  You won't do the same, will you?  I have a damnable day-job that supports my piano habit. . .

Chopin indeed had - and still has - a most wonderful way of working all those nerves when at his best! Can't speak about moi...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

dear all,

if mr solomon (reading alistairs archives) said something about 'uniquely forbidding,' then it must be that one of the main objectives of sorabji and alistair is to create a few mountains for pianists to climb. and once climbed - they can be complimented for their ability to at least 'get through' the piece although never fully comprehending the 'interpretation' side - since that will always rest with the composer on that one.  the reason i say this - is that i've noticed that alistair does like the fact that a pianist - to get a true sense of a work - should at least do what he did (in finding sorabji) and do a little research.  find out about the composer.  dead or alive.  and have some interaction to fully understand what interpretation the composer most favored. 

as i see it, with some excellent piano teachers, that is the most favored method in any case.  to be faithful to the original idea.  although in newer music - it also allows for 'creative' periods where the pianist may on occasion - simply enter the realm of 'this is my piece' and either make the composer very very happy or turn over in his/her grave. 

i was surprised to find out that alistair doesn't really care if program notes are read and frankly considers them a waste of time.  and, yet - fastidious as he was in finding sorabji and allowing his works to be performed by specific pianists of his choosing - there is obviously some things that are to be understood. 

what i want to know - is what characteristics that solomon had that made him a good interpreter of sorabji.  and, obviously, it wasn't just good sightreading ability.  (or was it?) perhaps it was that he understood the mind of a machavellian musician?  btw, what exactly is that?  and, he understood the idea that mi contra fa - might mean that the devils chord should always be placed in the bass.  just kidding.  i would like to understand a few passages of this book without reading the entire thing.  oh, and i want to know exactly what jonathan powell possesses that makes him a good pianist for the works of yours, alistair.

can you give us a synopsis.  i have limited time - but some interest in what sorabji was attempting to do with his music.  was it to break all the limits of time and space.  was it that sorabji was in the process of 'freeing his spirit' after his 80th birthday - only to have it locked up again as pianists continued to play his pieces?  i should like to see what he does (perhaps much like mr hearst) knocking around the castle and occasionally going on piano forum - but not much caring what people say - as the music speaks for itself.

[ahinton]

if mr solomon (reading alistairs archives) said something about 'uniquely forbidding,' then it must be that one of the main objectives of sorabji and alistair is to create a few mountains for pianists to climb.

No - not at all - not in either case; the "objective" is to write the piece that one feels one needs to write, howsoever complex or simple, easy or difficult to perform, etc. What matters is the obtaining, organising and expressing of ideas. I never go out of my way to be approachable in my work, but then I never go out of my way to do the opposite, either; this kind of thing carries with it the inherent danger that one might get unduly hooked up on the problems and difficulties - or otherwise - of what one is trying to create rather than its actual substance. The same may be said of Sorabji's attitude to such matters. Furthermore, although Sorabji's solo piano output constitutes a substantial proportion of his oeuvre as a whole and I've not exactly been a slouch at piano writing myself, each of us wrote for other forces - so it's not all about what pianists have to end up doing in any case...

and once climbed - they can be complimented for their ability to at least 'get through' the piece although never fully comprehending the 'interpretation' side - since that will always rest with the composer on that one.

Were that to be true, then much of the object of the exercise would be either lost altogether, or at leeast of dubious worth; if the performer/s doesn't/don't get inside the music itself, then all the technical feats of physical virtuosity / digital/cerebral co-ordination and all the rest will likely risk adding up to little more than a mere circus trick.

the reason i say this - is that i've noticed that alistair does like the fact that a pianist - to get a true sense of a work - should at least do what he did (in finding sorabji) and do a little research.  find out about the composer.  dead or alive.  and have some interaction to fully understand what interpretation the composer most favored.

