In God's Name

Anyone watching it? I'm finding it rather interesting myself. 12 religious leaders, including the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Patriarch of Russia, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Ayatollah giving commentary on their lives and religious philosophy. Its starting to wind down right now, but its on CBS for any interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamikhaan

Anyone watching it? I'm finding it rather interesting myself. 12 religious leaders, including the Pope, the Dalai Lama, the Patriarch of Russia, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Ayatollah giving commentary on their lives and religious philosophy. Its starting to wind down right now, but its on CBS for any interested.

---

Great. CBS? I wonder what was edited out. Interesting theme though, in less it takes the oft' traveled road of the atrocities committed "in God's name."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Great. CBS? I wonder what was edited out. Interesting theme though, in less it takes the oft' traveled road of the atrocities committed "in God's name."

---

Alright, can we please not travel down the "Biased Source!" road, please, and just take it for what its worth, perhaps?

Anyways, for those who didn't watch it, there was generally a common theme, amongst the details. That it that religion is supposed to be peaceful, not a tool of prejudice, hatred, or fear. Even the Ayatollah agreed with the claim, saying that force should only be used in self defence. I'd say that of all the people there, though, I probably have the most admiration for the Dalai Lama. Mostly, it was because of the outright way he taught of tolerance to other religions, and how one specific religion is not neccessarily the way for every person. For him, Buddhism, but for others, it is a different religion. Also, for the fact that he deals with so many of the oppressed Tibetan people who attempt to cross the Himalayas to escape China. Anyways, I thought it was an interesting watch, and certainly better than most of what's on TV for sure.

I didn't watch this but I can tell from the panel listed in the OP that its a biased panel in the first place.

If they want to have a legitimate panel discussing such things, they would have to include people who actually believe the content of the Holy Books they claim to represent. Most or all of the panel members listed in the OP do not.

Quote:

---

I didn't watch this but I can tell from the panel listed in the OP that its a biased panel in the first place.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

If they want to have a legitimate panel discussing such things, they would have to include people who actually believe the content of the Holy Books they claim to represent. Most or all of the panel members listed in the OP do not.

---

Bollox , what you mean is to have a legitimate panel it must include someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture:2thumbsup:

Umm, ok, here's the panel in total:

Alexei II, Patriarch of Moscow and head of the Russian Orthodox Church

Amma (Mata Amritanandamayi), a Hindu spiritual leader

Pope Benedict XVI, head of the Roman Catholic Church

The Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists

Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a prominent Shi'ite Muslim leader

Bishop Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and President of the Lutheran World Federation

Michihisa Kitashirakawa, Jingu Daiguji (High Priest) of the Shinto Grand Shrine of Ise

Yona Metzger, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel

Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention

Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, Sheikh of Al-Azhar and a prominent Sunni Muslim leader

Joginder Singh Vedanti, Jathedar of the Akal Takht, the Sikhs' highest authority

Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of England

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Bollox , what you mean is to have a legitimate panel it must include someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture:2thumbsup:

---

Your point is taken in context to the reply Tribes. However having someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture would have merit given that the current world climate affords these types a place at the table.

If were going to have a panel of so called experts and then offer it up as some baramoter of gods will, were going to have to include everyone. Exclusion limits the credability of the outcome. Im not saying your advocating exclusion, Im just pushing this discussion a bit further along. :wiseguy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Your point is taken in context to the reply Tribes. However having someone who pretends to have an absolutely insane fundamentalist approach to scripture would have merit given that the current world climate affords these types a place at the table.

If were going to have a panel of so called experts and then offer it up as some baramoter of gods will, were going to have to include everyone. Exclusion limits the credability of the outcome. Im not saying your advocating exclusion, Im just pushing this discussion a bit further along. :wiseguy:

---

Well, I imagine that the creators would might have had a wee bit of difficulty in getting an interview with Osama Bin Laden. I hear he's really quite busy these days.~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamikhaan

Well, I imagine that the creators would might have had a wee bit of difficulty in getting an interview with Osama Bin Laden. I hear he's really quite busy these days.~;p

---

isnt there another thread here about an web chat with one of the head nuts in al queda? Point is the list of names given so far while impressive to some its really not representative of how the religions have progressed.

Somewhere along the line someone in each religion got the crazy notion that Gods will was subject to debate and interpretation. Some even argue that was the original intent of the organizations at the start to have free will debate.

If thats the case then the representative spectrum must be broadened. You have 1 person who represents sunni's on the list(as an example) thats hardly representative of the entire branch of the faith.

