Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 11-30-2010, 01:17 PM

What's unclear about what I have expressed here other than the fact that it disproves Pete's hypothesis? Are you even capable of formulating arguments? I have never heard of a single attempt on your part to say anything IN FAVOR of Pete's position other than 'it is mean to pick on him.' 'Picking on him' being defined as pointing out how easy it is to disprove the nonsense he promotes. I haven't even started bringing forward the available evidence which exposes the implausibility of his central premise.

Please, please, please say something - just anything - to support Pete's position in light of this evidence. Or at least anything but 'leave Pete alone, he's showing us interesting stuff ...'

stephan huller · 11-30-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

I am unaware that Wagner's music, glorifying the nordic phenotype, was ever intended, by his authorship, to consign to oblivion, those who disagreed with his musical tastes, or his silly view of human nature. (Toscanini, for example) Did Wagner ever write something, lyrics, or analysis, against various political or ethnic groups, AS EUSEBIUS DID?

Quote:

Wagner's writings on race and his antisemitism[171] reflected some trends of thought in Germany during the 19th century.

Under a pseudonym in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, Wagner published the essay "Das Judenthum in der Musik" in 1850 (originally translated as "Judaism in Music", by which name it is still known, but better rendered as "Jewishness in Music.") The essay attacked Jewish contemporaries (and rivals) Felix Mendelssohn and Giacomo Meyerbeer, and accused Jews of being a harmful and alien element in German culture. Wagner stated the German people were repelled by Jews' alien appearance and behaviour: "with all our speaking and writing in favour of the Jews' emancipation, we always felt instinctively repelled by any actual, operative contact with them." He argued that because Jews had no connection to the German spirit, Jewish musicians were only capable of producing shallow and artificial music. They therefore composed music to achieve popularity and, thereby, financial success, as opposed to creating genuine works of art.[172]

Caricature of Wagner by Karl Clic in the Viennese satirical magazine, Humoristiche Blätter (1873). The exaggerated features refer to rumours of Wagner's Jewish ancestryWagner republished the pamphlet under his own name in 1869, with an extended introduction, leading to several public protests at the first performances of Die Meistersinger. He repeated similar views in later articles, such as "What is German?" (1878, but based on a draft written in the 1860s).[173]

Some biographers[174] have suggested that antisemitic stereotypes are also represented in Wagner's operas. The characters of Mime in the Ring, Sixtus Beckmesser in Die Meistersinger, and Klingsor in Parsifal are sometimes claimed as Jewish representations, though they are not explicitly identified as such in the libretto. Moreover, in all of Wagner's many writings about his works, there is no mention of an intention to caricature Jews in his operas; nor does any such notion appear in the diaries written by Cosima Wagner, which record his views on a daily basis over a period of eight years.[175]

Despite his very public views on Jews, throughout his life Wagner had Jewish friends, colleagues and supporters.[176] In his autobiography, Mein Leben, Wagner mentions many friendships with Jews, referring to that with Samuel Lehrs in Paris as "one of the most beautiful friendships of my life."[177]

The topic of Wagner and the Jews is further complicated by allegations, which may have been credited by Wagner himself, that he himself was of Jewish descent, via his supposed father Geyer.[178] In reality, Geyer was not of Jewish descent, nor were either of Wagner's official parents. References to Wagner's supposed 'Jewishness' were made frequently in cartoons of the composer in the 1870s and 1880s, and more explicitly by Friedrich Nietzsche in his essay "The Wagner Case", where he wrote "a Geyer (vulture) is almost an Adler (eagle)"[179] (Both 'Geyer' and 'Adler' were common Jewish surnames).

Some biographers have asserted that Wagner in his final years came to believe in the racialist philosophy of Arthur de Gobineau, and according to Robert Gutman, this is reflected in the opera Parsifal.[180] Other biographers such as Lucy Beckett[181] believe that this is not true. Wagner showed no significant interest in Gobineau until 1880, when he read Gobineau's "An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races".[182] Wagner had completed the libretto for Parsifal by 1877, and the original drafts of the story date back to 1857. Wagner's writings of his last years indicate some interest in Gobineau's idea that Western society was doomed because of miscegenation between "superior" and "inferior" races.[183

]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Wagner

PhilosopherJay · 11-30-2010, 01:30 PM

Hi Avi,

Nietzsche does often attack Wagner for his well known antisemitism. That was one of the surprises I found reading Nietzsche.