Research of this kind can sometimes help, although it should always only be seen as a useful adjunct, rather than taking the place of, instinctive and intelligent reasoning. Working with living composers' music is always going to be a rather different matter to working with that of deceased ones, but one must remember in both cases that music has a degree of fluidity and that interpretative traditions grow and metamorphose over time - and that the composer is not "always right", any more than there is bu one Urtextual way in which any one piece should be performed at any given time. One has only to consider different performances of the same work at different times by some of the gret pianists to understand at least something of that notion; composers likewise are often likely to view their own works differently - both per se and in the ever-changing context in which they may be placed - as time passes.

as i see it, with some excellent piano teachers, that is the most favored method in any case.  to be faithful to the original idea.  although in newer music - it also allows for 'creative' periods where the pianist may on occasion - simply enter the realm of 'this is my piece' and either make the composer very very happy or turn over in his/her grave.

See above. In so writing, however, I am not trying to blur the lines between fine, less than fine and downright hopeless interpretations - merely to point up the fact that it's not all "black and white" (apart from the piano keys, of course!) or "right and wrong".

i was surprised to find out that alistair doesn't really care if program notes are read and frankly considers them a waste of time.

So was I! No - what I said (I haven't time to go look up the precise reference right now, so perhaps I should write "what I meant to covey") was that I do not care for the practice of reading of programme notes before - and still less during - a performance and that the best time to read them at all is some time after the performance has taken place. Music should not - and the best of it indeed does not - "need" verbal explanation and excuses to "help" listeners get their ears around it, whether it is entirely new or familiar to them.

yet - fastidious as he was in finding sorabji and allowing his works to be performed by specific pianists of his choosing - there is obviously some things that are to be understood. 

There is always a special kind of problem when a performing tradition on a composer's work does not begin to get off the groung during the composer's lifetime - or, at least, very late in life (as in Sorabji's case); there is a variety of reasons for this and space precludes my mentioning and discussing them here. The fastidiousness to which you refer and which was particularly necessary in the case of Sorabji's work was due to the fact that Sorabji had allowed himself to become accustomed to lack of performances of his work over several decades and had accordingly developed something of a "couldn't-care-less" attitude about it, preferring, as he did, to continue to wrestle with his more recent creative thoughts.

what i want to know - is what characteristics that solomon had that made him a good interpreter of sorabji.  and, obviously, it wasn't just good sightreading ability.  (or was it?)

Of course not! Yonty Solomon simply had the kind of mind to attune itself instinctively to certain Sorabjian pianistic thought-processes and was able to produce the kinds of sounds that Sorabji liked and wanted in his works. Mr Solomon has a vast dynamic range, yet never forces anything at all (indeed he absolutely deprecates the use - or even any suggestion - of "force" at the piano, as his many so many students over the years will readily testify).

oh, and i want to know exactly what jonathan powell possesses that makes him a good pianist for the works of yours, alistair.

To date, Mr Powell has played only one piano work of mine (albeit one of the most challenging of them), although he is soon to prepare the third and fourth of my five piano sonatas. What he and certain others have is an innate ability to bring out precisely what I had in mind without my having to act like a programme note writer and "tell" them (in rehearsal) "no, I want this passage like that" or "no, I don't want that passage like this". I suppose that this testifies in part to some ability on my part to express my thoughts on paper with at least some reasonable degree of accuracy and comprehensibility but, given that musical notation is by its very nature capable of conveying only a limited amount of what is being expressed, I prefer to credit intelligent and pereptive performers for getting inside the music and being able to present and project it pretty much as I had conceived it, with no assistance from me beyond my having written the music down as best I could. If I were a pianist, I would, for example, want to perform my Sequentia Claviensis like Jonathan Powell does.

mi contra fa - might mean that the devils chord should always be placed in the bass.  just kidding.  i would like to understand a few passages of this book without reading the entire thing.

Then do procure yourself a copy from a library if you can; I'm not sure how else you'll get it, other than buying the entire thing from us, which I presume you'd rather not do until you have at least had opportunity to sample its contents. This book, like his earlier volume Around Music (1932), is a collection of essays on various matters. Several chapters in each book first appeared in British journals to which Sorabji contributed from time to time, although there are more instances of this in Around Music than in Mi Contra Fa. The earlier book, as its title suggests, confines itself to musical subjects, whereas the later one spreads its net - and its terms of reference - rather wider, although it, too, still contains plenty of material on musical topics.

can you give us a synopsis.

