Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1069773 Posts in 70993 Topics- by 18771 Members - Latest Member: schaarea
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumRecent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 05:20 AM 
Started by BillO - Last post by Bruce the budgie
      Buddhism
         - I know they have a different concept but I'd like to understand it.
         - Do atheists not believe in Buddhism too?

Not exactly a Buddhist, but have sat on a pillow now and then, and done some reading... speaking as a devout Nunya (seriously) I can offer the following:

"Buddhism" is no more monolithic than the Abrahamic religions taken together, as far as details of doctrine go. Buddhist scholars have said things such as "we avoid speaking of a deity, since that may confuse those with a Western view." At its core, Buddhism teaches that dukkha (often mistranslated as "suffering" but more related to dissatisfaction e.g. the stress of dealing with a squeaky wheel) is a thing, and how it arises and continues, and how it is brought to an end.

Atheists are not doctrinally monolithic in the slightest. Trying to characterize an atheist body of belief would be monumental silliness; I don't think anyone stands to benefit from the busy-work of cataloguing a taxonomy of atheist beliefs, acknowledging that I could be mistaken.

 2 
 on: Today at 05:18 AM 
Started by BillO - Last post by ddickerson
If we can't understand who God is how can we understand God's plan for us?
Through His revelation. Through the written Word given to us, from Him.

 3 
 on: Today at 04:57 AM 
Started by BillO - Last post by timothy42b
Martin,
the problem I see is how you know your God has those attributes.

I fear it comes down to "well that's the definition of God." 

If so, that's a God of our own imagining and is not guaranteed to match in any respects with a real Entity. 

 4 
 on: Today at 04:36 AM 
Started by Bruce Solomon - Last post by Bruce Solomon
available again

 5 
 on: Today at 04:29 AM 
Started by MoominDave - Last post by John the Theologian

Non-Yahwist Israelites get extremely short shrift in all of these books. They were written and maintained by those who sought to use Yahwism to control the Israelite population, and so those that didn't believe were a direct threat to the power structure of those writing. They are simply treated as the property of Yahweh - people who had no right to freedom of religion, whose non-Yahwism was an apostasy punishable by death - incidentally, something that people get very exercised about today regarding the most brutal forms of Islam. There is zero respect present in these texts for these people.

Don't forget that the context is that the judgment is more than personal judgment on the non-Yahwists.  The context is that idolatry results in exile in Babylon and destruction of their culture by the Babylonians.  In other words it has effects on the whole people.

It is that context that leads to the "zero-respect for these people (non-Yahwists)."  In other words the stakes are extremely high if the prophet does not call out the sin of idolatry and the prophets took those stakes seriously.  Later on, chapter 33, Ezekiel is called a watchman and told that the blood of the people will be on his hands if he doesn't warn them.  Pretty good motivation to warn, I would say. I think perhaps you're reading the text too much from the perspective of a Western pluralistic democracy and in the context in which it was written in.

Today we applaud those who, for example, warned the German people of the evils of the Nazi regime and that it would destroy them and don't say that they should have been more tolerant of the Nazi ideas.  When you study the history of Baal, worship, it doesn't leave a lot to emulate with its sacred prostitution, and sometimes even child sacrifices.

 6 
 on: Today at 03:18 AM 
Started by MoominDave - Last post by MoominDave
Ezekiel 16 text

Highlights

 - Jerusalem as a woman whose sexual acts challenge their society

Summary

 - Ezekiel claims that Yahweh has cared for Jerusalem, raising it from infancy to adulthood
 - He casts its religious plurality as a strong partisan negative
 - It took in cultural influences from its stronger neighbours, which was "playing the whore"
 - Jerusalem is compared to other cities viewed as gone astray by the writer, such as Sodom
 - All are framed as sexually uncontrollable women in the metaphor
 - But all these cities will in time be rescued
 - Reminder of the covenant

Questions and Observations

1) Ezekiel's metaphorical creation of Jerusalem doesn't really jive with the conquest story. It does however sit better with the idea that the Israelites were just another group of Canaanites that arose in their later location. We have no idea what the state of the writer of the Book of Ezekiel's historical and folkloric knowledge was though.
2) These prophets have been very Jerusalem-focussed. It's as if a group of English exiles could only talk about London and its hinterland. Not-too-distant Oxford might get a mention, but the larger and more important hub of Manchester not, and the regional rural areas - not a chance. We are seeing only a very narrow range of interests expressed in these documents, focussed on the court, its city, and the area supporting it. I wonder if we start to see the classic rural vs urban divide in this focus; I note that the later Maccabean revolt can be viewed as a rural uprising against the Hellenised ruling class.
3) Who was it who was so scathing of prostitutes recently that he also used them as a shorthand for evil in this kind of metaphorical tirade? Jeremiah, wasn't it? It still isn't an endearing set of prejudices.
4) It is interesting that this comparison is one that is automatically reached for as a way to make people feel that the terrible things that have gone on have been justified. There's some deep deep misogyny underlying it - the kind that simultaneously holds women as sacred and seeks to control them. Even the sheer length of this particular tirade speaks of it.
5) Very variable chapter lengths here - this one a full 63 verses, but the previous one only 8.

