|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Movie: "God on Trial" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Has anyone seen this movie? If so, is the rest of it as riveting as this clip?
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi hooah,
Yes, I've seen that film. It's gripping stuff, with some outstanding performances. It is very loosely based on what is supposed to be a true story; Jews held in Nazi camps placed God on trial and found him guilty of abandoning them. It's well worth a watch. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 801 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Thanks, GM. It looked like a movie I would like to add to my library rather than just renting, so I wanted to get some feedback before doing so. I'd hate for this clip to be the meat of the movie with nothing else substantial.
"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Proof positive that the Jew is as much in need of New Testament illumination as the next guy.
"There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" Romans 2:9 Although well-dramatised, the piece is really only a compendium of the kind of atheistic argumentation you see wheeled out all the time. There isn't even the benefit of seeing the standard defences given the same treatment (the defence sits on it hands throughout) There certainly isn't anything new: - "what about the innocent children (and idiots) - how can God slay all those 'innocent' people - God is behind whoever claims he is their's - slew/smite/destroy/wipe-out/kill - as if there's anything particularly problematic about God doing that. - last but not least: man's justice is better than Gods. Man has the big picture in mind - not God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
<pulling up a seat...>
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There certainly isn't anything new: No, you're right. The problem of theodicy is hardly revolutionary. What's always surprising is how believers can't muster an adequate response to it - indeed, they rarely feel like they need to do so, or do anything but marshal the same tired, debunked excuses, like you did.
There isn't even the benefit of seeing the standard defences given the same treatment (the defence sits on it hands throughout) Because there is no full-throated defense, Iano. Theodicy cannot be satisfactorily defended against. It's exactly like how all the supposedly sophisticated theists believe there's an intellectual defense for the existence of God - "Oh, I'm sure that there's an intellectual argument for the existence of God, Crash; it's just that I can't tell you what it is. I mean I didn't need it; I believe on the basis of faith. But I'm absolutely sure somebody made it, once. Can't quite recall the details. Why don't you ask the theist to my left? I think he knows what it is." "What? No, I believe on the basis of faith as well. Ask the guy to my left, though, I'm sure he knows." And so on. It's simply an article of your faith that theodicy can be defended against. The truth is, there's no reconciling the fact of the Holocaust with the putative existence of a benevolent and omnipotent creator God; you just think it can be reconciled, as an article of your faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi Iano,
Proof positive that the Jew is as much in need of New Testament illumination as the next guy. I wonder what could have put Jews off the New Testament...
quote: Well, stuff like that ought to suffice. The Jews suffer first do they? Classy. It would seem perverse for Jews to embrace such blatantly anti-Semitic works.
Although well-dramatised, the piece is really only a compendium of the kind of atheistic argumentation you see wheeled out all the time. There isn't even the benefit of seeing the standard defences given the same treatment (the defence sits on it hands throughout) This is probably a fair criticism of the piece, in so far as it goes. It's pretty clear that the author is behind the prosecution's case. The other side of the argument is not as sympathetically portrayed. For a theist, I can see how that might be a little grating. On the other hand, they are free to deliver whatever message they like in their play. It doesn't have to be one that you agree with. Further, I don't believe that the moral questions raised by the film have ever been satisfactorily answered by theists.
There certainly isn't anything new Well of course there isn't. When arguing against Bronze Age superstition, how much novelty do you expect? For as long as there have been superstitions, there have been those who chose not to believe them. Naturally, the arguments don't change that much.
what about the innocent children (and idiots) Good question. Why don't you go and find some innocent children who are suffering and explain to them how God somehow justifies not bothering to help them? They might not find it very helpful, but I'm sure you can find some idiots who will be impressed with your excuses.
how can God slay all those 'innocent' people Did you just put the word innocent in quotation marks? Creepy.
God is behind whoever claims he is their's Yeah, it's funny that isn't it? Just a coincidence I suppose. Of course, it must come as a bit of a wake up call, when you believe yourself to be one of God's chosen people, only to find your people being slowly exterminated in ghettos and death camps. This strikes me as being the film's strongest argument. Obviously, it's one you need not overly concern yourself with, given that it is an argument aimed specifically against Judaism.
slew/smite/destroy/wipe-out/kill - as if there's anything particularly problematic about God doing that. You know, it's statements like that that occasionally make me wonder if you're not some sort of sociopath Iano. Have you ever been tested for any sort of sociopathic/psychotic personality disorder? If you are unable to grasp what is problematic about an omnibenevolent god casually smiting his subjects, then I doubt I possess the ability to adequately explain it to you.