Read this from a recent article entitled The Controversy over Wagner

Quote:

In his notorious essay titled “Judaism in Music” first published in 1851, Wagner expressed his fervent revulsion for what he described as “cursed Jewish scum” and referring to Jews said that the “only thing [that] can redeem you from the burden of your curse:[is] the redemption of Ahasverus - total destruction” - a code term for expelling Jews from society. In this essay Wagner described Jews as “hostile to European civilization” and “ruling the world through money.” He said that “Judaism is rotten at the core and is a religion of hatred,” described the cultured Jew as “the most heartless of all human beings” and referred to Jewish composers as being “comparable to worms feeding on the body of art.”

Ken Russell in his marvelous film Lisztomania portrays him as a would-be Hitler.

I agree with Toto and Stephen that we have to study writings of people we may disagree with or hate for one reason or another, simply to understand the history of a time period better.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

They even play Wagner in Israel now.

I am unaware that Wagner's music, glorifying the nordic phenotype, was ever intended, by his authorship, to consign to oblivion, those who disagreed with his musical tastes, or his silly view of human nature. (Toscanini, for example) Did Wagner ever write something, lyrics, or analysis, against various political or ethnic groups, AS EUSEBIUS DID?

avi

stephan huller · 11-30-2010, 01:44 PM

It is interesting to note Wagner's response to Nietzsche's claims too. Nietzsche was quite sick for most of his life. Wagner said that the real reason Nietzsche was losing his eyesight was because he masturbated too much. When Nietzsche finally went insane he professed his love for Wagner's wife Cosima the daughter of Lizst. It is strange how this celebrity circle is so intertwined because Nietzsche at the time was a complete nobody (other than being recognized as a brilliant student).

It is funny to realize that whole dissertations have almost been written on the subject of Nietzsche's masturbation habit

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nhl...urbate&f=false

Sheshbazzar · 11-30-2010, 02:14 PM

This post in its initial sentence is adressed to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Shesh, my wife's been called a lot of things in her life but I think that was inappropriate. :notworthy:

Are you claiming that you really are so ignorant as to think my statement was directed at the morals of your wife?
or at your physical sexual relations with her?
I doubt anyone else following our exchanges took it that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephan Huller

I don't know how I get lumped together with the conservatives and the pious merely because I am not prepared to jump onto any attack against religion.

You are perhaps blind to fact that almost every position you take a firm stand on within these Forums amounts to little more than an uncritical parroting of the 'traditional' Christian version of church 'history'?
In other words, if something can be found written in somewhere in some old Church Father writing, you accept it as factual, and expect everyone else to do the same.
In doing this you are 'putting yourself in bed' with the historical views of Christianity in general, and the Orthodox Church's invented history in particular.

Quote:

If you are going to disprove Christianity you have to at least come up with something which is supported by the evidence.

And every time any evidence is presented doesn't conform to your pretty book derived perception of Christianity, you direct an attack at the
'credentials' of whomever it is that does not fall into your 'traditional line', and avoid giving alternate views equal examination or consideration.
IE everyone that does not agree with Stephan Huller and the Christian version of 'Christian history' is either 'foolish' or 'terminally demented';
Neglecting the fact that Christianity has perpetrated more lies, more frauds and more murderous plots than perhaps any other institution humanity has ever seen.

Quote:

I am the furthest thing from being a 'believer.'

And yet.......you offer up a version of Church history which could as well be being recited chapter and verse by a Jesuit Priest.
Thus as with regards to 'Church history' you appear to be very much in line (or 'in bed') with their opinions.

The object of this present thread is a fair example, you present this 'reconstruction' of what is allegedly 'Abercius's inscription' as though it were the genuine article or artifact, even though you should know and be fully aware that its not, you should be aware that this 'reconstruction' employs entire lines lifted from the less than credible 10th CE document 'The Life of Abericus'.
Certainly almost anyone can easily identify the 'Queen' in Rome that was 'golden-robed and golden-sandalled' as being the Roman Church.
However, that is the very problem, such a description does not reflect the status accorded the church in Rome circa 200 CE, but rather reflects a view from the 4th century onward. 'The Life' gives the picture of a highly organised and developed orthodox church structure and doctrine anachronistic to the time period that it purports to be a history of.
It is common to speak of Abericus as being a 'Bishop' in the Christian church because of this 10th CE fabricated 'history', yet there is nothing to be found within the 'Inscription of Abericus' to support any such conclusion, in fact the content of the 'Inscription', in what it lacks, argues against Abericus during his lifetime, having ever held any such high position within the Catholic hierarchy.

stephan huller · 11-30-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

I am the furthest thing from being a 'believer.'

And yet.......you offer up a version of Church history which could as well be being recited chapter and verse by a Jesuit Priest.

So in order to prove my 'atheist street cred' I have to agree with every idiotic thing said in the name of disproving Christianity?