It would be hard to give a meaningful "synopsis" of a book whose very natuire is a collection of essays on disparate topics; you'll really have to get a copy to find out what it has in store for you, I fear!

i have limited time

I know - you have all that posting to do(!)...

but some interest in what sorabji was attempting to do with his music.  was it to break all the limits of time and space.

I would not say that Sorabji was consciously attempting to do precisely that, any more than, say, Mahler, Wagner or Beethoven were; he himself would doubtless have said that he was too busy doing it to allow himself time to think about the whys and wherefores of the rationale behind it.

was it that sorabji was in the process of 'freeing his spirit' after his 80th birthday - only to have it locked up again as pianists continued to play his pieces?

No - not that I really understand quite what it is that you seek to suggest here. I do not think that Sorabji's creative spirit was ever "locked up" anywhere at any time, even though he did choose to lock himself largely away from the gaze of the music profession in order to concentrate his energies upon the products of that free spirit.

i should like to see what he does (perhaps much like mr hearst) knocking around the castle and occasionally going on piano forum - but not much caring what people say - as the music speaks for itself.

Er - pardon? Sorabji died 18 years ago and never participated on an internet forum! What exactly do you mean here?

Anyway - you've just typed 477 words about Sorabji, me, ingterpretation of piano works, etc. without a single direct mention of anythying religious; why do you post so much wholly non-religious material in a thread specifically about religious people? ("just kidding", as you yourself would say!).

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

Might I suggest something?

I attended two services Sunday, one the evangelist protestant church I play organ for, and one a Lutheran service I started attending when my Episcopal congregation dwindled away.  (I played "Now Thank We All Our God," something else to the tune of "Watchmen tell us of the Night," and a bit of Anglican chant just to irritate them for offertory.)

The protestant preacher went 41 minutes.  41.  I thought I was listening to pianistimo.  Why?  Because he doesn't edit, and neither does she.  

Honestly, her posts are so long I end up skimming.  And during the sermon, my mind ended up drifting.  Once you've made your point, EVERY ADDITIONAL WORD dilutes the meaning.

The Lutheran preacher went 13 minutes.  (yes, we time them all.  Never know when you'll get a new record!)  And one of the parishioners commented, "Three minutes too long."  

If you put a word limit on your own posts, it would force you to re-read, edit, and make them coherent.  Perhaps we all should do a voluntary word limit, like term limits for politicans.  

[pianistimo]

i agree that you can say more in less words.  but, if you look at the length of posts of some questions - there are sometimes 3-4 questions.  if i try to answer them all with some kind of coherence - then it takes more posting. nils suggested not double posting - so i try to make them all within one post - even if they are 3-4 questions.

agreed that church services can be long - sometimes - in certain churches.  i actually am now attending a messianic synagogue because on Sabbath there are no Sabbath observing churches nearby where i live.  even though i do not agree with every small point - there are the larger ones covered. namely, that no human interpretation is given to the reading of scripture.  it interprets itself.

what i find odd in other churches - is so much interpretation going on.  really, if they would spend more time just reading the bible - they would see that it speaks for itself.  although there are many nuances in the hebrew language that are best explained by people who read hebrew.

some might laugh - but i think just as with any area of study - if you remain in one church your entire life - you do not know what is available for research.  i find that doctrine sometimes doesn't correspond with the bible when you are held at bay with 'ritual.'  of course, every church seems to have a certain amount of it - but it is what causes the time to be longer.  what if we sat down in a circle and just read the bible?

for instance - some churches take communion EVERY week.  why?  i don't know.  the bible says 'as often as you take it.'  but, then there is a warning that if you take it haphazardly, you are damning yourself.  so there is a good chance there is more opportunity to *** yourself if you take it in an unholy manner twice as often.  the bible only mentions passover as the remembrance of this - and it used to be that early Christians took it infrequently - thus giving it more meaning.

