It's pretty clear that religion sucks.
Because religion has been responsible for a great many woes including but not limited to: ignorance, intolerance, gullibility, cruelty, divisiveness, manipulation, deceit, war, oh, the list goes on and on, it leaves one wondering if anything good has ever come from this stunningly bad idea. It turns out that, in fact, something quite wonderful actually did emerge.
Despite the poisonous effect of religion on Mankind as a whole, it has been the inspiration for much of the most awe inspiring works of art throughout history. There's been paintings and drawings, statuary and architecture beyond compare and all inspired by religious worship and the glorification of god. In particular, the great Renaissance, Post-Reformation and Baroque Masters like Michaelangelo, Caravaggio, Rafael, Bernini, de Cortona, and Rubens.
I don't claim to feel the passion for "God" that inspired so much of the work of artists of this calibre but I can certainly appreciate what they created through that inspiration. The Sistine ceiling alone is as close to a superhuman work of art as has ever been created. Despte there being no real god being glorified by this work, the beauty of the work itself is more than enough justification for its existence.
Even if religion itself was then, is now, and always shall be...bullshit.
GOD'S ART GALLERY
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhistory-world.org%2FberniniCathedra.jpg&hash=a73f006e32c91923b6d304f9d5852568a11e63e3)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F5%2F5a%2FBerniniAngel01.jpg&hash=ffb85deb64c27484efc851537cee74612d376079)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.penwith.co.uk%2Fartofeurope%2Fmichelangelo-pieta.jpg&hash=a08881a1f96d0964447bb96d5980fd6730a126ef)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ddmcdn.com%2Fgif%2Fmichelangelo-sculptures-16.jpg&hash=0dee5eaf4934fbfb6ae6d9cfd9232577620110a9)
Here's just the tiniest sample of some of the awesomeness created through religious inspiration.
And, it seems, all of this art is in violation of either the first or the second commandment, depending upon which tradition you follow for the numbering of the commandments:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Then again, I've often wondered about that one. They always told me in Sunday School that meant no golden calves, but there's nothing about a golden calf there. It's basically telling us not to create art of any subject, because it's barring images and likenesses of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the waters.
I must say I did enjoy the Sistine Chapel when I visited the Vatican, although I did it with a bit of a smirk due to the irony.
Quote from: fester30 on June 22, 2012, 11:21:16 PM
And, it seems, all of this art is in violation of either the first or the second commandment, depending upon which tradition you follow for the numbering of the commandments:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Then again, I've often wondered about that one. They always told me in Sunday School that meant no golden calves, but there's nothing about a golden calf there. It's basically telling us not to create art of any subject, because it's barring images and likenesses of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the waters.
I must say I did enjoy the Sistine Chapel when I visited the Vatican, although I did it with a bit of a smirk due to the irony.
...as to worship. Nothing wrong with making art...the problem comes in when that art is worshipped as "God" or a god.
Continue...
Also...
"The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music." - George Carlin
Some of the greatest classical music of all time was based on religious stories. Handel's Messiah is one of the most famous examples, but there's also Mahler's 2nd Symphony, Verdi's Requiem, and countless other examples.
Good point, Firebird. I'm an artist myself so I tend to focus on the visual masterworks but, yeah, a great deal of the music too, is brilliant. Clearly, as a source of creative inspiration, God is supreme.
He's just not real.
I think that it is better to say that passion makes for great art and music. Religion is a source of great passion, but there are many more.
Quote from: Firebird on June 23, 2012, 03:40:53 AM
"The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music." - George Carlin
I was wondering if someone else would mention that first. My favorite: Panis Angelicus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNk81Y6Sbk8)
The only thing I like about religion is the myth of it; particularly the Angels.
I am just a big fan of Lucifer and Michael, and all the other arch angels, seraphims, etc. Fun stuff to draw and write about. (It's also where my nick name Mika comes from :D)
Only recently I've come to appreciate history. Religion may not have been so great if i was living in the past, but I'd say it was the evil twin brother in the soap opera of history. If we are listing positive attributes (at least in this case relating to entertainment value) associated with religion, I would add it's history, in general, to the list.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 22, 2012, 11:29:18 PM
Quote from: fester30 on June 22, 2012, 11:21:16 PM
And, it seems, all of this art is in violation of either the first or the second commandment, depending upon which tradition you follow for the numbering of the commandments:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Then again, I've often wondered about that one. They always told me in Sunday School that meant no golden calves, but there's nothing about a golden calf there. It's basically telling us not to create art of any subject, because it's barring images and likenesses of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the waters.