However to put it in perspective you never claim its about faiths, you state that its really a discussion about thier lives. So in that sense I've been headed off at the path and I cant bring it too an overall discussion (which is highly defenseable). Ah well, religion is such a sexy topic you never know what fish you might catch once you cast your line. :drama2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamikhaan

Umm, ok, here's the panel in total:

Alexei II, Patriarch of Moscow and head of the Russian Orthodox Church

Amma (Mata Amritanandamayi), a Hindu spiritual leader

Pope Benedict XVI, head of the Roman Catholic Church

The Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists

Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a prominent Shi'ite Muslim leader

Bishop Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and President of the Lutheran World Federation

Michihisa Kitashirakawa, Jingu Daiguji (High Priest) of the Shinto Grand Shrine of Ise

Yona Metzger, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel

Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention

Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, Sheikh of Al-Azhar and a prominent Sunni Muslim leader

Joginder Singh Vedanti, Jathedar of the Akal Takht, the Sikhs' highest authority

Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Church of England

---

All wearing their favourite skirts, hats and propaganda cliches, no doubt. God, what a zoo. Imagine having to interview that whole bunch without laughing out loud.

https://i123.photobucket.com/albums/...AAL/05_fsm.jpg
obviously there is a very important religion missing.

so it is in his noodley name that i advocate we add the speaker for the great pasta diety to the list.

here is our holiness now...
https://i123.photobucket.com/albums/...L/23294262.jpg

is this gonna be another God bashing thread?

Quote:

---

is this gonna be another God bashing thread?

---

It depends on what god writes . If the posts are nonsense they will probably get bashed , if not then no .
I eagerly await a post to see if it deserves bashing , but as of yet I havn't seen god getting bashed on this forum since I havn't read any of the posts .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

is this gonna be another God bashing thread?

---

Firstly: we could bash God only if he existed, which he does not.
Secondly, no one has bashed the name of 'God' in this forum since I first came here years ago.
Thirdly, believers are bashed all the time, and by the dozen. They ask for it because they pretend to speak, vote, kill and die on behalf of a higher authority that isn't.
:juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Firstly: we could bash God only if he existed, which he does not.
Secondly, no one has bashed the name of 'God' in this forum since I first came here years ago.
Thirdly, believers are bashed all the time, and by the dozen. They ask for it because they pretend to speak, vote, kill and die on behalf of a higher authority that isn't.
:juggle2:

---

:rolleyes:

(yes, that's all it deserves)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

:rolleyes:

(yes, that's all it deserves)

---

to be a God bashing thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Firstly: we could bash God only if he existed, which he does not.
Secondly, no one has bashed the name of 'God' in this forum since I first came here years ago.
Thirdly, believers are bashed all the time, and by the dozen. They ask for it because they pretend to speak, vote, kill and die on behalf of a higher authority that isn't.
:juggle2:

---

1st- you say he doesnt exist, but provide no proof. Something atheist require ALL the time....well where is it now? or do you just like to bash like the many atheists serving mankind?

2nd- well where have you been? certainly took a vacation the 2nd up until now 'all those years ago'

3rd-aw bashed all the time?, oh ya by the atheists who get protected by the masses because they are the small minority....

mmm hmm atheist like to say your wrong but cant PROVE it otherwise.

oh and religion requires FAITH (try and disprove that) not science which is INCOMPATIBLE with religion, but since you know so much enlighten us poor faithful.

This thread really has potential now, adrian please take up the cross on this one (pun intended) :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

This thread really has potential now, adrian please take up the cross on this one (pun intended) :thumbsup:

---

I thought atheists argued in packs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

I thought atheists argued in packs...

---

I wouldnt know, Im not an atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

to be a God bashing thread



1st- you say he doesnt exist, but provide no proof. Something atheist require ALL the time....well where is it now? or do you just like to bash like the many atheists serving mankind?

2nd- well where have you been? certainly took a vacation the 2nd up until now 'all those years ago'

3rd-aw bashed all the time?, oh ya by the atheists who get protected by the masses because they are the small minority....

mmm hmm atheist like to say your wrong but cant PROVE it otherwise.

oh and religion requires FAITH (try and disprove that) not science which is INCOMPATIBLE with religion, but since you know so much enlighten us poor faithful.

---

I meant no disrespect to Adrian. His anti-religion rant sounded more like a sermon. Quite the irony.

Edit: Maybe that was the point. He is almost on par with Louis in his verbal judo, just not quite as witty, more like a pretentious literary critic (in a non-native language, which still makes it impressive), but I digress .

Quote:

---

mmm hmm atheist like to say your wrong but cant PROVE it otherwise.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

:quiet:

Errrrrrrr.....

Quote:

---

mmm hmm atheist like to say your wrong but cant PROVE it otherwise.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

hmm was it the otherwise part?

I just want to say I support what Odin said, please respond Adrian so we can get this locked solved really quick and dirty decisive. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

1st- you say he doesnt exist, but provide no proof.

---

God can not exist if and when you define God as a real (hence meaningful) entity in any way. As soon as you attribute concrete characteristics to God, he/she becomes absurd, hence non-existent.

Of course you can define God as 'love' or 'unfathomable' or 'everything' or something vague like that. In which case talking of God becomes mere wordplay and meaningless. And in which case neither you nor I can talk about him (cf. Wittgenstein).

