DEBATE: Is Jesus God?

Most Christians believe in the trinity: Unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one divine Being. They also claim that it is proven by the word of God, The Bible, witch says that Jesus wasn't just a son or a prophet, but God Himself. 

This very exciting debate refutes the veracity of the Christian believe that Jesus is God.
By the use of only biblical books, Ahmed Hussein Deedat, a Muslim scholar, writer and public speaker, confronts this affirmative.
Defending the theme was the Pastor Stanley Sjöberg. 


The debate happened in Stockholm, Sweden in 1996. 


Watch the videos and make your conclusion. 


I know it is a lot of videos...  Watch 2 and get hooked!

 

DEBATE: Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?

The Intelligence Square Debate. 

Acting for the motion:

  This incredible debate was produced on the Central Hall in London, England. It was transmitted live on tv, in 19 of october 2009. by the BBC World News.

     .

Promoted by the BBC World News, this debate was shown live in England from the Central Hall Theater in London.  A poll was taken between the 2126 attendants before the debate . These were the initial results:

 Thesis: Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?

For: 678 

Against: 1102

undecided: 346

Watch the debate and find out at the end, how many people changed their minds in favor or against the Catholic Church and make your own decision about the theme.

For the Motion:

Archbishop and the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan 

British Conservative Party politician and member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship. Ann Noreen Widdecombe

Against the motion:

columnist and literary critic Christopher Eric Hitchens 

screenwriter, author, journalist, poet, television presenter and film director Stephen John Fry

The end of traditional marriage in wealthy nations

Animals will have more offspring if their environment is safe and their basic resources are plentiful.  In humans, this rule isn’t so black and white.  People that live in a relatively safe environment with plenty of resources are avoiding marriage and procreation. In rich countries, not taking into consideration the growing number of foreign immigrants, the decline of population growth is staggering.   This paradox can only be explained by the rise of individualism. Men and women aren't willing to adjust their own lives by succumbing to sacrifices such as financial burden, emotional dependency, and losing their own freedom in order to marry one another or procreate.   If we look in depth at this situation it is possible to argue that this individualistic trend of society is caused by the advance of capitalism, which, according to conservative views, is threatening human values such as morality, identity, will for cooperation and patriotism. In fact, there is an invisible revolution happening in the heart of these rich societies. Perhaps the rise of individualistic behavior is a sign ofhuman evolution leading the individuals to an outstanding new page of social development; perhaps it is an evil that must be repressed. 

            

 In America, women have increasingly chosen to join the workforce over full time motherhood.  During the Second World War, while most American men were battling in Europe and the Pacific, women were providing the labor to the war effort and receiving a compensation for it.  After the war, women were able to provide for themselves financially and also contribute to the growth of the family’s lifestyle. Over time, the patriarchal values were giving space to a more egalitarian society.  By the end of the second century, women had already conquered financial, emotional and sexual equality.  The clash of individual interests was created by the equality of gender.   Modern women target career success, financial and emotional independence, while suppressing the instinctive need of motherhood.  In order to be successful and independent, women must prevent early marriage or pregnancy.   Men also have individualistic views regarding marriage and procreation. They believe that marriage and procreation would prevent financial success, increase the number of responsibilities, decrease their amount of freedom and, ironically, decrease their sexual activity. In wealthy nations, 50% of marriages end in divorce and most marriages are happening at a much older age.  Unfortunately, statistics also point to the fact that the longer it takes for an adult to get married, the harder it is to have a successful marriage.   This data exposes the increased individualism of adults over the years. 
              

It is notorious that traditional marriage is being threatened by the influence of this new generation, and along with the demise of marriage, falls all the advantages that the institution brings.  It is believed that traditional marriage strengths the identity and morality between individuals and the whole society.  Traditional values keep immorality in check and, at the same time, protect the social unit.  A successful society that prizes the traditional values is a lot more resistant to change.  The lack of variations in behaviors or actions creates a more predictable society, it makes the future more certain and less foggy. Traditional marriage values the image of the man as the breadwinner and the woman as the home manager and the fundamental tutor of the family’s children.  Data supports that a woman at home during the years of child growth, provide higher social and motor advantages for the child.  Also, the constant support and love provided by the mother helps the child to develop an important bond with the parents. Conservatives believe that a child grows with a high sense of identity, tends to value the family structure, and learns to voluntarily cooperate with others.  The level of love that the child has for the parents will be the foundation for the future protection of the family structure, the protection of the family traditions and the protection of the homeland.  In other words, inside the family is where an individual’s identity grows and flourishes.  Traditions are passed on inside this group. “Inside of the family is where the standard of moral and the standard of living is set. There lays the development of the good memories and the love for the home land.”  