I must say I did enjoy the Sistine Chapel when I visited the Vatican, although I did it with a bit of a smirk due to the irony.
...as to worship. Nothing wrong with making art...the problem comes in when that art is worshipped as "God" or a god.
Continue...
Sorry. I guess I missed the part of that commandment that gave the exception of images and likenesses for those subjects that are not to be worshipped.
Ye OK some great art is of a religious nature but...
The black gospel singers who started singing about my baby instead of my god were pressured not to give into the devil's music.
Artists created great work under patronage, the rich churches or aristocracy contracted for godly stuff.
Pressure has existed to force artistic expression into religious subjects, if not we may have had more great secular works. Caravaggio was mentioned, when I think of him I think of very human works not angels.
Art can be used to portray humans as lowly and gods sublime, I don't think that is very healthy. It is a kind of propaganda, the commoners can't read, give 'em stained glass windows and buildings to make them feel small and subservient.
yuk gaudy, except for Pieta as that's one of my favorite pieces of sculpture. I find the hole catholic renaissance paintings, sculpture and architecture not to my taste in the slightest, with Michelangelo's sculpture being the only exception as its just amazing, far better than his paintings even though a lot of his work is anatomically weird its because of that combined with the almost life like characteristics that he managed to get into the marble, just look at the fabric and softness of the face above its insane. The Renascence work is technically fantastic but its just a show of wealth and I just find that rather vulgar, I much prefer the sketches and drawings (especially the observational work of Da Vinci) from that period as they contain all the technical magnificence without the ostentatious grandiose bullshit with content that doesn't stimulate the mind (well not mine anyway), you need to step away from the church commissions to find the intelligence in that period and region of work.
But the main point of the post I would agree with.
I think it's as facile to attribute cruelty, ignorance, intolerance and all the other instances of man's inhumanity to man to religion , as it is to credit it with the fruits of human creativity. If religion wasn't there, does anyone think humans would have lived in harmony and peace or that artists would not have found other themes to express their talents? Quite often in fact religion has been institutionalised and the church establishments have become thoroughly corrupted by power, usually working hand in glove with the State. The original content of religious belief is often either subverted or lost sight of in the process. The atrocities inflicted in the name of religion really reflect the workings of human nature. Abolish religion in the morning, and new ideologies will spring up to take their place. If people are credulous enough to fall for religion, taking it away won't turn them into rational, enlightened beings imbued with love and compassion for their fellow man.
Creativity will find an outlet. Inspiration is variable and personal.
Quote from: Tank on June 23, 2012, 11:23:59 AM
Creativity will find an outlet. Inspiration is variable and personal.
<3 This and Pudding's post.
I don't find the 'art' of religion particularly nice. I agree that you do need to think about the fact a lot of these artists were pressured and sometimes forced to do this as well. As for the 'i am nothing but a lowly human..." yeah-- that is a lame way of thinking.
Art is suppose to be beautiful and pure from the heart. Whatever the art is-- it can't be beautiful if done for greed and ignorance.
Like i said, i only like the myth. Key words. Like my love for the Greek myth stories, and of course Shinto.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 23, 2012, 12:52:30 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 23, 2012, 11:23:59 AM
Creativity will find an outlet. Inspiration is variable and personal.
<3 This and Pudding's post.
I don't find the 'art' of religion particularly nice. I agree that you do need to think about the fact a lot of these artists were pressured and sometimes forced to do this as well. As for the 'i am nothing but a lowly human..." yeah-- that is a lame way of thinking.
Art is suppose to be beautiful and pure from the heart. Whatever the art is-- it can't be beautiful if done for greed and ignorance.
Like i said, i only like the myth. Key words. Like my love for the Greek myth stories, and of course Shinto.
I would imagine most Christian art was created by believers. Non- believers were in pretty short supply for most of history after all. However mistaken Christianity may be, that does not prevent great art being produced in its name.
Quote from: En_Route on June 23, 2012, 11:13:46 AM
If people are credulous enough to fall for religion, taking it away won't turn them into rational, enlightened beings imbued with love and compassion for their fellow man.
Sadly probably true.
Quote from: En_Route on June 23, 2012, 11:13:46 AMI think it's as facile to attribute . . .
Well said, and I agree, though I think Steven Weinberg also had a valid point when he said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on June 23, 2012, 09:18:17 AM
Ye OK some great art is of a religious nature but...
The black gospel singers who started singing about my baby instead of my god were pressured not to give into the devil's music.