[wishful thinker]

i actually am now attending a synagogue because on Sabbath there are no Sabbath observing churches nearby where i live. 

What?  Are you saying that because Christian churches observe the Sabbath on Sunday, you are going to synagogue instead?  If you are such a fundamental Christian, why do you chose to worship with those who specifically deny Him? (Not meant to be anti-semitical, just seems to me rather illogical).

Now I once was taken, many years ago, by a friend of mine to his new found Pentecostal "church" and I was absolutely horrified.  It was like the Nuremburg rallies! Absolutely no dissent was allowed from their rather perculiar logic, which ran roughly like this:  our interpretation of the Bible and Christianity is correct, if you don't agree, its not your fault, you are possessed of "demons" which must be cast out. Don't agree with that, well you wouldn't would you: it's the demons speaking!

One can't argue with logic like that, now can one. Mr Hinton, I think that you are wise to give such people a wide berth 

[pianistimo]

ahinton is joking with me about pentecostalism.  i guess people don't see the joke. 

really, i've never attended any pentecostal church that i know of. 

the messianic congregation that i attend - is fully aware of the first coming and second coming of Jesus Christ (Yeshua) - and are not among unbelievers of the salvation to all - to the jew first and also to the gentile (who may observe on sunday).

now, i am not criticizing or condemning those who worship in 'spirit and in truth.'  but, for those who add and take from the bible - it's not exactly what is written.  for instance, Jesus Christ never made the change of Sabbath to Sunday himself - that was done many years later - to define a difference between jewish believers and christian.  and yet, the early christians were Christian Jews and Gentiles that met on the Sabbath.  christianity started with JEsus!  and Jesus was jewish.

acts 14 'and it came about that in iconium they entered the synagogue of the jews together (this was paul and barnabus) and spoke in such a manner that a great multitude believed, both of Jews and of Greeks.'

[wishful thinker]

Now I am confused 

[pianistimo]

don't be.  if you worship on sunday - our God is great.  it is said that if you are for Him - noone can be against!  acts 10:34  speaking of cornelius (who most probably didn't always worship with the jews - but treated them with respect and kindness by giving 'many alms to the jewish people') paul said 'i most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.'

lydia, the greek woman - happened to want to hear what the christian-jews were saying about Christ.  acts 16:13 'and on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled...and a certain woman named lydia, from the city of thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by paul....'

(now, she realized that it had been said that Christ also taught on the Sabbath and overturned the money changers table - and that doing business on the Sabbath was wrong - so she chose to come and listen instead of do business).

'and when she and her household had been baptized...  (so she also followed in the commandments of Christ of the NT - to be baptized for the remission of sins). 

[ahinton]

agreed that church services can be long - sometimes - in certain churches.  i actually am now attending a messianic synagogue because on Sabbath there are no Sabbath observing churches nearby where i live.

Nothing wrong with you attending a synagogue if that's want you want to do - but why would you want to attend church only on your Sabbath?

what i find odd in other churches - is so much interpretation going on.  really, if they would spend more time just reading the bible - they would see that it speaks for itself.  although there are many nuances in the hebrew language that are best explained by people who read hebrew.

Lots of things "speak for themselves", but all are "interpreted" in some way or another. Even when different people utter the very same sentence, the voice modulations and emphases of each make for subtle and sometimes not so subtle differences in meaning. Taking anything "literally" is therefore dangerously narrow-minded - and I'm not even talking here (although I could) about differences of meaning and interpretation that arise through translation and the passage of time from generation to generation.

some might laugh - but i think just as with any area of study - if you remain in one church your entire life - you do not know what is available for research.  i find that doctrine sometimes doesn't correspond with the bible when you are held at bay with 'ritual.'  of course, every church seems to have a certain amount of it - but it is what causes the time to be longer.  what if we sat down in a circle and just read the bible?