               It is important to understand the history and the essence of capitalism to be able to answer fundamental questions such as when, how and why the traditional values gave space for the rise of an individualistic society in wealthy nations.  Throughout history humans have adopted many forms of government, from agricultural societies around 5000 B.C. to the globalized capitalism of the twenty first century.  In today’s rich Western societies, capitalism is the type of government.  This system works based on beneficial trades. Everything has a value, from the labor to the land.   Most of the people use their workforce as a trade for a symbolic paper, money.  In general, the more valuable a person’s work, the more money that person will receive.  First, people instinctively trade the money for basic needs such as shelter, food, and clothing.  More money provides a higher capability of obtaining a more comfortable shelter, a better quality of food, better clothing and also better access to healthcare.  In other words, the more money a person has in the capitalist system, the better their lifestyle and life expectancy.  In an ordinary home, the household income will dictate the level of lifestyle and health care availability to its members. 

 In defense of individualism and the new face of human behavior, it is important to expose that individualism doesn't threat morality, much less, cooperation and identity.  In today’s environment, the government enforces application of laws and punishes immoral behavior.  The population must manifest to the state the need for application or formation of rules.   The conception of right and wrong is relative.  For one group of people, something could be immoral, but completely ordinary to another group of people. The democratic state makes laws based on what is believed to be right or wrong by the majority of people.  Traditional views give way for a more structural system, the state.  Regarding identity, individualism not only encourages self-identity, but also promotes it.  The rise of individualism in the democratic society fosters the perception of the individual and not the group. A person doesn’t have to depend on the group in order to find out what he or she really wants, a person has the ability to find out on their own without popular prejudice or distracting suggestions.  Regarding cooperation, some changes are evident. In traditional families, cooperation is the result of a need to fulfill an obligation to one’s family and in individualistic societies, cooperation happen based on the future gains to the individual. The use of social connections is shared by both societies.  Patriotism is threatened by the rise of individualism. The choice of the homeland will be based on the individual advantages offered.  For the individual, it makes more sense to stay inside of a group that has cultural similarities. Protecting the homeland is to protect the core of the self-identity.
          

 Traditional family has worked for a while, in a period where capitalism wasn’t so globalized, when the system didn’t favor the individuals as much. Today, if a country rejects this new norm of capitalism it will be crushed by other countries.  Today’s individuals have to compete for space against individuals from different countries.  There is no space for the reduction of working efforts. The couples that take the risk in returning to traditional ways suffer a huge disadvantage in today’s society. The kids of a traditional marriage, where only the father works, will have fewer resources when compared to kids in a household where both families work, resulting in a higher household incomes.  In the technological era the funds to supply a child with expensive gadgets, tools and special schools are indispensable.  College tuition in America has increased 205% over the last twenty years.  Even without children, individuals must constantly evolve in their profession in order to stay needed in the workplace. All that demands time and money.  Couples can help each other in the fulfillment of their individual careers, just like a business partnership, both compromise, both collaborate with one another and both will prosper.  

               In contrast to the traditional marriage era, what will keep the marriage solid now won’t be the pressure of society or the financial dependency of the woman, but the level of advantages it will bring to both individuals.  Women are not willing to give up their independence, much less, be dependent of on a men. They aren’t interested in belonging to a society that will judge if they have casual sex, avoid having a child, or get a divorce.  The males aren’t responsible for being the sole bread winner. The lifestyle of today’s society has become too expensive for only one income per household.  In order to fulfill the financial requirements necessary to have a good lifestyle as couples, the male would have to work a lot more, if he was lucky enough to find that kind of job.  For as long as capitalism is the system of government in these wealthy nations, traditional marriage is inefficient and obsolete.

 
           Cooperation is what will keep tomorrow's society united.  Individualists will find cooperation in order to succeed.  Capitalism favors individualism, but also favors cooperation.  People must join forces in order to succeed.  If an individual finds a mate not compatible regarding individual goals, but is attracted to the other, the relationship will be reduced to a good friendship or casual intercourse.  If the mate is compatible with same goals and are attracted to one another, a marriage should be considered.  If the marriage doesn’t keep presenting advantages for both individuals, the marriage will likely result in failure.  As history has teached every individual: A person must to look for a good partner in life not only emocionaly, but also reasonable financially.

               The future of marriage will be composed of few young couples and a considerable number of older individuals. Children will be an option for a fraction of young married couples.  In spite of consequently having a severe reduction of human population, and Rich Nations having to deal with all the major threats that are brought by the constant rise of population growth in the neighboring poor countries; the future of the rich nations will lay in these few families that are willing to bear children because of their strong instinct and because of the success that both reached inside the “marital partnership”.

