Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

religious beliefs of the classical composers???

Does anybody here know were classical composers like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Haydn or Mozart christians or Antichristians? If you know, please tell me, and please post the source of the information as well.

I know that I can find the info I need on the net but I really do not have time to search all the net...
Sorry for bad English.

Nearly all classical composers were Christian.  Bach was a Lutheran and was known to have said that all his music was intended to revel in the glory of God.  Haydn and Mozart were both Catholic.  Beethoven was raised as a Catholic but his actual faith is questionable, having been said to dabble in deism, pantheism and other theoretical modes of understanding God.  Wagner was also a Christian, although the exact nature of his faith is difficult to determine.

now I am wondering - how could they make such an intellectual music while being christians?

Because all of the christian music sucks - death latest albums, church music and unblack metal...

Does that mean christian win? (dont misunderstood me, I am an Antichristian althought I sometimes go into church to have some fun)
Sorry for bad English.

Practically ever classical composer until the 20th century was a Christian of some description.

It is important to note that music encapsulates a particular will that is concentrated. It also purges all wills harmful to the overriding will. Thus a gambler, womanizer and drunkard can make music to equal that of Bach's provided that at least some of their will can reach his height. That will is then isolated and through careful preparation of the music is kept apart from the more baseless wills of that person's character. The reason this is important to note is because it shows that the music a man makes is more then the man himself. It is the best, and only the best aspects of the person, leaving behind a will that most men could never sustain, or in other cases even reach. Will in this sense refers to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer's idea of the will of music. 

If music is more than its creator the creator does not have an authoritative and unquestionable ability to present what his music means. As Moses said Bach intended all his music to reveal the glory of God, but I see in his music the revealing and glorifying of the will to power. A Christian's music is not Christian music.

now I am wondering - how could they make such an intellectual music while being christians?

Because all of the christian music sucks - death latest albums, church music and unblack metal...

Does that mean christian win? (dont misunderstood me, I am an Antichristian althought I sometimes go into church to have some fun)

I assume you are talking about modern Church music, try listening to Palestrina sometime.  Christianity is able to be the base of intellectual music because at its core it preserves pure spirituality.  The Christian spirit has nothing to do with the sub-human, sentimentality that has penetrated modern Christianity and the creations made in the name of it.  Keep in mind that the modern world represents the polar opposite of a truly Christian society, it therefore had to weaken Christianity to its current state before it could destroy it.  Antichristianity confuses cause with effect.  The current state of Christianity must occur at the end of the lifecycle of any religion.

now I am wondering - how could they make such an intellectual music while being christians?

Because all of the christian music sucks - death latest albums, church music and unblack metal...

Does that mean christian win? (dont misunderstood me, I am an Antichristian althought I sometimes go into church to have some fun)

I assume you are talking about modern Church music, try listening to Palestrina sometime.  Christianity is able to be the base of intellectual music because at its core it preserves pure spirituality.  The Christian spirit has nothing to do with the sub-human, sentimentality that has penetrated modern Christianity and the creations made in the name of it.  Keep in mind that the modern world represents the polar opposite of a truly Christian society, it therefore had to weaken Christianity to its current state before it could destroy it.  Antichristianity confuses cause with effect.  The current state of Christianity must occur at the end of the lifecycle of any religion.
yeah, it is more pop/hippy than anything
Sorry for bad English.

Richard Strauss and Frederick Delius both dedicated compositions to Nietzsche. Delius is known for believing more in nature, the will and the life itself than religion. I discovered his "Mass of Life" through ANUS in the audiofile section, I suggest you listen to it.

I do not understand why a christian composer should not have the ability to compose great pieces. Passion, love and strength, feelings that are often perceived in classical music, are pillars of Christianity. I believe composers had a better understanding of religion than most of their peers though.
Because I am more intelligent than you are.

Does anybody here know were classical composers like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Haydn or Mozart christians or Antichristians?

You're going to get some really misinformed answers, because you're asking a categorical question and not a syncretic one.

The real question is: what interpretation of religious thought did these composers have?

The answer is that most, while putatively Deists or Christians, embraced a holistic transcendental idealism that enabled them to conceive of the world as whole. This view, best articulated in European thought by Emerson, Blake, Schopenhauer and Eckhart, is what people of an IQ above 145-149 generally reveal as their belief system when asked the right questions.

Similarly, it's impossible to find this out if you ask whether they were believers or atheists. It's not a middle ground -- it's a different direction. The Abrahamic faith has us all looking for an anthropomorphic god in the sky, while the transcendental idealist beliefs of ancient Pagans, Hindus and smart people worldwide have us looking for god in the inherent mathematical patterns of reality.

Does anybody here know were classical composers like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Haydn or Mozart christians or Antichristians?