Why isn't it possible that people I disagree with might be telling the truth sometimes? It's a fucking utterly insignificant monument. The inscription was established by some rich guy like Trimalchio from the dinner scene in the Satyricon (http://books.google.com/books?id=BNB...page&q&f=false) who wants to show everyone how generous and good he is to everyone who ever knew him. No one has ever paid attention to the inscription in a hundered years because it has nothing interesting to say ... except if you are engaged in a debate with someone (and his sympathizers) who claim that everything in Christianity before Eusebius was just manufactured in a factory.

Most people who know about the Abercius inscription couldn't imagine themselves engaging someone like Pete. It's just too absurd. But here I am and now the monument is out in the open and it does have the effect of an atomic bomb in the debate because it is clearly dated to a period before Nicaea and it can't be argued to be deliberately 'planted' at a later date. The connection with the figure mentioned in Eusebius isn't immediately recognizable unless you start to dig around.

I don't see how any thing associated with this inscription is remotely controversial. It's just there and it says 'I am a Christian monument from 216 CE.'

Indeed before coming to this board I never would have imagined myself morphing into a defender of the established truths in scholarship. This is so bizarre. But it's like joining a board devoted to calculus and you end up having to argue with a heckler in the crowd who disputes that accuracy of multiplication tables.

Margherita Guarducci's explanation is the most convincing. It is now acknowledged to have buried the pagan hypothesis developed by some academics a hundred years ago.

Transient · 11-30-2010, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

And yet.......you offer up a version of Church history which could as well be being recited chapter and verse by a Jesuit Priest.

So in order to prove my 'atheist street cred' I have to agree with every idiotic thing said in the name of disproving Christianity?

Why isn't it possible that people I disagree with might be telling the truth sometimes? It's a fucking utterly insignificant monument. The inscription was established by some rich guy like Trimalchio from the dinner scene in the Satyricon (http://books.google.com/books?id=BNB...page&q&f=false) who wants to show everyone how generous and good he is to everyone who ever knew him. No one has ever paid attention to the inscription in a hundered years because it has nothing interesting to say ... except if you are engaged in a debate with someone (and his sympathizers) who claim that everything in Christianity before Eusebius was just manufactured in a factory.

Most people who know about the Abercius inscription couldn't imagine themselves engaging someone like Pete. It's just too absurd. But here I am and now the monument is out in the open and it does have the effect of an atomic bomb in the debate because it is clearly dated to a period before Nicaea and it can't be argued to be deliberately 'planted' at a later date. The connection with the figure mentioned in Eusebius isn't immediately recognizable unless you start to dig around.

I don't see how any thing associated with this inscription is remotely controversial. It's just there and it says 'I am a Christian monument from 216 CE.'

Indeed before coming to this board I never would have imagined myself morphing into a defender of the established truths in scholarship. This is so bizarre. But it's like joining a board devoted to calculus and you end up having to argue with a heckler in the crowd who disputes that accuracy of multiplication tables.

Margherita Guarducci's explanation is the most convincing. It is now acknowledged to have buried the pagan hypothesis developed by some academics a hundred years ago.

Well thanks very much but I for one will dispute whatever I bloody well like.
I mistrust almost everyone associated with the RCC and their idiotic religion. They have been nasty bullies for nearly 2000 years and their dishonesty is plain to see for anyone with a set of working eyes.
I do not trust anyone much and that includes so-called scholars etc.
Indisputable evidence is what it's all about not peoples opinions.

stephan huller · 11-30-2010, 03:50 PM

Quote:

I mistrust almost everyone associated with the RCC and their idiotic religion. They have been nasty bullies for nearly 2000 years and their dishonesty is plain to see for anyone with a set of working eyes.
I do not trust anyone much and that includes so-called scholars etc.
Indisputable evidence is what it's all about not peoples opinions.

I am still waiting for a rational argument to counter the evidence unless your hatred of the Church is the sole basis to your rejection of the evidence. Again I don't know how I ended up in the role of 'defender of the Church.'

avi · 11-30-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

I agree with Toto and Stephen that we have to study writings of people we may disagree with or hate for one reason or another, simply to understand the history of a time period better.

Thank you, Jay, yes, you and Toto and Stephan are correct, and I am wrong, though, in my defense, my medications had tapered off a bit too soon....

Umm, with regard to this notion of Wagner, did he ever write something to the effect, (as Eusebius wrote, for example, against Mani) that person xyz, say Mendelssohn, or Meyerbeer, or anyone else, should be treated with disrespect, or contempt, or hanging, because of their presumptive ethnicity?