Artists created great work under patronage, the rich churches or aristocracy contracted for godly stuff.
Pressure has existed to force artistic expression into religious subjects, if not we may have had more great secular works. Caravaggio was mentioned, when I think of him I think of very human works not angels.
Art can be used to portray humans as lowly and gods sublime, I don't think that is very healthy. It is a kind of propaganda, the commoners can't read, give 'em stained glass windows and buildings to make them feel small and subservient.
Interesting, I had not heard about the gospel singers being pressured that way. I'd be curious to read more. But good point about work being created under patronage. A lot of the religious art was created because the church paid for them. En_Route's point about there being fewer non-believers is valid, but it would be interested to know (probably impossible to find out) how many of the great religious artists of that time actually believed in what they were creating.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi647.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu198%2FRamblingSyd%2FKilpeck-D02.jpg&hash=b771e9ef6df775b16b4c853eb22b301756c0be0e)
South door of Kilpeck, Herefordshire. Dated 1135-ish. Supremely beautiful.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi647.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu198%2FRamblingSyd%2FDeerhurst_D-23.jpg&hash=1a7e4de6d56c8c7dd559cbf46ea397baa0fb2660)
The West wall of Deerhurst, Gloucestershire. Dates to well before 800. The arches of the side-aisles were put in around 1300.
The incredible sense of sheer age weighs down on you in these places.
Quote from: Recusant on June 23, 2012, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 23, 2012, 11:13:46 AMI think it's as facile to attribute . . .
Well said, and I agree, though I think Steven Weinberg also had a valid point when he said, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Leaving aside the usual and well- trodden arguments about what does or does not constitute evil, and accepting that there are certain acts from which at the very least nearly everyone would recoil from and would wish not to have happened, I can't see why religion is said to be the only form of brainwashing that can lead
people to commit such acts. I think racism is not necessarily derivative from religion, and indeed may run counter to it in some cases, but it involves objectifying and dehumanising a section of humanity so as to justify discriminating against them and mistreating them.
We are inspired and motivated to create by ideas, and the higher the idea, the higher the potential for inspiration and motivation. Whether true or not, it's hard to get "higher" than the idea of God, an almighty, perfect creator, especially if one finds in that idea hope and solace and personal salvation. It represents perfection at every level. So it should not surprise us that belief in God has inspired great art, music, and architecture. It represents the human mind reaching for the loftiest ideal, for the perfect forms that are unseen but manifest themselves (albeit imperfectly) in human achievements.
Quote from: En_Route on June 23, 2012, 07:59:26 PMLeaving aside the usual and well- trodden arguments about what does or does not constitute evil, and accepting that there are certain acts from which at the very least nearly everyone would recoil from and would wish not to have happened, I can't see why religion is said to be the only form of brainwashing that can lead
people to commit such acts. I think racism is not necessarily derivative from religion, and indeed may run counter to it in some cases, but it involves objectifying and dehumanising a section of humanity so as to justify discriminating against them and mistreating them.
Indeed Weinberg's quip is too simplistic, even if it describes an extant phenomenon. No person is wholly good or evil, but I cannot see any reason to describe a racist (especially one who acts on their racism) as "good."
Anyway, we seem to be heading off topic with this line of discussion. I just meant to agree with your post, while adding some (simplistic) nuance. ;)
Quote from: OldGit on June 23, 2012, 07:50:02 PM
South door of Kilpeck, Herefordshire. Dated 1135-ish. Supremely beautiful.
I think you've put that up before, in the photo thread, and it took my breath away then. One of the loveliest bits of architecture I've ever seen.
This is inside Wayfarer's Chapel at Palos Verdes Penisula in CA; it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright for the Swedenborgians and built, I believe, by Wright's son. I don't know if it's worth noting that Wright seems to have been at most a pantheist, and most likely agnostic or ignostic.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2606%2F3667197618_a80561400d.jpg&hash=7924838355686d5a1ab0ca54b8e3baf06338bcfb)
And this is the outside view:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.staticflickr.com%2F2482%2F3667185102_90ae01fda1.jpg&hash=c546014c34efb95e416ed55b47e98486fc925076)
This one is the altar at San Juan Capistrano Mission. A bit ornate for my taste, but it's the oldest Catholic altar still in use in California, possibly the US. The King of Spain sent it over about 500 years ago.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.staticflickr.com%2F3320%2F3478555970_b78660c689.jpg&hash=c27c610c885a61440b508b2cdc412a90d0adac8a)
I often find 'church art' to be too much...