 7 
 on: Today at 01:59 AM 
Started by Hicks - Last post by SilverBone
Did they have a tuba there for the 18 notes in the 2nd Movement? 

Did some enterprising soul write 4 new notes for the tuba?   Evil

 8 
 on: Today at 01:49 AM 
Started by harrison.t.reed - Last post by heinz gries
Here, a link to an older posting about my Conn D alto

http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,92785.msg1140658.html#msg1140658

 9 
 on: Today at 01:45 AM 
Started by MoominDave - Last post by MoominDave
the arguments for the Daniel of the lion's den you referenced seem pretty strong to me and the arguments against not.  But what did you think was lacking in the arguments for?   (I'm curious)

I'm a bit reluctant to delve in in depth until we've read Daniel, I must admit...

But here's my current take-away - start by observing that I have acquired in the chapters so far general wariness about taking things in the Book of Ezekiel at face value. There's been a lot of fantastical stuff only reported here presented as observed truth along with the usual attempt to psychologically browbeat us into not questioning the words by appealing to the author's particular deity. Continue by observing that our knowledge of the book's provenance and route to us is very sketchy indeed - we have no way of knowing quite when it was written down, or by who, or in which modified pieces. These are pretty standard markers of uncertainty in biblical book terms - they apply to many (most) of the narratives that we've read - but they impel one to question with rigour anything written therein before considering whether it is intellectually possible to accept it.

General considerations of reliability aside, the relevant points raised at that link are:
1) The phrase "Noah, Daniel, and Job" is rather peculiar. Noah and Job are legendary - indeed non-Israelite - figures of antiquity. Daniel would have been contemporary with Ezekiel. Does that Daniel fit in this rhetorical device?
2) The Hebrew spelling of Daniel here does not match the Hebrew spelling of Daniel elsewhere in the Bible.

We know that there have been other Daniels mentioned of earlier date, but we have few details of any of them.

That all casts too much doubt on the sensibility of solidly identifying one Daniel with another here.

And then we also read that the Book of Daniel is widely considered to be a later work in its entirety, one based around a legendary 'good' character - somewhat (though not exactly) in the Joseph story mould. There's a whole pile of uncertainty here, and so it seems to me that the only intellectually responsible thing one can do is to note all the uncertainty and consequently be extra cautious about making logical jumps based on it.

if you are rejecting the God who gives life then don't you think its logical that you would lose your life?  Or should they be allowed to say "We don't want anything to do with you or your rules, but we do expect that it is fair and just to keep the things that you provide"? 

I know you don't see the situation like that but that's how I do. 

It would have looked just as much like puffery to those not Yahwists then as it does now to assert that they owed their existence to Yahweh. "Yeah, good one, and you know that how?", followed by "And you know you owe your existence to Baal? Come on, disprove that one to me."

Non-Yahwist Israelites get extremely short shrift in all of these books. They were written and maintained by those who sought to use Yahwism to control the Israelite population, and so those that didn't believe were a direct threat to the power structure of those writing. They are simply treated as the property of Yahweh - people who had no right to freedom of religion, whose non-Yahwism was an apostasy punishable by death - incidentally, something that people get very exercised about today regarding the most brutal forms of Islam. There is zero respect present in these texts for these people.

 10 
 on: Today at 01:44 AM 
Started by Dukesboneman - Last post by blast
I've played on different horns of different brands and find myself not loyal or biased to certain brands.

Like on tenor, I played a Elkhart Conn 88H (which my school owned) and a Corporation Bach 42B and liked both and found them to be great horns.  For the Besson student model BE 639 (the tenor I currently have), it was my first ever trombone when I started playing in sixth grade and found it to be a good student model horn for my uses for marching band and pep bands.

As for bass, I played a Benge 290 (owned by my school) and a Getzen 1062FD (which is my current horn).  As for other basses, I play tested a Holton TR-180 and a King Duo Gravis which they both didn't had split triggers and I found the magic bar on the Holton hard to play, while I found the side-by-side triggers on the Duo Gravis to work fine for me. (just my experience) Don't know 

Ethan,
At your stage of playing, you have not really come to know any of your instruments..... give it time. It matters far less what you settle on than how hard you work to come the musician you want to be.
Over the years (50 of playing) I have played more brands than I care to remember, some I can come back to and feel a total stranger.... Bach are such a make.... and others have come to be old friends that I know very well indeed. Conns are familiar, as are Holtons and Raths. I no longer have the desire to learn other makes at my time of life.... just make music with equipment that I really know. Conns, Holtons and Raths took years to really get into. I don't have the time to waste on learning the quirks of others makes, so I suppose I have in the end, become brand loyal. I have the Raths and if I work with people who hear with their eyes, I have Conns and Holtons that might make them happy.... though I sound like me whatever.

Chris Stearn

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10