Pope Benedict must accept Dr Zakir Naik's invitation

  • Thread starter Thread starter trueislam
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 38
  • Views Views 6K
There is the recurrent theme of one's faith being the "true" faith. It has always seemed kind of silly to me. What is wrong with simply leading a moral life and trying to add goodness to the world? If everyone simply followed the Rabbis Golden Rule it would be a nicer place to be. Would a benevolent Supreme Being really be angered because a falliable mortal made a pilgrimage to Mecca instead of Lourdes or vice versa?
 
There is the recurrent theme of one's faith being the "true" faith. It has always seemed kind of silly to me. What is wrong with simply leading a moral life and trying to add goodness to the world? If everyone simply followed the Rabbis Golden Rule it would be a nicer place to be. Would a benevolent Supreme Being really be angered because a falliable mortal made a pilgrimage to Mecca instead of Lourdes or vice versa?


I guess the problem with such a suggestion (which does indeed sound attractive) is that not everyone is happy to go through their lives with a kind of self-imposed morality or a lack of spiritual direction. More importantly, humans are notoriously fallible and changeable creatures, and history has shown that, left to their own devices, either with or without the support of any particular religion, they are quite capable of committing the most appalling atrocities conceivable. To me the suggestion places an unbearable load upon the assumption that humans are all quite capable of getting along without hurting each other, and of actually being of a mind to want to make the world "a nicer place to be". In my opinion, history demonstrates with unimpeachable clarity that humans are generally evil, and that continually.
 
I guess the problem with such a suggestion (which does indeed sound attractive) is that not everyone is happy to go through their lives with a kind of self-imposed morality or a lack of spiritual direction. More importantly, humans are notoriously fallible and changeable creatures, and history has shown that, left to their own devices, either with or without the support of any particular religion, they are quite capable of committing the most appalling atrocities conceivable. To me the suggestion places an unbearable load upon the assumption that humans are all quite capable of getting along without hurting each other, and of actually being of a mind to want to make the world "a nicer place to be". In my opinion, history demonstrates with unimpeachable clarity that humans are generally evil, and that continually.

Right..what you are describing is the socializing influence of organized religion which all religions offer to some degree. This is an important and positive influence in most cases, but, if the socialized group is persuaded that believers in another religion (which fundamentally has the same goals) are different or inferior because of the nature of their beliefs, then there is much mischief to be made. This is the part that seems silly to me.

BTW..sociopaths (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc.) are not constrained by moral concerns precisely because they are sociopaths) It generally takes a gun to change their behavior.
 
Greetings and peace be with you all,

If such a public encounter was ever to come about I think it would be a terrible waste if it were to turn into a competitive point scoring exercise, I doubt that would do either religion any good.

However it would be a wonderful opportunity to try and work out how Muslims and Christians can live together in communities peacefully.
I believe there is a great need for bridge building, and reducing the apparent fear that seems to exist between people of our faiths. How can we learn to trust each other?

in the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
 
I disagree that the Pope would prove 'the biggest' test. The Pope is an old man and a scholar, not a rhetoritician or public speaker. As wilberhum rightly implies being a skilled debater, which Naik certainly is, has very little to do with whether your arguments are 'right' or not... as any student of politics will agree!

very true indeed,

i would only love to see this debate for entertainment loool, it would be great. but its not going to happend
 
Right..what you are describing is the socializing influence of organized religion which all religions offer to some degree. This is an important and positive influence in most cases, but, if the socialized group is persuaded that believers in another religion (which fundamentally has the same goals) are different or inferior because of the nature of their beliefs, then there is much mischief to be made. This is the part that seems silly to me..


OK, I accept what you're saying, and I can appreciate why it would seem "silly" to you. I guess the argument holds true from an "outsider's" perspective; but to believers of a particular religion, it is probably the case that they believe their own conception of what is right and wrong, and good and evil - defined in terms of their own religion - to be the only correct interpretation of the world, so to speak. In this latter case, apparent similarities between religions may not be of any force in leading them to see the "silliness" you've highlighted.


BTW..sociopaths (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc.) are not constrained by moral concerns precisely because they are sociopaths) It generally takes a gun to change their behavior.


Well said. :)
 
The pope would never accept. Dr. Zakir is a debater, and somehow I don't see the pope as one. In that case, the pope would lose even if he's right, lol!
 
Greetings and peace be with you Skywalker;

Any such public debate has a huge responsibility, it cannot be viewed as an entertaining spectacle. About half of the world population is either Muslim or Christian; much of the hostility in the world centres on the religion of the opposing factions.

We do not need more debate about our differences and who is right, these questions cannot be proven and all we have is arguments.