Then "we" would constrain ourselves to consideration of its contents alone - ergo, "we" would bring about precisely the same kind of effect as "remaining in one church one's entire life".

for instance - some churches take communion EVERY week.  why?  i don't know.  the bible says 'as often as you take it.'  but, then there is a warning that if you take it haphazardly, you are damning yourself.  so there is a good chance there is more opportunity to *** yourself if you take it in an unholy manner twice as often.  the bible only mentions passover as the remembrance of this - and it used to be that early Christians took it infrequently - thus giving it more meaning.

Whilst I'm sure that it is not your avowed intent, I think that you are being most inconsiderate towards certain devout practising Christians here. Although not baptised into any faith and therefore not entitled to receive communion in any church, I am well aware that plenty of the larger city churches in Britain offer communion services more than once on Sundays and also on certain other days of the week; this is for the benefit of people who wish to take communion at times convenient to them rather than having to miss out on it on a Sunday - or at certain times on a Sunday - if they have other commitments (work, family, travel, etc.). What is wrong with that (assuming that they can afford to do it)?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

nothing, as long as you take it in a 'holy manner.'  but what are your odds that one week you just might not have prepared for it mentally?  the bible makes a warning not to take it in an 'unholy manner.'

[wishful thinker]

I feel that my life has been seriously diminished by the time that it has taken to read this thread 

And that is only skimming suzie's posts, as they make Tolstoy look like a Haku poet 

Pianistimo: why don't you just cut and paste the entire Bible, and then you can rest, your work will be done.  Or maybe post something about the piano, which as Mr Hinton has tried to point out, is the thing that is supposed to be uniting us here?

[ahinton]

ahinton is joking with me about pentecostalism.  i guess people don't see the joke.

Not entirely. It is perfectly possible to joke but have at the same time a more serious intent (as here) and, in this context, the kind of pentecostalist manifestations (I almost wrote "infestations") to which "wishful thinker" draws attention are, of themselves, anything but a joking matter. I experienced this kind of thing once, too; it reminded me of nothing more edifying than the "content" of the Zhdanov decree in the late 1940s which saw Shostakovich, Prokofiev and other Russian masters publicly pilloried and was just one especially high-profile example of the kind of sickeningly totalitarian behaviour that left Shostakovich in particular feeling obliged to live at least half his life in fear of his life. To witness this alarmingly similar - or at the very least analogous - hell-fire-and-brimstone behaviour on the part of officials of an alleged religious organisation was bad enough; to observe it in a church as part of a religious service was wholly disgusting. I recognise this kind of pentecostalist expression is that of which "wishful thinker" wrote; it is, to me, profoundly - indeed almost inhumanly - unChristian and the kind of thing that I am inclined to believe that Christ himself would probably have wanted to throw out of his church well before despatching the moneylenders on their ways (à propos which, incidentally, I do recall, as a child in Scotland, once hearing someone say that the then Scottish Congregational Church was the only bank open in Scotland on Sundays)...

really, i've never attended any pentecostal church that i know of.

I'd leave it that way, if I were you - and I feel sure that you'd be most unlikely ever to have attended one withouht "knowing" it!...

the messianic congregation that i attend - is fully aware of the first coming and second coming of Jesus Christ (Yeshua) - and are not among unbelievers of the salvation to all - to the jew first and also to the gentile (who may observe on sunday).

OK. Maybe I get the better deal than you do because I can appreciate Messiaen without having to be a Christian (which, of course, he was - and a lifelong and most devoted one at that) or attend a church (other than when his work is performed in one)...

now, i am not criticizing or condemning those who worship in 'spirit and in truth.'  but, for those who add and take from the bible - it's not exactly what is written.  for instance, Jesus Christ never made the change of Sabbath to Sunday himself - that was done many years later - to define a difference between jewish believers and christian.  and yet, the early christians were Christian Jews and Gentiles that met on the Sabbath.  christianity started with JEsus!  and Jesus was jewish.