You're going to get some really misinformed answers, because you're asking a categorical question and not a syncretic one.

The real question is: what interpretation of religious thought did these composers have?

The answer is that most, while putatively Deists or Christians, embraced a holistic transcendental idealism that enabled them to conceive of the world as whole. This view, best articulated in European thought by Emerson, Blake, Schopenhauer and Eckhart, is what people of an IQ above 145-149 generally reveal as their belief system when asked the right questions.

Similarly, it's impossible to find this out if you ask whether they were believers or atheists. It's not a middle ground -- it's a different direction. The Abrahamic faith has us all looking for an anthropomorphic god in the sky, while the transcendental idealist beliefs of ancient Pagans, Hindus and smart people worldwide have us looking for god in the inherent mathematical patterns of reality.

You are correct about the sharpest of the sharp recognizing that a given religious doctrine points to a holistically united, singular reality... This is something that it is important to understand about religious doctrine generally speaking. The symbolism it employs is not referring to "literal" physical realities, but metaphysics in general.

However, painting the "Abrahamic" faiths as silly cults that worship man-gods beyond the clouds seems intellectually dishonest, or at the very least, ignorant of basic Judeo-Christian concepts of what "God" is, especially within Judaism and Islam. Much more so than the Indo-European religious doctrines as embodied by the Celtic and Nordic beliefs, the Judeo-Christian concept of the divine dispenses with anthropomorphism... In fact, as "pagan" thinker Alain de Benoist points out in a polemic against Judeo-Christianity, the Indo-European concept of the deity really refers to something in a very different category, very much a human-like intelligence or being, while the "Abrahamic" concept of God refers to something that is much more abstract and less isolated to a specific intelligence.... The Judeo-Christian "god" is the totality/unity of metaphysical principles, as opposed to something that is a manifested, individuated being. Christianity manages to bridge these distinctions by making Christ the localized divine being, which is the temporal manifestation of the faceless/formless/abstract, beyond-human absolute.

Anyway, let's not pretend that it hasn't ever been thought by foolish moderns that a belief in the deity Wotan implies a literal belief in a one-eyed, huntsman-sorcerer in the sky. Acting as though all pagans everywhere have always recognized that their pantheonic systems represent principles and metaphysical relationships, while all Judeo-Christians have worshipped a bearded sky-tyrant is incredibly reductive/false.

I think that at some point, ANUS/Corrupt must overcome its confusion about Judeo-Christianity.

To briefly address the original poster - I highly suggest you recognize the incompleteness of your understanding of Christianity and 'religion' in general, before you try to understand its relationship to art. DeathMetalBlackMetal has given you a good starting hint by pointing out that most of great thinkers of Christendom were those who recognized the transcendent unity of reality expressed in their religious doctrines.

However, painting the "Abrahamic" faiths as silly cults that worship man-gods beyond the clouds seems intellectually dishonest, or at the very least, ignorant of basic Judeo-Christian concepts of what "God" is, especially within Judaism and Islam. Much more so than the Indo-European religious doctrines as embodied by the Celtic and Nordic beliefs, the Judeo-Christian concept of the divine dispenses with anthropomorphism... In fact, as "pagan" thinker Alain de Benoist points out in a polemic against Judeo-Christianity, the Indo-European concept of the deity really refers to something in a very different category, very much a human-like intelligence or being, while the "Abrahamic" concept of God refers to something that is much more abstract and less isolated to a specific intelligence.... The Judeo-Christian "god" is the totality/unity of metaphysical principles, as opposed to something that is a manifested, individuated being. Christianity manages to bridge these distinctions by making Christ the localized divine being, which is the temporal manifestation of the faceless/formless/abstract, beyond-human absolute.

I think you're confused about the nature of what is being discussed here. Multiple Gods, in the Nordic-Roman-Hindu-Pagan tradition, are manifestations of Godhead, which is the concept (probably through India, Egypt and/or Greece) that the Abrahamic religions are trying to assess. The Christian God is anthromorphic in his relationship to the individual; the Pagan godhead (equivalent to use of "God" in Judeo-Christianity) is anonymous, universal, and only makes sense in a cosmic context, but is manifested as symbolic gods. This is what you and/or de Benoist seem confused about -- ANUS/CORRUPT suffer no such etymological confusion.

The Abrahamic faith has us all looking for an anthropomorphic god in the sky, while the transcendental idealist beliefs of ancient Pagans, Hindus and smart people worldwide have us looking for god in the inherent mathematical patterns of reality.
I see two problems with this view:
a) Maths is not a sufficient science of reality, but symbolism is. It's not that maths is not a traditional science, but since it is limited to quantity, symbolism is the superior science.
b) What was known to ancient "Pagans" (a very problematic denomination, to say the least), Hindus and smart people was the core of primordial Christianity as well. The Bible is full of symbolism. What happened is that over the years, people forgot to look beyond the letter.

