God on Trial

MrPudding

Wednesday 3rd October, BBC2.

DigiGuide wrote:

DRAMA: God on Trial
On: BBC 2 East (102)
Date: Wednesday 3rd September 2008 (starting in 6 days)
Time: 21:00 to 22:30 (1 hour and 30 minutes long)

Drama. In a block house in Auschwitz, a group of prisoners demand to know the nature of a God who can allow so much suffering. They attempt to settle their dispute by putting God on trial. Knowing half of them will be sent to the gas chamber, they have only one day to reach a verdict.
(Editor's Choice, Stereo, Widescreen, Subtitles, Audio Described)

Director: Andy de Emmony
Starring: Stephen Dillane, Stellan Skarsgård, Rupert Graves, Antony Sher, Jack Shepherd, Dominic Cooper

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marked By: 'Category: Drama' marker
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=227722

Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.

Might be interesting.

MrP

PDN

This sounds similar to Elie Wiesel's The Trial of God. A Holocaust survivor himself, Wiesel witnessed a similar incident in Auschwitz, but set his book in the Ukraine following a pogrom.

limerick_woody

There's a weak article about it here - it might be worth a watch.

MOD NOTE: The article gives the whole story, outcome and all

Malari

Oh yeah, I've heard on this story.

After finding god guilty they go off and hold evening prayers together :rolleyes: Tradition is more binding than religion it seems.

MOD EDIT: Spoilers tags added - some people might like to watch it without knowing the story outcome!

MrPudding

Malari wrote: »

Oh yeah, I've heard on this story. After finding god guilty they go off and hold evening prayers together :rolleyes: Tradition is more binding than religion it seems.

Yeah, I find that interesting.

It takes a special kind of person to find your god guilty of the most heinous of crimes and then console yourself by having a quick prayer to him

.

That said, I think it will make interesting viewing.

MrP

MOD EDIT: Potential spoiler.

Dades

Sorry to have to edit above. I just thought myself I wouldn't have minded watching this without knowing exactly as it panned out.

Though will probably watch it anyway.

Dave!

Yeah

Shut up Dades. Go dote on your kid

MOD EDIT: Potential spoiler.

Malari

Oh sorry, thought it was such a famous trial, it was like putting a spoiler up for the end of the titanic. WOOPS

Dades

I never heard of it - but I guess that doesn't mean much!

Did something happen the Titanic?

pH

Dades wrote: »

Did something happen the Titanic?

Leonardo DiCaprio dies at the end

Malari

I think Dawkins mentions it in The God Delusion, which is where I heard it.

Galvasean

No wonder they found him guilty. He wasn't even at the trial!

vibe666

Malari wrote: »

I think Dawkins mentions it in The God Delusion, which is where I heard it.

the titanic is in the god delusion?

Malari

vibe666 wrote: »

the titanic is in the god delusion?

Hmm, I'll have to check and get back to you...;) I'd imagine only in the context of it being a titanic job to overturn organised religion!!

Anyone see the programme anyway last night?

5uspect

Caught the last 20 minutes of it, as I didn't see this thread. Seemed to be a well acted piece that marched out all the usual stuff about how the Jewish god is a nasty piece of work.

Ultimately it seemed better not to give in to the Nazis and not give up their Jewish identity by abandoning god. I found this reasoning a bit bizarre. Surely by not holding onto notions of racial superiority (the chosen or master race) they elevate themselves above the lunacy.

kelly1

I watched it last night. Very well acted I must say and thought provoking. There was one old man who kept saying that we don't understand the mind of God but the "judge" silenced him several times. I think he made a very valid point. Our intellect in very limited and we can't possibly understand an infinite one.

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

I watched it last night. Very well acted I must say and thought provoking. There was one old man who kept saying that we don't understand the mind of God but the "judge" silenced him several times. I think he made a very valid point. Our intellect in very limited and we can't possibly understand an infinite one.

Just because your intellect is limited do not mean you should not question things.

MrP

Malari

I thought it was very well acted too. Considering it was a long play-like scene in mostly one setting, they brought the dialogue to life very well.