You're far too hung up on this "what is written" thing; you seem to me to be what I'd call an "Urtext" fetishist Christian, just as there are "urtext" fetishists in the music profession. As I mentioned before, the Holy Bible as we now have it never had a commissioning editor, it was not a literary project overseen and co-ordinated by a single editor-in-chief, it was never conceived as any kind of multi-author symposium, there was precious little co-ordinative collusion and apportioning of subject material between the various authors, there ws no final overall decision as to whose writings should and should not be included and there is little or no evidence of the extent to which each author subjected his work to editing and revision before publication. Add to this litany(!) of facts that "it" - i.e. the various constituent parts thereof - was written over a considerable period of time by a variety of writers with different historical backgrounds, different literary gifts, styles and aspirations and, above all, differences (as well as commonalities) of perspective, nuance and emphasis and it already becomes abundantly clear that, for all its interesting content, the Bible's status as an inviolable and unequivocal article of faith is at best somewhat tenuous.

As I have also stated previously, whilst the greater majority of services in most Christian churches continue to be conducted on Sundays, the exclusive earmarking of Sundays for this kind of activity is diminishing somewhat as increasing numbers of churchgoers are at least looking to their churches to make some endeavours to accommodate their desire to attend at additional and/or alternative times. In Britain, for example, much of Scotland and Wales used years ago to be closed on Sundays - banks, post offices, shops and markets, large parts of the public transport system, places of entertainment and even many gas stations; only the churches, the police and the emergency services could be relied upon to be open for business every Sunday. That is now, mercifully a thing of the past, although some of the more remote ares of those two countries still try to cling to it. Working patterns and shopping habits have put paid to much of this kind of restrictive practice, although, even today, all the banks and post offices, many factories and offices and even some shops throughout Britain remain closed on Sundays - and there is an absurd regulation (we're SO good at regulations over here - the more absurd, inconvenient and un-policeable the better) that retail premises occupying more than a certain number of square metres of floor space are not permitted to open for more than six hours on a Sunday. Years ago, there used to be an obsessive "keep Sunday sacred" organisation over here called the Lord's Day Observance Society; when I first heard of it, I naturally assumed that they must either be non-Christian or very selectively Christian, since I was under the impression that Christians believed that all days were "the Lord's days"...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

nothing, as long as you take it in a 'holy manner.'  but what are your odds that one week you just might not have prepared for it mentally?  the bible makes a warning not to take it in an 'unholy manner.'

That is, of coruse, perfectly fair comment as far as it goes - but the risk of being un"prepared for it mentally" is just as likely to occur on a Sunday as on any other day, surely?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I feel that my life has been seriously diminished by the time that it has taken to read this thread 

Then "augment" it again immediately by doing some piano practice.

Pianistimo: ...  maybe post something about the piano, which as Mr Hinton has tried to point out, is the thing that is supposed to be uniting us here?

Let's be fair to "pianistimo", for she has indeed done that very thing - and in this thread, too - only within the past day; as I remarked, 477 words, all about music and not a single mention of organised / formalised religion. Did you skim-read her posts so cursorily that you missed that one altogether?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

dear alistair,

you are entirely fair and well spoken.  i think that everyone has a right to obtain 'freedom' from the law - if that is their wish.  i am only saying that if i choose to worship on Saturday - what is that to anyone?  it is simply a preference based on the fact that Jesus himself kept the Sabbath holy.  after all, He made the day at creation and in Isaiah and other prophets - there is a blessing for those who keep it.  also, hebrews mentions 'therefore, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God.

but, in paul - it mentions a 'freedom' in Christ for non-jews.  now, i am not a jew.  i am irish.  but i choose to be like lydia (in acts, who was a greek) - she met on the sabbath and did not conduct business.  most people conduct business every day of the week.  the Sabbath is a rest day - from business - the entire day.

the difference to me, is similar to Christ moving out the money-changers from the temple on the Sabbath.  He wants to be worshipped completely.  the jewish way is to worship on the Sabbath - the christian way is to worship every day of the week.  and, yet - both ways are right!  God didn't say he came only to save the jews.  'but that the world through Him might be saved...' 

so, if He is mighty - He is over the Sabbath.  the Sabbath doesn't limit salvation.  just as David said 'the Sabbath was made for man - not man for the Sabbath.'  ( i think it was david) when he was eating the 'showbread' or offeratory bread - as he was hungry.