The quote above is an oversimplification. It is not correct to assume that Christianity had at all times the same characteristics it has today. 2000 years is a time-span that no religion or tradition has really survived. Some religions die (inwardly) earlier than others. Often people attribute intentions to primordial Christianity which are only to be found in Christianity today; they are consequences of corruption and not a fault of primordial Christianity itself:

Quote
23For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

 24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

 25Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

 29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

(SOURCE)


a) Maths is not a sufficient science of reality, but symbolism is. It's not that maths is not a traditional science, but since it is limited to quantity, symbolism is the superior science.

You don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

Mathematics utilizes quantities because numbers are the absolute standard unit. The scope of advanced mathematics goes beyond mere quantification: patterns, logic, groups, sets, ordering, and the theory of compution. And what connects all these fields? They are descriptions about universal meta-language of signals and symbolically operating systems.

You cannot understand symbolism without mathematics, because the world and symbols operate precisely according to what can be mathematically shown.

b) What was known to ancient "Pagans" (a very problematic denomination, to say the least), Hindus and smart people was the core of primordial Christianity as well. The Bible is full of symbolism. What happened is that over the years, people forgot to look beyond the letter.

Or maybe some symbolism simply is better than other because it's unambiguous of content?

a) Maths is not a sufficient science of reality, but symbolism is. It's not that maths is not a traditional science, but since it is limited to quantity, symbolism is the superior science.

You don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

Mathematics utilizes quantities because numbers are the absolute standard unit. The scope of advanced mathematics goes beyond mere quantification: patterns, logic, groups, sets, ordering, and the theory of compution. And what connects all these fields? They are descriptions about universal meta-language of signals and symbolically operating systems.

You cannot understand symbolism without mathematics, because the world and symbols operate precisely according to what can be mathematically shown.
mathˇeˇmatˇics
  1  : the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations   
  2  : a branch of, operation in, or use of mathematics <the mathematics of physical chemistry> 

absolute standard unit for measuring what? Quantity.

Symbolism is an exact science much like mathematics, only that it is not as limited as mathematics. It is the employing of forms or images as signs of ideas or of suprasensible things.

However, painting the "Abrahamic" faiths as silly cults that worship man-gods beyond the clouds seems intellectually dishonest, or at the very least, ignorant of basic Judeo-Christian concepts of what "God" is, especially within Judaism and Islam. Much more so than the Indo-European religious doctrines as embodied by the Celtic and Nordic beliefs, the Judeo-Christian concept of the divine dispenses with anthropomorphism... In fact, as "pagan" thinker Alain de Benoist points out in a polemic against Judeo-Christianity, the Indo-European concept of the deity really refers to something in a very different category, very much a human-like intelligence or being, while the "Abrahamic" concept of God refers to something that is much more abstract and less isolated to a specific intelligence.... The Judeo-Christian "god" is the totality/unity of metaphysical principles, as opposed to something that is a manifested, individuated being. Christianity manages to bridge these distinctions by making Christ the localized divine being, which is the temporal manifestation of the faceless/formless/abstract, beyond-human absolute.

I think you're confused about the nature of what is being discussed here. Multiple Gods, in the Nordic-Roman-Hindu-Pagan tradition, are manifestations of Godhead, which is the concept (probably through India, Egypt and/or Greece) that the Abrahamic religions are trying to assess. The Christian God is anthromorphic in his relationship to the individual; the Pagan godhead (equivalent to use of "God" in Judeo-Christianity) is anonymous, universal, and only makes sense in a cosmic context, but is manifested as symbolic gods. This is what you and/or de Benoist seem confused about -- ANUS/CORRUPT suffer no such etymological confusion.

No, I understand the significance of the pagan pantheon. I'm just trying to point out that you're misrepresenting Judeo-Christianity. While it is true that in many contemporary Christians seek a "personal relationship with god" in the most vulgar sense, this has not always been the case. It is a uniquely Lutheran corruption which has only gotten worse over the centuries.

It's just not true that the distinction (if there really is any meaningful one) between the doctrines you praise and those that you revile is one of anthropomorphism. Consider the existence, for example, of the Kabbalah. The Kabaalah is a system employing mathematics (of a qualitative variety!) to describe the metaphysical relationships between different points of creation and "God". Nothing could be more impersonal or disinclined to give the Divine Absolute a human face.

Regarding the conversation about mathematics, I'll just point out that the 'ancients' didn't think of math in a wholly quantitative light. Everything that now falls under the domain of math, science, etc, was once incorporated into a sacred science/art.