Religious lyrics ?

Gilmour is also an Atheist. 

 

Interesting detail here: The character Satan seems to have developed over the many centuries during which the books that make up the Bible were being composed: c. 1000 B.C. to c. A.D. 200. Curren tideas of Satan have more to do with Medieval literature than with scripture itself. Ideas of Hell also developed over time. Much of the contemporary understanding of Hell is not scriptural, but comes rather from Classical and Medieval sources (Virgil, Dante, etc.). The revolutionary message of Jesus, expressed most clearly in Luke's gospel, is that salvation is actually not dependant on behaviour, but is a matter of grace--literally the underserved gift of a loving God--and faith. Other books in the new testament, ex. Matthew's gospel, place greater emphasis on works, but the organization of the gospels, with Matt comming first, i.e. closest to the Old Testement and its focus on Mosaic Law, actually suggests a gradual building up from a fairly traditional titt-for-tatt approach, to the radical shift we see in Luke.

 

For the record, BTW, I am not a Christian and am thus not defending my beliefs. I am simply discussing my reading of a very important book.

 

Anyway, the message toward which the gospels build seems to be that anyone can be saved. This message does not get much air play as it flies in the face of most people's binary thinking. It is easier to think in terms of what we deserve: we can measure both ourselves and other people by that yard stick. But much of Luke, at least, suggests that this is not the yardsick that is most relevant in the end. And if the oganizing principle of the universe is Love, as J.C. suggests on more than one occasion, then grace in fact makes more sense than the essentially economic version of salvation and damnation that gets most of the air play and is ultimately not much more than a logical extention of the old system of sin, sacrifice, and atonement, or failure to atone.

 

Digressing a bit--I seem to be doing that a lot in my posts today--but I think it is worth while bearing in mind that when we say "religion," even when we are talking about a religion that unfortunately has the rap of being fairly oppressive in some contexts, we need to remember that interpretations vary, and second-hand knowledge, i.e. the type that is most common in popular culture, is usually unreliable.

(I remjember it from school, I didn't check on wikipedia).

There's a number of bibles other than barbecue, but given the relationship between the Jewish/Christian and Satan who is a relevant character in both the stories, I think the barbecue can be ignored unless it's a reference with Hell and how souls were expected to be treated there...

 

All true. And I seem to have shared your experience regarding music. When I was younger, I identified myself mostly with a) the books I read and b) the music I listened to. As that identification became increasingly concrete, I became correspondingly judgemental, deciding for instance that I disliked a particular musician merely because he/she did not belong to one of my select few genres. That attitude, as you point out, is quite religious in the worst sense--maybe "religiose" is a better term. The religiose identification of music and selfhood is particularly common among youth, and has been since music has been produced specifically to target a younger market, but it often continues into later life (as an aside, The Who's second rock opera, Quadrophenia, addresses this phenomenon quite nicely, as does the movie of the same name), maybe because the experience of music can often strike us in much the same way as religious revelation and then crystalize, like much but not all religion, into dogma.

 

I am with you very much, by the way, in sharing an appreciation of the tone in which this conversation is generally being conducted.

However, if a lyricist wants to show his sentiments to the audience, regardless his religion and/or phylosophy, is not a problem until he's honest.  

 

A fair question, and one that I think goes through a lot of people heds when they become curious about Taosim. I've been a Taoist in the philosophic (as opposed to religious) sense for about 25 years now and, though no scholar on the subject,  might be able to offer a response. The word 'Tao" does not mean "spirit": it means "way" and can be thought of usefully as a way of being. It is not a spirit in the sense that a spirit is a thing existing in a particular context. Rather, you might say that all spirits, if they exist, exist through it. That is, all that exists, exists though the Way, but is not actually the Way. Even the most basic duality of being and non-being itself proceeds from the Way and et is not the Way. Historically, Taoism has been a sort of couterpot to the strict and ritualistic main stream of Confucianism within Chinese culture, and tends to take a rather humorous tone regarding any assertion of absolute value or absolute right, acknledging that eventghe words we use are merely a part of the Way and thus inadequate to address the whole.

 

I could say more here, but this is not a site on Taoism, and I do not want to go too far off the string. Please note as well that my explanation has been superficial and inadequate. If the ideas here come across as in any way silly, the failure is mine, not Lao Tzu's or Chiang Tzu's.

 

For further reading, I suggest the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu (it's short and pretty accessible, and is the most important book in the Taoist cannon) and, if you find that interesting, the self-titled writings of Chang Tzu (a good and very readable translation is Victor Mair's Wandering on the Way): a longer and more complex work, but also more playful and in places downright funny. There is a lot of room for laughter in Taoism.