I understand that Wagner may have expressed some feelings of animosity towards certain groups, probably not limited to a single ethnic type, for he was not a "caring" type of personality. He was musical genius, with the personality of a field general, and he may have been missing a few notes, when it came to interpersonal relations.

Eusebius, on the other hand, was a man charged with writing a history, and instead he altered the truth, to fit the political realities, i.e. he was an opportunist. Maybe all historians are equally indebted to a financial backer, and therefore obliged to distort what really happened. But, in my limited imagination, I suspect that Eusebius was a genuine pioneer in the art of scholarly sabotage. To this day, on this forum, in this thread even, we have folks who genuinely believe that Eusebius was some kind of heroic figure, AS AN HISTORIAN. See, that's the difference, Jay. Wagner's commentary on ethnic differences are as relevant to reality as Gregor Mendel's theory of music, but Eusebius' history of the church, with its statements about the Canon, and heresy, and his open hostility to Mani, led to significant loss of life. The same cannot be said for Wagner. His music harmed only Toscanini, so far as I am aware.....

avi

Sheshbazzar · 11-30-2010, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

And yet.......you offer up a version of Church history which could as well be being recited chapter and verse by a Jesuit Priest.

So in order to prove my 'atheist street cred' I have to agree with every idiotic thing said in the name of disproving Christianity?

Why isn't it possible that people I disagree with might be telling the truth sometimes? It's a fucking utterly insignificant monument.

If it is a so "fucking utterly insignificant monument" Why did YOU open this thread with it as YOUR 'evidence'?
I don't recall anyone else bringing it up, or even mentioning it.

Quote:

No one has ever paid attention to the inscription in a hundered years because it has nothing interesting to say ... except if you are engaged in a debate with someone (and his sympathizers) who claim that everything in Christianity before Eusebius was just manufactured in a factory.

Most people who know about the Abercius inscription couldn't imagine themselves engaging someone like Pete. It's just too absurd. But here I am and now the monument is out in the open and it does have the effect of an atomic bomb in the debate because it is clearly dated to a period before Nicaea and it can't be argued to be deliberately 'planted' at a later date. The connection with the figure mentioned in Eusebius isn't immediately recognizable unless you start to dig around.

I don't see how any thing associated with this inscription is remotely controversial. It's just there and it says 'I am a Christian monument from 216 CE.'

Sorry Stephan, but come again? Just where is it that this pre-christian monument says "I'm a Christian monument"?
Do you see the word 'Christian' inscribed anywhere on it?
Christos?
Christ?
Jesus?
Church?
or even Bishop?
I thought so.

I see 'The Big Eyed Shepherd' in a culture that had a 'Big Eyed' 'Good Shepherd' figure for hundreds of years before christianity arrived.
A culture that for centuries had worshipped and engaged in the Orphic 'Fish' Mystery, Bacchanalian, Good Shepherd, Lord of the Harvest, cult religion.
Every symbol, and -how- they are presented within that inscription hark back to well known pre-christian symbols, beliefs, and practices.

Quote:

Margherita Guarducci's explanation is the most convincing. It is now acknowledged to have buried the pagan hypothesis developed by some academics a hundred years ago.

It may be most convincing to you, but it certainly is not in the least convincing to me.
And as a reminder, I accept that there was a genuine and original 2nd CE Abericus monument, but we do not have it, only a religiously contrived 'reconstruction' . I do not accept mountainman's Constantinian conspiracy theory. But then again, neither do I accept your equally flakey theory.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-30-2010, 01:17 PM	#31
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	What's unclear about what I have expressed here other than the fact that it disproves Pete's hypothesis? Are you even capable of formulating arguments? I have never heard of a single attempt on your part to say anything IN FAVOR of Pete's position other than 'it is mean to pick on him.' 'Picking on him' being defined as pointing out how easy it is to disprove the nonsense he promotes. I haven't even started bringing forward the available evidence which exposes the implausibility of his central premise. Please, please, please say something - just anything - to support Pete's position in light of this evidence. Or at least anything but 'leave Pete alone, he's showing us interesting stuff ...'

11-30-2010, 01:44 PM	#34
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is interesting to note Wagner's response to Nietzsche's claims too. Nietzsche was quite sick for most of his life. Wagner said that the real reason Nietzsche was losing his eyesight was because he masturbated too much. When Nietzsche finally went insane he professed his love for Wagner's wife Cosima the daughter of Lizst. It is strange how this celebrity circle is so intertwined because Nietzsche at the time was a complete nobody (other than being recognized as a brilliant student). It is funny to realize that whole dissertations have almost been written on the subject of Nietzsche's masturbation habit http://books.google.com/books?id=Nhl...urbate&f=false

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.