The argument about not knowing god's mind was countered because they were trying to judge whether god had broken a covenant with the Jewish people, not trying to understand why he might have done that.

kelly1

MrPudding wrote: »

Just because your intellect is limited do not mean you should not question things.

MrP

True but they came to the conclusion that God was bad. But they can't really come to that conclusion because they don't know the whole picture. They can only say that God seems to be bad.

kelly1

Malari wrote: »

The argument about not knowing god's mind was countered because they were trying to judge whether god had broken a covenant with the Jewish people, not trying to understand why he might have done that.

Did you catch the wording of the coventant that God made with His people? Things were a bit noisy with children bustling about the house

Wasn't it something to do with the Jews not being wiped out?

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

True but they came to the conclusion that God was bad. But they can't really come to that conclusion because they don't know the whole picture. They can only say that God seems to be bad.

When it boils down to reality and what it "seems" to be then with the only part of the picture we can ever see then is that not the truth of things?

Malari

kelly1 wrote: »

Did you catch the wording of the coventant that God made with His people? Things were a bit noisy with children bustling about the house

Wasn't it something to do with the Jews not being wiped out?

I'm sorry, are you asking me if I personally caught the wording? Because as far as I'm concerned it's all a fairytale, but it's what they believed to have happened.

They reckoned that god was a pretty bad guy but that he was on their side, so it didn't always seem like that.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Our intellect in very limited and we can't possibly understand an infinite one.

If that is true how do you determine if anything in your religion about God is true or not?

That excuse is only ever rolled out when people are criticizing God. Amazingly believers never realize that it also stops them from knowing any of the good things about God either.

Remind me to mention it to you the next time you claim you "know" God exists and is loving and good.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

When it boils down to reality and what it "seems" to be then with the only part of the picture we can ever see then is that not the truth of things?

People used to believe you would fall off the edge of the world if you travelled far enough. Now we see the bigger picture and we know the earth is round and the sun is the centre of the solar system. Out knowledge will always be incomplete because we're inside the system and we have a very limited vantage point.

Malari wrote: »

I'm sorry, are you asking me if I personally caught the wording? Because as far as I'm concerned it's all a fairytale, but it's what they believed to have happened.

I was trying to establish the wording of the covenant and more basic still to determine which covenant they were talking about.[/QUOTE]

Wicknight wrote: »

If that is true how do you determine if anything in your religion about God is true or not?

I don't think that's possible really. What I do know is that different faiths conflict and can't all be true. I have decided and I have faith that Christianity is the truth. It's my gut instinct and I believe it to be a gift of the Holy Spirit. I can't ever prove it by reason. I also believe because of the testimony of the numerous saints who devoted their lives entirely to the service of God with great personal sacrifice. I believe many of these great men and women have had wonderful and profound experiences of God's love. Christianity appeals to me because it's totally based on love.

Wicknight wrote: »

That excuse is only ever rolled out when people are criticizing God. Amazingly believers never realize that it also stops them from knowing any of the good things about God either.

If the Gospel is true, the our God is a very loving and merciful God (e.g. prodigal son). The difficulty is in reconciling the God of the NT with the OT.

Wicknight wrote: »

Remind me to mention it to you the next time you claim you "know" God exists and is loving and good.

I don't actually "know" anything about God - I only have faith to go by. So call me a fool.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

If the Gospel is true, the our God is a very loving and merciful God (e.g. prodigal son).

Well yes, but that is meaningless. The Gospel says God is good, so of course if it is true then God is good.

If the sentence "Hitler was a nice guy" is true Hitler was a nice guy. The point is that you have the ability to determine that the sentence isn't true.

If you have the ability to determine that the Gospel is true then others have the ability to determine that the Gospel isn't true. If you have the ability to determine God is good others have the ability to determine that God is evil.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't actually "know" anything about God - I only have faith to go by. So call me a fool.

You're a fo ... whoops, nearly got banned there :pac:

I don't think you are fool. I think you are deluded and manipulated. And I think it is a shame. And I hope you don't do bad things because of this.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think you are fool. I think you are deluded and manipulated. And I think it is a shame. And I hope you don't do bad things because of this.

