Israel lawmaker emerging as main foil to Netanyahu

By Aron Heller, AP, Jun 29, 2013

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP)—Danny Danon says he has no problem with his party leader, Israel’s prime minister—so long as he doesn’t make peace.

The ambitious deputy defense minister isn’t a household name internationally yet, but at home he has emerged as an unlikely opponent to Benjamin Netanyahu and his strongest opposition within the hawkish ruling Likud Party.

A soft-spoken lawmaker with a penchant for sharp suits, Danon is suddenly a major stumbling block toward Palestinian statehood as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry embarks on his latest push to restart long-dormant peace talks.

While Netanyahu attempts to convince the world of his peaceful intentions and sincere commitment to establishing a Palestinian state as part of a final peace settlement, Danon has repeatedly defied the prime minister’s stance while generating the type of political power that could hinder Netanyahu’s ability to make concessions.

Danon, 42, is among a group of young hard-liners who rose to prominence during a Likud primary vote last year. These officials, including Deputy Foreign Minister Zeev Elkin, Knesset speaker Yuli Edelstein, deputy transportation minister Tzipi Hotovely and coalition whip Yariv Levin, oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state and are strong proponents of building settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Danon, a secular father of three, is the most vocal and has become the brightest star and strongest counterforce within the party. He has also generated an impressive following in America, particularly among Christian evangelicals. His recent English-language book—“Israel: the will to prevail"—outlines his vision of further Israeli control over the West Bank. It won’t find many fans in the Obama administration, but it did receive high praise from two of Danon’s closest American allies: former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and conservative TV personality Glenn Beck.

The front page of Friday’s mass-daily Yediot Ahronot points to Danon’s surge to prominence at home. Under the headline “Between Kerry and Danon," a cartoon shows Danon and others pinning Netanyahu to the ground. The paper’s humor column has a mock quote from Kerry saying he is optimistic his visit can help promote a “brave and effective negotiation between Netanyahu and Danny Danon."

Political commentator Hanan Kristal said Danon is trying to position himself as a potential future alternative to Netanyahu.

"Danon is Bibi from 10 years ago," he said, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname. “He (Danon) is a Likudnik and he is saying what a lot of them believe. He just says it clearly and without mincing words."

Netanyahu has distanced himself from Danon, insisting his comments do not reflect government policy, but he hasn’t fired him either as some have suggested he should.

Read More

A Guerra Entre os Mundos!

Mananciais No.8

Uma convocação a todos aqueles que realmente querem mudar o mundo para melhor!

Pelo Pai David

Cada pessoa que atendeu ao chamado de Jesus para segui-lO e levar Sua luz aos outros está envolvido numa guerra entre os mundos! Lutamos juntos pela nossa fé, verdade e liberdade. Comprometemo-nos a dar, por amor, as nossas vidas pelos nossos irmãos no mundo inteiro. Estamos convencidos que todos os pobres devem ter casa, comida, roupas, liberdade para trabalhar em paz, com saúde e felizes, e assim obterem o que necessitam. Dedicamo-nos para que todos tenham liberdade de viver uma vida feliz em cooperação, de cada um segundo a sua capacidade, e a cada um segundo a sua necessidade.1

Estas são algumas de nossas metas comuns: fim da carência, da escravidão, da dor, do mal e do medo. Ninguém pode ser feliz com fome, subnutrido ou doente. Não há espaço para o sentimento de realização onde tiranos oprimem e exploram as pessoas, forçadas a trabalho excessivo e vítimas de abusos cruéis. Não há satisfação em uma vida sob os tormentos da guerra e conflitos, ameaçada pelo horrível pesadelo de uma insegurança perpétua.

Acreditamos que todos esses males são causados pela falta de amor do homem por Deus e pelo seu semelhante, bem como pela sua desobediência às leis de amor, fé, paz e harmonia instituídas por Deus. Essas leis são as crenças básicas de nossa fé e da de todos os que, de fato, crêem em Deus e no Seu amor.

Além de sabermos pelo que e contra o que estamos lutando, também temos que saber comodevemos lutar. A nossa guerra não é travada com armas, exércitos e soldados. Não se trata de um conflito de homem contra homem, nação contra nação, raça contra raça, ricos contra pobres, socialismo contra capitalismo. Não é uma guerra entre sistemas políticos e económicos, sociedades, tribos e culturas, religiões e fés. Não é uma disputa com base no ódio, no rancor, na matança e na carnificina, na vingança e em represálias, em tortura, agonia e morte! Não é uma batalha pela conquista de corpos, bens, ou territórios, nem fomentada pelo orgulho do homem.