Believers are free and in any way entitled to their beliefs, but they are absurd. The world's Gods have been given a real dressing down by science. All concrete characterics that were once attributed to them, have been rejected. No God created man and the earth. No God wrote holy books. No God ever unleashes lightning and thunder. And no God channels his deepest throughts through Shirley MacLaine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

I thought atheists argued in packs...

---

That's why atheists have organised gatherings every Sunday where they listen to preachers, go around knocking on doors in groups trying to convert people etc.

Oh hold on. All this pack behaviour is actually demonstrated by the religious. You'll find most atheists are actually relatively individualistic about their views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

God can not exist if and when you define God as a real (hence meaningful) entity in any way. As soon as you attribute concrete characteristics to God, he/she becomes absurd, hence non-existent.

Of course you can define God as 'love' or 'unfathomable' or 'everything' or something vague like that. In which case talking of God becomes mere wordplay and meaningless. And in which case neither you nor I can talk about him (cf. Wittgenstein).

Believers are free and in any way entitled to their beliefs, but they are absurd. The world's Gods have been given a real dressing down by science. All concrete characterics that were once attributed to them, have been rejected. No God created man and the earth. No God wrote holy books. No God ever unleashes lightning and thunder. And no God channels his deepest throughts through Shirley MacLaine.

---

So believing in a force greater than ourselves automatically makes us non-existent? At least be consistent in your defintions when making points. And please, don't be a hypocrite, I'm not buying your "acceptance" of believer's faith, that was barely even disguised disgust.

You fail to prove why God as a 'real' entity is absurd. Please, tell me how an omnipotent force has been proven false.

Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that all religions are about bowing down and worshipping an omnipotent force. That is wrong.

Another issue is that the whole idea of religion is generally that it is based in faith, which is not neccessarily based on proveable things.

Furthermore, you seem to be quite disdainful of any kind of religions concepts. However, then by what concept do we define moral and ethical treatment of others? Do we go purely on law of the jungle? Or do we act well to other people because its the RIGHT THING TO DO? Nearly all religions have issued some kind of moral conduct for people, and more often than not, said conduct is generally for the benefit of society. Judaism/Christianity have the 10 commandments, Islam has the 5 pillars, Buddhism has the eightfold path, etc...I think your unfairly attributing all things negative in the world to religion when, in fact, many of the problems in the world instead rise from human weakness instead.

Also, please tell me this: what created the universe? And don't tell me the big bang, because, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe initially was the size of one somethingth the size of an atom, and expanded from there. It fails to explain how the one somethingth the size of an atom came to existence, at least from every time I've heard it explained to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

God can not exist if and when you define God as a real (hence meaningful) entity in any way. As soon as you attribute concrete characteristics to God, he/she becomes absurd, hence non-existent.

Of course you can define God as 'love' or 'unfathomable' or 'everything' or something vague like that. In which case talking of God becomes mere wordplay and meaningless. And in which case neither you nor I can talk about him (cf. Wittgenstein).

Believers are free and in any way entitled to their beliefs, but they are absurd. The world's Gods have been given a real dressing down by science. All concrete characterics that were once attributed to them, have been rejected. No God created man and the earth. No God wrote holy books. No God ever unleashes lightning and thunder. And no God channels his deepest throughts through Shirley MacLaine.

---

The most common attack atheists use is 'scientific' proof, BUT, as God is is purely faith based there is NO scientific argument that can disprove him. Attributing concrete proof,well, ah but the same can be said for evolution or big bang, but because it is associated with science it becomes real, yes?

Religion exists beyond the realm of science, totaly different complete type of thought for both which really if anyone thought about it they will never co-exist, bringing certain people not open to other possible truths so they question with-->

-where is He?... I like to think in Heaven, simple but not enough for those that must see. oh well...-->

-<t--then where is Heaven?...I'd like to think it is another plain of existence only reachable thru death. But now I'm getting too preachy arent I?

And atheists dont like preachy so they come up with-->

-If I cant see him, or talk to him, touch it, then He cant be real... well if they knew there is no possible way to scientificaly prove God then how could they disprove Him in the first place?

And how do you know God doesnt channel his thoughts thru shirly? But hey its not every day God speaks to someone (or its that they dont say anything for the fear of being an outcast)

nice arguments tho

@productivity- sigh.. didnt you see atheists coming in packs to disprove God in the last God debate and NOW?!?!!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

@productivity- sigh.. didnt you see atheists coming in packs to disprove God in the last God debate and NOW?!?!!?

---

Amazingly there can be more than one atheist on a forum. Even more amazingly, on questions of god, they seem to agree. ~:shock:

*note heavy sarcasm present in this post. Seriously, if you don't like more than one person attacking your arguments and ideas, don't come to a relatively secular discussion forum for discussions of religion. If you don't want to be challenged, stick to faith based message boards.