Funny, I think the same is probably true about you. Deluded and manipulated by rational argument and dismissing things which cannot be proven or disproven.

Are you quite certain that you're not being manipulated by people like Dawkins and Hitchens? Are you not being manipulated/bombarded by the media which puts power, wealth and physical beauty on a pedestal and makes no reference to God? How can you be so certain that I'm the one being deluded/manipulated and not you? Don't you see the arrogance of your assertion?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Deluded and manipulated by rational argument and dismissing things which cannot be proven or disproven.

I'm not sure many people would call that being deluded ... being sensible maybe :pac:

Is it being "deluded" to not think L. Ron Hubbard was talking to aliens because this conclusion was reached through rational argument?

kelly1 wrote: »

Are you quite certain that you're not being manipulated by people like Dawkins and Hitchens?

Well, no.

But then I don't follow either Dawkins or Hitchens. Heck I wouldn't even trust Hitchens to mind my bag for 5 minutes.

kelly1 wrote: »

Don't you see the arrogance of your assertion?

Not really (how arrogant of me)

Kelly you have already admitted that you have no idea if you actually are following the correct religion or not. You do it because it feels right/nice/comfortable/easy what ever...

Yet you still follow what it says as absolute authority over all things

Does that not strike you as a bit odd?

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

True but they came to the conclusion that God was bad. But they can't really come to that conclusion because they don't know the whole picture. They can only say that God seems to be bad.

If it walks like a duck....

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

If it walks like a duck....

MrP

Yeah, since when did things start working like that?

Wicknight your client is charged with raping and murdering 17 women. Do you have anything to say?

Well judge, yes it looks bad. But how can you say it actually is bad? For all you know there is a really good reason he raped and murdered those girls.

Very true, hadn't though about that. Really I don't have all the information, there is a possibility that he had a perfectly good reason for doing what he did. So how can I proceed. Charges dismissed.

It seems more and more that the standard line coming from those pesky Christians we so love to argue with, is that there is a lot we don't know. As if that some how is a point or argument. God appears to be bad, but sure there is a lot we don't know, so maybe he's not. It sounds like something you would hear on Father Ted.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not sure many people would call that being deluded ... being sensible maybe :pac:

You could be wrong as I could be. Maybe you've been listening to the wrong people and believed their lies. So please don't try to tell me that I've been deceived when the same could be said of you. I believe my faith is not contrary to reason but only unbelievable because of our cynicism.

Wicknight wrote: »

Is it being "deluded" to not think L. Ron Hubbard was talking to aliens because this conclusion was reached through rational argument?

I agree. His story doesn't make sense. Who created the aliens and what is their purpose?

Wicknight wrote: »

Well, no.

But then I don't follow either Dawkins or Hitchens. Heck I wouldn't even trust Hitchens to mind my bag for 5 minutes.

But surely you adhere to a atheist mindset and discuss atheism with people who share your beliefs. Don't they have an influence on your beliefs? You didn't come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist in isolation did you?

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really (how arrogant of me)

You have to admit you could be wrong about God!? What makes you so certain that I'm wrong and you're right? I call that arrogance.

Wicknight wrote: »

Kelly you have already admitted that you have no idea if you actually are following the correct religion or not. You do it because it feels right/nice/comfortable/easy what ever...

Yet you still follow what it says as absolute authority over all things

Does that not strike you as a bit odd?

Faith is something that's very hard to explain. I just "know" that Jesus spoke the truth, it's a very core "feeling". Love is what life is all about and Jesus' message was all about love. I don't know of any other religious leader who placed so much emphasis on selfless love. That's one reason why I believe in Him. BTW, I don't impose my beliefs on anyone. I try my best to pass on my faith without any coercion.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah, since when did things start working like that?

Wicknight your client is charged with raping and murdering 17 women. Do you have anything to say?

Well judge, yes it looks bad. But how can you say it actually is bad? For all you know there is a really good reason he raped and murdered those girls.