Essas guerras mundanas do homem raramente resolvem alguma coisa, nem os problemas básicos da humanidade. Tipicamente, o que se vê é apenas mais sofrimento, agonia, dor, fome, escravidão, rancor, vingança, conflitos, tortura, privação, destruição, desperdício, miséria e morte! A maioria das guerras egoístas e perversas do homem acaba numa mera troca de senhores e de escravos, num círculo vicioso infindável de males, resultando em um número cada vez menor de ricos e um número maior de pobres, todos extremamente infelizes, com vidas horríveis, aterrorizados pelo medo.

A nossa é uma guerra espiritual, travada em fé e amor, para conquistar mentes, corações e espíritos, e para salvar tanto as almas como os corpos dos homens. É uma guerra para libertar os homens dos males do espírito, da mente e do coração, os quais os tornam egoístas, desafeiçoados, perversos, cruéis e duros.

A desumanidade do homem para com o seu semelhante deve-se ao fato de ele não saber como ser feliz, e por mal conhecer o amor, a fé e o poder de Deus, bem como as Suas leis amorosas criadas para nos dar felicidade eterna.

Lutamos pela liberdade das mentes, dos corações e dos espíritos dos homens, para que não estejam sujeitos ao mal, e para livrar as suas almas da servidão que lhes é imposta pelo Diabo e que nos causa todo este sofrimento! Estamos numa guerra entre os mundos, entre o bem e o mal, Deus e o Diabo, a bondade e a maldade, a carne e o espírito, os anjos e os demónios, o amor e o ódio, a vida e a morte, a alegria e a tristeza. É uma guerra universal, na qual os bons espíritos do Céu e os maus espíritos do Inferno disputam por nossas almas e corpos, tanto neste plano quanto no espiritual.

Portanto, devemos não só defender os direitos humanos, mas também travar a guerra espiritualmaior, usando as muito mais poderosas armas da fé, do amor e da compaixão, associadas a palavras amáveis e atos de bondade. Temos que libertar os homens do medo através da fé; do ódio, através do amor; da tristeza, através da alegria; da guerra, através da paz; da pobreza, através da abundáncia; e da morte com a felicidade celestial eterna!

A pena é mais poderosa do que a espada. A nossa guerra é uma guerra de palavras e de idéias para cativar as mentes dos homens com fé e esperança! O nosso desejo é saciar-lhes o coração com amor, paz e alegria a fim de libertar os seus espíritos, bem como praticar atos de amor e bondade que libertem os seus corpos da dor! Por conseguinte, travamos uma guerra de palavras contra as idéias do mal, de fé contra o medo e de esperança contra a dúvida. Precisamos inspirar as pessoas a crerem em Deus, no Seu amor e no Seu plano para o maravilhoso futuro do homem no Reino de Deus na Terra, governado pelos justos, no qual não haverá mais angústia, pranto, dor nem morte. Haverá luz, saúde, felicidade, paz e abundáncia para todos!

Precisamos ensinar-lhes as Palavras de Deus que dão vida e que nos foram transmitidas pelos Seus santos profetas, no Seu livro sagrado, a Bíblia. Assim, para sempre terão a vida, o amor e a felicidade que Ele dá.

Impérios poderosos cujas conquistas se deram pela espada, surgiram e se desvaneceram, mas as Palavras amorosas e vivificadoras que Jesus deixou permanecem para sempre e continuam sendo fonte de alegria, paz, amor, vida e esperança para bilhões de pessoas de geração em geração! Alexandre, Ghengis Khan, Napoleão, Hitler e outros apareceram e sumiram, mas as palavras e as idéias dos profetas de Deus vivem eternamente!

Elas ignoram as fronteiras políticas, culturais, étnicas e ideológicas. Tampouco estão limitadas pelo tempo, pelo espaço, pelo homem, pela guerra ou pela força das armas. Elas englobam toda a humanidade e unem as mentes, os corações e espíritos em fé e amor por Deus e pelo próximo, para o bem de todos.

Os filósofos, mestres, profetas e homens ungidos por Deus raramente governaram impérios, mas conquistaram multidões com as suas palavras, fé e idéias, cativando-lhes os corações, mentes e almas e libertando-ospara sempre. Ao longo dos milênios, Deus tem acumulado bilhões de seguidores e o Seu Reino eterno tem conquistado o domínio do espírito eterno dos homens, de longe maiores e mais duradouros que os meros impérios materiais conquistados pela espada!

Não podemos forçar as pessoas a serem boas. Não podemos legislar a justiça. Aquele que é convencido à força, permanece com a mesma opinião. Devemos influenciar as suas idéias, conquistar os corações, inspirar o espírito das pessoas e salvar as suas almas, para que escolham, por livre e espontánea vontade, fazerem o bem e não o mal! Para se entregar em amor, uma mulher tem que ser conquistada e não forçada!