With all the tension in the world at the moment there is a great need for Muslims and Christians to build interfaith understanding, tolerance and friendships.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
 
It appears as if Benedict is more concerned with taking liberalism out of the church than fostering inter-faith relationships. While John Paul was popular among many Catholics and people of other faiths, some, like Benedict, felt the church was becoming too "understanding" of sinful practices.
 
This proposed debate does not represent "inter-faith dialogue" or an attempt to 'foster' anything. To me IFD involves discussions to establish common interests, and work out how to co-operate to further such things as preventing conflict between different religious communities, establish world peace, feed the hungry or even preserve moral standards. It is not a p***ing contest over who might be right or wrong regarding theological issues, or an attack on the beliefs and scripture of the other side which would achieve absolutely nothing. It seems it is such a contest Niak wants, hence the insistence on 'focussing on the Qur'an and the Bible'.
 
Asalaam alaikum, muslim brothers/sisters and none-Muslim friends

To: Pope Benedict XVI

Dr Zakir Naik has invited you, i.e. Pope Benedict XVI for an open interfaith dialogue. Now you must accept the invitation and hold an open interfaith dialogue on Islam and Christianity in front of the entire world so that people will be able to understand the truth about Islam and Christianity. Dr Zakir Naik's words relevant to this issue can be verified from any news web site covering the issue. Dr Zakir Naik's words regarding this great invitation for you include:

"I am more than willing to participate in the inter-faith dialogue with Pope Benedict XVI. I am ready on any topic he (the Pope) wishes as long as it focuses on Quran and the Bible," "I can go to Rome and to Vatican on my own expense if an Italian visa is arranged for me," "I am absolutely ready for an open and public debate with the pope under live international TV coverage," Let the 1.3 billion Muslims and 2 billion Christians around the world listen to the debate based on equal slot of time allotted to both sides, he said. "It is not only a debate but also a question and answer session allowing the people to ask queries,".

yes a peaceful lecture between Dr Zakir and the Pope,

http://www.petitiononline.com/ai2nd/petition.html

Please sign the petition all the best Peace

wa-alaikum salaam :)

Only Roman Catholics hold an interest on the Pope. Don't be so stereotypical.
 
Greetings and peace be with you Trumble;

To me IFD involves discussions to establish common interests, and work out how to co-operate to further such things as preventing conflict between different religious communities, establish world peace, feed the hungry or even preserve moral standards.

Exactly right, thses are the kind of issues any talks should follow.

In the spirit of praying for peace on Earth

Eric
 
Only Roman Catholics hold an interest? :-\
Like only Buddhists hold any interest in the Dalai Lama.
:embarrass

Shut up. Certainly you are acting like a big shot, believing you know a lot about this world. I will ignore you, if you continue to act in this ridiculous fashion.
 
Shut up. Certainly you are acting like a big shot, believing you know a lot about this world. I will ignore you, if you continue to act in this ridiculous fashion.
Shut up? Boy, you don't play nice. :confused:
Acting like a big shot? Why? Because I point out stupid remarks? :D
Ignore me? Please do. :shade:
 
Everybody play nice and argue the topics, not fight with the posters.
 
I agree with Trumble. I have participated in many interfaith dialog programs and have seen some that failed horribly because the participants were not trained in REAL dialog and confused it with a debate. Also often the way the participants were arranged was such that the different religions were placed at different tables. The successful interfaith dialog programs that I observed however, as Trumble mentioned, were based upon shared beliefs with the goal of peace and solving problems between the religioius communities with the basis being the love of God and of all of humanity. These were generally very informal and often at someone's house over a nice Helal/Kosher dinner and tea where everyone was mixed together. Eating together seems to foster better dialog. But more importantly they had good moderators and everyone was taught the difference between debate and dialog before starting with the dialog.
Usually after successful interfaith dialog, friendships form in which the tougher questions about differences can be approached with respect to each other. I have many Muslim friends myself who I can ask very difficult questions to about their religion. Through them and through studying good Islamic scholars (such as Shaykh Hamza Yusuf) I have developed a deep appreciation for Islam as well as a much clearer ability to discriminate between extremists and traditional Muslims.
At the same time it has given me the tools needed to better have dialog with extremist Muslims in order to convince them of certain dangers in their belief systems that go against traditional Islamic principles.
Likewise Muslims can use the same tools of dialog to learn how to develop dialog with fundamentalist Christians so as to convince them that Muslims are not their enemy and that they have much in common and even many similar goals.


Wigon
 
Greetings and peace be with you wigon; welcome to the forum, it is refreshing to hear something positive for interfaith dialogue.

I look forwards to reading more of your posts.

In the spirit of fostering greater interfaith friendships

Eric
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top