Very true, hadn't though about that. Really I don't have all the information, there is a possibility that he had a perfectly good reason for doing what he did. So how can I proceed. Charges dismissed.

It seems more and more that the standard line coming from those pesky Christians we so love to argue with, is that there is a lot we don't know. As if that some how is a point or argument. God appears to be bad, but sure there is a lot we don't know, so maybe he's not. It sounds like something you would hear on Father Ted.

Does your sarcasm make you feel superior?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I just "know" that Jesus spoke the truth

Is this the "objective external reality" that you mentioned earlier?

Dades

kelly1 wrote: »

But surely you adhere to a atheist mindset and discuss atheism with people who share your beliefs. Don't they have an influence on your beliefs? You didn't come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist in isolation did you?

If you have a read through this thread you'll find a lot people came to the conclusion in isolation. In fact that's the best way to reach it - without all the pomp and preconceptions that come with the subject. Without even looking at any particular religion, laid bare, the benevolent god concept just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I doubt anyone ever became a catholic in isolation, btw.

sink

kelly1 wrote: »

But surely you adhere to a atheist mindset and discuss atheism with people who share your beliefs. Don't they have an influence on your beliefs? You didn't come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist in isolation did you?

Speaking for myself I've always been an atheist even before I knew there was a word for it. I never believed in God since I had the ability to think about it and from what I've found out a lot of atheists are the same.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I doubt anyone ever became a catholic in isolation, btw.

PDN did claim a while back that sometime in the 70's, an uncontacted tribe turned up somewhere in PNG towing christian folklore, but details were not forthcoming. I suspect that the pastor who claimed this might not have been completely unbiased.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Does your sarcasm make you feel superior?

Well yes, isn't that the point of sarcasm?

Does victim hood make you feel more reassured in your faith?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

You could be wrong as I could be.

We could all be wrong Kelly, it is about looking at if we are or not.

What are your reasons for saying you aren't wrong? At the moment you appear to have that you don't feel like you are wrong.

kelly1 wrote: »

I agree. His story doesn't make sense.

Neither does your story. God has a "son" who comes to Earth to get killed by Romans so that God can not send people to hell for disobeying him.

So why can Christians happily say that scientoglists who believe it is all real are deluded, yet I can't say it about Christians.

But surely you adhere to a atheist mindset and discuss atheism with people who share your beliefs. Don't they have an influence on your beliefs? You didn't come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist in isolation did you?

kelly1 wrote: »

You have to admit you could be wrong about God!?

I certainly could be wrong about God. I could be wrong about pretty much anything.

But what you want me to say is that because I could be wrong that makes your religion some how valid or likely or plausible. It doesn't. I could be wrong, but it is much more likely you are.

kelly1 wrote: »

Faith is something that's very hard to explain. I just "know" that Jesus spoke the truth, it's a very core "feeling".

Which is meaningless. You are probably just wrong.

kelly1 wrote: »

Love is what life is all about and Jesus' message was all about love.

No, Jesus' message was about avoiding hell. That was the purpose of Jesus in the first place. God's message is about obedience.

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't know of any other religious leader who placed so much emphasis on selfless love.

Well you probably aren't looking very far. The eastern religions put far more emphasis on selflessness and compassion that Christianity ever did. Christianity is ultimately about saving oneself.

kelly1 wrote: »

BTW, I don't impose my beliefs on anyone. I try my best to pass on my faith without any coercion.

Your religion teaches that the fate of anyone rejecting the religion is an eternity of suffering and pain. Your religion also teaches that not following its definition of what is moral is wicked.

That is the continuation of the manipulation, because some unfortunate souls end up believe it all.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

PDN did claim a while back that sometime in the 70's, an uncontacted tribe turned up somewhere in PNG towing christian folklore, but details were not forthcoming. I suspect that the pastor who claimed this might not have been completely unbiased.

I inquired about this myself. Alas, as you said the details did not come.
I suspect the pastor in question, merely took the stories/legends of the local tribe and manipulated them into sounding more like Christian ones. It wouldn't be hard to manipulate them considering the primitive tribe probably taught he was a messenger from the Gods himself.