I live nearish Saint Patrick's cathedral. It's insane all the candles by the statues and weird paintings of jeebus..
i wouldnt call it art.
I like the chapel, BCE.
I agree with Sweetdeath: Catholic and Orthodox churches often go way OTT.
How about this Quaker meeting-house at Almley, Herefordshire? It's not very old - about Shakespeare's time - but there can be great beauty in simplicity.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi647.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu198%2FRamblingSyd%2FAlmley_Qkr_Mtg_D-13.jpg&hash=1f4484dda8df5ce95d4d6c213ef3a4e54b64374e)
Not too shabby.
I suppose I don't like the pathetic energy i feel when i go near a church. People feeling so much hope in the presence of 'god.'
Quote from: OldGit on June 24, 2012, 10:10:15 AM
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi647.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu198%2FRamblingSyd%2FAlmley_Qkr_Mtg_D-13.jpg&hash=1f4484dda8df5ce95d4d6c213ef3a4e54b64374e)
That could be the interior of any tudor house.
Quote from: OldGit on June 24, 2012, 10:10:15 AM
How about this Quaker meeting-house at Almley, Herefordshire? It's not very old - about Shakespeare's time - but there can be great beauty in simplicity.
I agree about simplicty -- that is my preference -- but that meeting house needs a few touch ups, and the pendant light is all wrong for the space. This is the result of having watched way too many home design shows.
Could pretty much go on for hours and hours and hours showing good art that is related to religion, I just dislike how its always associated with the catholic art of the Renascence period, there is so much more interesting stuff that people just forget about. I have just included some of the most obvious pieces of architecture.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftheblacktwig.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fdsc04912.jpg%3Fw%3D580&hash=74739ab770918d20f763d58baff9622d23c81a06)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2012rising.com%2Fimages%2F14.jpg&hash=67f0b6afe23ad881aaf70298ca9415c3541fbe13)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daveswarbirds.com%2Fegypt%2FPyramid_and_Sphinx.JPG&hash=06d0ba6eee9361bfbceb42659c6a177706bfa030)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_MLxiBMONdQY%2FSZRDFa7bCII%2FAAAAAAAAMb0%2FVZH6oh2P0BQ%2Fs400%2F2.jpg&hash=16c91655bb3ccf5e6851cc3626dd15d383f9f96f)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.habitz.ch%2FBildergalerie%2FIrland%2Fnewgrange.jpg&hash=c57da90b83c55d7de1e84a54fbca77ec6c52a13e)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg32.picoodle.com%2Fimg%2Fimg32%2F3%2F1%2F25%2Ff_2724196664dm_283ce57.jpg&hash=23c1dd27ded741c5338203301cbab125b402dd56)
as well as art that doesn't celebrate religion
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F5%2F56%2FStudy_after_Velazquez%2527s_Portrait_of_Pope_Innocent_X.jpg%2F471px-Study_after_Velazquez%2527s_Portrait_of_Pope_Innocent_X.jpg&hash=339c1aba11b63ee3c7c620ddcffb76942fb5667b)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-sCIE7Mg8e8k%2FTmzUOzZg_2I%2FAAAAAAAACgE%2FXck-48M0LCE%2Fs1600%2FChapman3.jpg&hash=ad9d47076de053e8e84ea68449ec5b6f8bce03a6)
and then there are those that explore the relationship between science and religion.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Farrestedmotion.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F09%2FDamien-Hirst_LegendMyth_1.jpg&hash=fa7d3e17ecf604d519e7001c8ce7806bf85c255a)
Quote from: OldGit on June 23, 2012, 07:50:02 PM
The West wall of Deerhurst, Gloucestershire. Dates to well before 800. The arches of the side-aisles were put in around 1300.
The incredible sense of sheer age weighs down on you in these places.
Quite the heritage. :) Art or no, that sense of continuity throughout time is really something amazing in its own right.
I agree with Crow, it doesn't have to be of a Christian religious nature (let's not forget who the main patrons of art were in the middle ages before saying that artists were necessarily inspired to do religious artwork...many will find the inspiration to pain or sculpt whatever their patrons want them too).
What about places such as Stonehenge, for instance?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 24, 2012, 10:08:38 PM
(...many will find the inspiration to pain or sculpt whatever their patrons want them too).
The period of architecture that Old Git likes (Romanesque) is notorious for featuring sculptures of pagan gods such as the green man. Usually in the periods of change the style stays the same and new elements get incorporated, catholic art is a prime example; its basically taking the art of what was popular in Rome which itself was a version of art from Ancient Greece but incorporating elements that was found in Christian art before the catholic church was properly formed, the styles foundation is from the pantheon of Aphrodite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_de_Milo) (venus) and Zeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Zeus_at_Olympia) (Jupiter).