         True love will be found between couples that are together not because of financial needs or pressure of society. They will be together because both benefit from the relationship. They exchange love, respect, sex and financial success.  Many will decide to not have children because it doesn’t make financial sense or because they are too selfish to compromise their time and money for the effort, but the minority that decide to have children, will do so purely by their own will. These couple will be awesome parents that will dedicate their whole life to the success of their offspring; they will be willing to exchange the time that they used to have for hobbies for the presence of a child. These types of parents will be the future of the society. They will be the ones that will pass it on in the genes, the ideas and the biological love of the child through the next generation.  Government and religions do more harm than good for the evolution of this new kind of society. The first, give incentive to irresponsible parents to have children in order to have tax breaks and the second, the religion, threatens or promises rewards to incapable or unwilling individuals to bear children thinking that they are obeying God’s will or they are ensuring their place in heaven. Let the population decrease. Let’s leave marriage for the willing ones. Let’s leave the future children be raised by the minority group of individuals who have the talent of raising a child with responsibly, unconditional love and unlimited dedication.

  

Curious Questions Series: Do all religions worship the same god?

If you compare the Native American Indian god with the Christian god, you can have an easy answer: No! The Christian god isn't the same as the Indian god!  The sun god couldn’t even resemble the biblical god Yahweh (God).  On the first religion, the sun is worshiped as the creator, as the observer and punisher. On the second religion, the god, Yahweh, is an invisible figure; creator of the suns, the moons and the stars. The Omniscient being Yahweh is a lot more complex and a lot more approachable. If we compare Yahwer with Brahma, a Hindu god, we would have another decisive answer: They are completely different; They cannot be the same god. 
To make the title's question a little more difficult, let’s explore if the gods in the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islamic and Judaic) are the same one; To do so, lets travel trough history, dividing it in four key points: The Beginning, The birth of Judaism, The birth of Christianity and the Birth of Islamism; and find out exactly where Yahweh (God) originates, and how God's name branches out into more modern religions. 

The Beginning
Mesopotamia was the "cradle of civilization" . From there, complex civilizations branched and flourished, such as Sumerian in 4000 BC, Egypt in 3000BC, China in 2200BC, Babylonians in 1700 BC and Semites in 1500BC. From the Semite's civilization, branched many Arab tribes and the Hebrew society. It was on the Hebrew's tribe where Abrahan was born. 

The Birth of Judaism
Around 1450 BC, Abrahan and his people (Hebrews) were chosen by God to carry out his message of great promise to His loyal worshipers. Abrahan's descendants left Canaan (modern Israel) and settled in Egypt due to a severe famine caused by drought. There, the Hebrew's tribe was slaved for four hundred years. A man called Moses was chosen by God to lead the Hebrew people away from Egypt's tyranny.  It took forty years for Moses and his people to reach the land of Canaan. During the "desert wondering", Moses received the ten commandments from God. Moses died before reaching Canaan. The new leader, Joshua, was instructed by God to kill everyone in the now occupied land of Canaan and establish the Hebrews in the Promised Land. 

After many generations, the land became divided and weak. The Hebrew people became conquered over and over by many Empires until they were ultimately destroyed by the Roman Empire around 66 AC.

Jesus Christ was a Jew who was born in times of great Roman oppression. Before him, many prophets tried to lead the Hebrews back to God's path, described in the old texts of Moses,  and prophets. Over time Jesus developed profound knowledge of the those old texts.  Around 33AC, Jesus started preaching and revolutionized the Jewish world with a new message of God and a astonishing title: He was claimed the son of God. 

The Birth of Christianity


Jesus' views of the old texts and his disciples' assumption of Christ as being the son of God were seen as severe blasphemy from the old Jewish priests. In spite of all the repression, Jesus teachings were becoming dangerously popular. Before the year's Passover, the Jewish people's most traditional holy day, Jesus with his disciples decided to go to Jerusalem, capital of Judea, and stay there for the Passover.  Fearful of a uprising during the holy day, the Jewish priests denounced Jesus to the Romans authorities and Jesus ended up arrested and crucified.

Jesus' apostles, Peter and Paul, brought the preachings of Jesus to Rome. There, the Christian sect were victim of harsh persecution by the people. Christians were a small minority, but a threat in the Roman's polytheistic system. During the rule of Emperor Nero, around 200 AC, Romans persecuted and killed Christians by the thousands, in spite the impossible means, Christianity continued to grow.

The Roman Emperor, Constantine I, was exposed to Christianity by his mother, Helena.  During a battle in 312, Constantine commanded his troops to adorn their shields with the Christian symbol in accordance with a vision that he had had the night before. After winning the battle, Constantine was able to claim the emperorship in the West.  The accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church. After his victory, Constantine supported the Church financially, built various basilicas, granted privileges to clergy, promoted Christians to some high ranking offices, and returned property confiscated, destroyed and expropriated pagan temples. 

Around 350 AC the Catholic Church, a centralized Cristian sect;  formed commissions to collect the old texts before and during Jesus's time. 66 books were chosen between thousands available to form the Bible.