man's justice is better than Gods. Man has the big picture in mind - not God. Damn right it's better. Certainly, it's better than the total absence of justice that we get from your imaginary friend. Mutate and Survive On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Granny Magda writes: iano writes:
Damn right it's better. Certainly, it's better than the total absence of justice that we get from your imaginary friend. man's justice is better than Gods. Man has the big picture in mind - not God. And that point is also supported by the Bible. We were given the great gift of the tools to know right from wrong in the Garden of Eden, and we are charged to use those to judge not only our own actions but those of God as shown in Genesis 18. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Granny Magda writes: The Jews suffer first do they? Classy. It would seem perverse for Jews to embrace such blatantly anti-Semitic works. I think the underlying point was that all will reap the reward of sin: both Jew and Gentile. The Prosecution seemed to have difficulty with this. -
This is probably a fair criticism of the piece, in so far as it goes. It's pretty clear that the author is behind the prosecution's case. The other side of the argument is not as sympathetically portrayed. For a theist, I can see how that might be a little grating. On the other hand, they are free to deliver whatever message they like in their play. It doesn't have to be one that you agree with. Further, I don't believe that the moral questions raised by the film have ever been satisfactorily answered by theists. I didn't find it at all grating. But when faced with that kind of one-sided approach, the neutral observer can get to wondering why the counter isn't being aired. Is it that the prosecution is afraid to do so? The film isn't going to do anything much for those who stand on one or other side. The objections raised are pretty much standard issue and have pretty much standard issue responses. You might not, for instance, find it satisfactory that a creator/owner can lay down the moral law for you to obey - but I've never heard a satisfactory answer informing me why it is I should be able to do as I please - irrespective of what a creator/owner says. -
If you are unable to grasp what is problematic about an omnibenevolent god casually smiting his subjects, then I doubt I possess the ability to adequately explain it to you. I wasn't labouring under the notion of an omni-benevolent God. Since God is revealed in the Bible as furious wrath against sin (amongst other things) I'm at a loss as to why his expressing that wrath should be so problematic for some. It seems to me that you can't have love without hate. I mean, how can you love children without hating the acts of a paedophile? -
Damn right it's better. Certainly, it's better than the total absence of justice that we get from your imaginary friend. Have you a problem with God punishing your sin? On what basis? Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: Because there is no full-throated defense, Iano. Theodicy cannot be satisfactorily defended against. It's exactly like how all the supposedly sophisticated theists believe there's an intellectual defense for the existence of God - "Oh, I'm sure that there's an intellectual argument for the existence of God, Crash; it's just that I can't tell you what it is. I mean I didn't need it; I believe on the basis of faith. But I'm absolutely sure somebody made it, once. Can't quite recall the details. Why don't you ask the theist to my left? I think he knows what it is." "What? No, I believe on the basis of faith as well. Ask the guy to my left, though, I'm sure he knows." And so on. So, what's the problem with God slaying those who sin (I'd appreciate it if you could avoid including references to 'babies & idiots' in your answer ) -
It's simply an article of your faith that theodicy can be defended against. The truth is, there's no reconciling the fact of the Holocaust with the putative existence of a benevolent and omnipotent creator God; you just think it can be reconciled, as an article of your faith. Where does a God who is furious wrath against sin fit into this picture of a benevolent and omnipotent God? That's the God I have faith in. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Keep in mind, also, that the God who is on trial is the God of the Bible and not necessarily the God whom we imagine to be currently reigning.
I think that its quite fair for the god of the bible to be put on trial by inquiring minds. Would it make any sense for we humans to be prohibited from asking such questions? On the other hand, I tend to believe in a God who does not make fallible mistakes and who accurately knows the fullness of the human characters whom He sentences.
jar writes: Again, the key lesson in my opinion is that we learn to judge and correct, if possible, our own actions. If God exists and is prone to judge us, we can at least enter the courtroom with the internal knowledge that we have tried our very best. We were given the great gift of the tools to know right from wrong in the Garden of Eden, and we are charged to use those to judge not only our own actions but those of God as shown in Genesis 18. Edited by Phat, : small mistake. (very small)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Iano writes: Have you a problem with God punishing your sin? On what basis? If I was born predisposed to sin, I would expect God to offer me a chance at learning why I need to better myself. If I was incapable of ever becoming any better, I would expect God to offer me a way out...but would still question why He had to teach me this lesson. If the punishment was corrective, it would seem fair. If the punishment was punitive, it would seem unfair. My entire belief hinges on the reality of God being a good God...just, fair, and loving. Were God any other way, I would most definitely complain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Phat writes: Keep in mind, also, that the God who is on trial is the God of the Bible.. It's the God of the Old Testament actually - not that that seems to matter to the authors of the piece. As my journalist mate is wont to say "never let the facts get in the way of a good story!". -
Again, the key lesson in my opinion is that we learn to judge and correct, if possible, our own actions. If God exists and is prone to judge us, we can at least enter the courtroom with the internal knowledge that we have tried our very best. Cold comfort if faced with a God who doesn't take your having tried your best into consideration in pronouncing Judgement. Edited by iano, : the author isn't an atheist it would appear - he's a "committed Catholic".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Phat writes: If I was born predisposed to sin, I would expect God to offer me a chance at learning why I need to better myself. If I was incapable of ever becoming any better, I would expect God to offer me a way out...but would still question why He had to teach me this lesson. He does offer a way out. He might not be teaching you a lesson - he might have placed you here to find out whether you'll avail of the way out.
If the punishment was corrective, it would seem fair. If the punishment was punitive, it would seem unfair. My entire belief hinges on the reality of God being a good God...just, fair, and loving. What's unfair about punishment?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Phat writes: Again, the key lesson in my opinion is that we learn to judge and correct, if possible, our own actions. If God exists and is prone to judge us, we can at least enter the courtroom with the internal knowledge that we have tried our very best. Iano writes: Cold comfort if faced with a God who doesn't take your having tried your best into consideration in pronouncing Judgement. Is it possible to surrender and trust such a God and also try to do your very best? I dont see a conflict.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024