Kind of ironic too that after the renaissance Ancient Greek and Roman ideas of anthropocentrism were reincorporated into art, religious included. No signs of medieval artists really bothering about that...
Quote from: Crow on June 24, 2012, 10:45:10 PM
The period of architecture that Old Git likes (Romanesque) is notorious for featuring sculptures of pagan gods such as the green man.
I was looking for sheila-na-gigs (I think that's what they're called) in the arch of the door, but my eyesights not good enough to pick anything out.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 25, 2012, 12:43:35 AM
Quote from: Crow on June 24, 2012, 10:45:10 PM
The period of architecture that Old Git likes (Romanesque) is notorious for featuring sculptures of pagan gods such as the green man.
I was looking for sheila-na-gigs (I think that's what they're called) in the arch of the door, but my eyesights not good enough to pick anything out.
Here's a Sheela na gig from the corbel table of that same church (none on the door, sorry!):
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi647.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu198%2FRamblingSyd%2FKilpeck-D51.jpg&hash=4d87342cbac755b9ecf022c9adcdf3060dffe922)
There's a lovely green man at the right-hand end of the arch on the Kilpeck doorway picture.
NB, Crow, the green man didn't by any means die out after the Romanesque period. Here's a 15th century one on a Misericord at Ludlow:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi647.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu198%2FRamblingSyd%2FgreenmanresizedFeb11.jpg&hash=7c4bb70e1c166b4d3cb49d4e68cff6783ab51115)
Quote from: OldGit on June 25, 2012, 09:50:39 AM
NB, Crow, the green man didn't by any means die out after the Romanesque period. Here's a 15th century one on a Misericord at Ludlow:
The Romanesque period just has more examples that's all.
The old folklore existed for donkeys years even whilst Christianity was so strong, just look at the murder of Bridget Cleary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridget_Cleary)in 1895. In almost every case the folklore has been absorbed into the church, It's also what people usually still celebrate at various times of the year that are attributed to Christianity in the UK, they really are pagan and have no christian meaning at all.
Quote from: OldGit on June 25, 2012, 09:50:39 AM
Here's a Sheela na gig from the corbel table of that same church (none on the door, sorry!):
There's a lovely green man at the right-hand end of the arch on the Kilpeck doorway picture.
The persistence of old religions thru the new ones supposedly replacing them always amazes me. I don't know why -- humans are such creatures of habit that it would make more sense that it's inevitable.
Quote from: CrowThe Romanesque period just has more examples that's all.
You're quite right. In general, the use of grotesques dies right out at the end of the Norman period, but the green man goes on and on. Seems to be the Reformation that killed it.
Great coincidence: I was in Brecon this morning and had a look in the cathedral. Guess what's on the font (ca. 1100)?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi647.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu198%2FRamblingSyd%2FBrecon_Cathedral_D-16.jpg&hash=90961bf41c5b1ddae566e99917df9648fb91f630)
Now I've seen many a font with grotesques and I've seen many a green man, but this is the first time I've ever seen both together.
I agree. The art is gorgeous. I also love the ancient churches and cathedrals. It's most likely just that I have an strange fascination with the architectural styles of Europe from the 1700s and before. I just can't leave out churches and cathedrals because I don't like the organization associated with them. They are some of the most beautiful (architecturally, of course!) structures ever created, if you ask me.
On a very closely related note, I also have found myself fascinated with Renaissance choral music. It was written directly for the church, and even with words from the Bible. I'm not sure if this particular piece (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cn7ZW8ts3Y) is sacred, but either way it is very powerful stuff (and I do very frequently listen to pieces that I know are sacred).
Agreed on both counts - the architecture and the music.
Mrs Git and I are what they call 'church crawlers' - we're lovers of mediaeval architecture, and of the specimens one can go and look at, almost all are churches. As Crow spotted, the Romanesque is our favourite, especially the few bits left from before the Norman Conquest. We've done many courses on church architecture and have friends on the Diocesan structures team.
QuoteI just can't leave out churches and cathedrals because I don't like the organization associated with them. They are some of the most beautiful (architecturally, of course!) structures ever created, if you ask me.
Exactly.
I don't claim any expertise in the music, but I love Byrd and Tallis and suchlike. Yes, IMO
Spem In Alium counts as sacred music, BTW.