As the Church grew, more and more people became unhappy with the priests' views of the holy Bible. It seemed like few were really listening and obeying God's biblical words. During this crises, shines the figure of Muhammad, claimed as the last prophet of God.

The Birth of Islamism


Muhammad(570 AC) was claimed as the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Muhammad  was a trader later becoming a religious, political, and military leader. Muhammad started receiving revelations from God. The content of these revelations, known as the Qur'an, was memorized and recorded by his companions.

During this time, Muhammad preached to the people of Mecca, imploring them to abandon polytheism. Although some converted to Islam, Muhammad and his followers were persecuted.  His death in 634 resulted in the Muslim expansion deeply into Persian and Byzantine territories. From there, it grew throughout the world.

There are very deep differences of God's personality between the Jewish' views, based on the Old Testament's books, Christian's views, based on the New Testament's books and Muslim's views, based on the Q'ran; Although the god of the Hebrews, the god of Christianity and the god of Muslin originated by the same man.
 If we consider the creator of the universe, God,  as the All Knowing Being, we must to assume that He doesn't regret or make mistakes. God couldn’t send information to one prophet and change his mind on the second one.  Only one messenger can be right. Inside the Christian's faith, for example, is contradictory to say that they have the same god as the Muslims or Jewish. Assuming that, confirms that God thought one way before and changed his mind, sending Jesus to fix his mistake or after sending Jesus, He regretted and sent Muhammad.

The way Christians understand god is based on Jesus' views. The way Jews understand God is based on Moses and prophets' views. The way Muslims understand God is based on Muhammad's views. If their views are different from one another, the god that a Christian sees is different from the god Muslims and Jewish see and so on.  If they are referring to the same god, only one messenger must be right. Only one Abrahamic religion should be indeed, inspired and blessed by God.

Curious Question Series: Aren't you an atheist?

Do you see this tittle as an insult? If so, this text is for you! Learn where the fear of atheists originates, what it really means, and find out if you really aren't an atheist.

               To understand why the expression of atheism is negative and uncomfortable, it is necessary to look in depth at our recent history. In 1945, right after the second World War, the growth of communism encountered the advance and consolidation of North American capitalism in the world. The communism proposed the end of social classes through the division of richness and also wanted the absolute control by the state. Fearful for the capitalist economies in the word, the United States used many resources to detain the communist advances, such as military support to threatened countries and massive use of propaganda. The American propaganda pointed the communist regime as evil and anti-religious.  The image of the communist regime was associated with the image of the old USSR destroying and expropriating churches and prosecuting religious groups. The fear of losing the religious freedom added by the nightmare of losing its own richness, promoted the terror and hate of the atheist-communists by most of the western world.  These roots are still alive today;  We tend to associate the word atheist to communist, anti-god, oppressor or fascist.

                 Atheism is nothing more than a lack of believe in deity(s). Atheism does not deny the existence of a architect of the universe. Atheism just denies the religious belief in mystical gods. Atheism isn’t a religion, or a political view, much less an instrument of proselytism. The atheist doesn’t have to believe in scientific theories such as Evolution of Species nor in the Theory of Big-Bang.  The atheist doesn’t have to be skeptical to the existence of aliens, gnomes, fairy or any other popular myths. The only thing that makes you an atheist is the lack of belief on the “local god”.

                 The “local god” is the only acceptable god for the most of the population in certain area. The conviction that every religious group have that, “there is only one god”, disregard the belief in other gods of the other religions, because these other groups do not believe on the “true god”.  So the lack of belief on this “true god” would turn these other religious groups, atheists.   It is estimated that there are more than four thousand religions around the world. Between them, there are more popular religious groups such as Christianity, with two billions of followers, Islamism with one and a half billion, Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism and Confucianism. Between the religions less well known, we can find hundreds of African religions and many others with roots in popular religions. If we take into consideration the extinct religions such as the Greek and roman polytheism, the Nordic beliefs, the primitive religions of the native Indians, the Egyptians, Sumerians and etc., the quantity of gods in the world would be staggering.  When one religious group believe to have knowledge of the “right god”, it indirectly sends  all other religious groups to the atheist group. No religious group can avoid that stigma.  The god will never be the right one everywhere.

            We can assume with absolute conviction that your actual belief in your god, in some place in the world would be against the local consensus.  Your lack of belief in the "local god" would turn you, in the sense of word, an atheist. In a visit to India for example, your lack of belief in the gods Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva or Shakti, would give you the “despicable” title of atheist from the local residents. Your Indian, African or oriental friends that don’t believe in the “only god” Yahweh (biblical god) should be regarded as atheists by you because they don't believe in the "only true god".  Your only condition for not being an atheist in this moment is because you are in the right place at the right time.