O mundo não poderá ser mudado sem que antes a mentalidade do homem seja mudada, o que não ocorrerá a menos que se lhe mude primeiro o coração, o que nunca acontecerá sem a inspiração do Espírito de Deus, para que não apenas o seu corpo, mas também a sua alma seja salva.

Devemos nos empenhar para salvar o homem por completo, não apenas o seu corpo e o meio ambiente. Ele nunca será feliz com um coração angustiado, uma mente atribulada, um espírito deprimido e uma alma impenitente. Temos que trabalhar para resgatar o ser humano como um todo e não apenas parte dele. Precisamos lutar para salvar as pessoas para a eternidade e não só para estes dias aqui na Terra!

Isso é algo que somente o poder, a vida, a luz, o amor e as Palavras de Deus podem fazer! Temos que dar as Suas Palavras a todos os homens em toda a Terra. Temos que comunicar aos olhos, às mentes e pensamentos de todos, em todos os lugares, os ideais, a esperança, a fé, o amor e os planos de Deus para as Suas criaturas. Somente dessa forma os corações poderão ser mudados, os espíritos inspirados, as almas salvas e os corpos resgatados, para que assim as pessoas possam se amar umas às outras e viver juntas para sempre!

É preciso que tenhamos uma visão mundial para a salvação de toda a humanidade, não só da nossa própria nação. Não devemos nos limitar às insignificantes dificuldades do momento ou aos problemas desta vida, de um povo, de uma nação, de uma raça, de uma cultura, de uma religião, de um ponto de vista político, ou de um sistema económico.

Se a salvação é para alguém, então deve ser para todos. O mesmo vale à felicidade: todos devem ser felizes, sem exceção. Embora noventa e nove ovelhas estivessem no redil, o pastor só ficou satisfeito quando a última, que estava perdida, foi encontrada e resgatada. Faltava algo e elas não podiam ser completamente felizes enquanto uma ainda estivesse infeliz e perdida.1

Temos que procurar e encontrar todas as ovelhas perdidas do Senhor e lhes dar as Suas Palavras que vão lhes transmitir vida, amor e fé. Temos que trazer todas as ovelhas para o redil de Deus, para que possam pertencer a um só aprisco, com um só Pastor para sempre.

Devemos dizer a todos, embora nem todos dêem ouvidos, aceitem ou sejam salvos. Devemos a mensagem de Deus e Sua vida de amor a todos, mas principalmente àqueles que vão acreditar e recebê-la. Deus apenas alimenta as almas famintas, mas os que já se julgam alimentados e pensam não precisar d’Ele nem de uma mudança de vida, Ele despede vazios!2 Portanto, não perca tempo discutindo com os que não querem ver. O maior cego é o que não quer enxergar. Alimente agora os famintos, dê vista aos que anseiam pela luz e ame os desprezados.

Se Deus está do nosso lado, ninguém poderá prevalecer contra nós, por mais poderoso ou numeroso que seja! Tenha fé em Deus! “Se Deus é por nós, quem será contra nós?”1 Se fizer o bem, quem poderá detê-lo? Ninguém pode resistir ao poder de Deus nem às Suas forças do Céu, se Ele estiver do seu lado e você do dEle, fazendo o que é certo.2

Vamos lutar e vencer. A vitória é nossa! Glória a Deus! Talvez percamos algumas batalhas, mas estamos ganhando a guerra e em breve o mundo será nosso, para Deus e para o Seu Reino. Nunca desista e não se deixe desanimar. Tenha fé e bom ánimo, porque Deus está do seu lado e você não vai falhar! Vamos ganhar inevitavelmente, porque Deus está conosco e lutamos uma guerra santa, justa e legítima. Um combate de fé e amor por Deus e pelos outros. “O amor nunca falha”, porque “Deus é amor.”3

Jesus disse que o Céu e a Terra passarão, mas as Suas Palavras jamais passarão.4 Permanecem no Céu para sempre e ninguém jamais poderá negá-las ou se opor a elas. Então, use e divulgue as Palavras e o amor de Deus, em palavra e em obras, por todos os meios ao seu alcance, para dar às pessoas luz, esperança, vida, amor, paz, abundáncia, satisfação e também felicidade celestial para sempre!

Não é loucura dar uma vida que não se pode guardar em troca de um amor que nunca se perderá!

Se você ainda não recebeu o Amor e a Salvação que Jesus oferece, e o poder do Espírito Santo para poder se unir a esta guerra santa para conquistar as almas e os corações dos homens, faça apenas esta simples oração:

Querido Jesus eu Lhe peço que me mude, que perdoe todos os meus pecados, entre no meu coração e me dê a Vida Eterna de presente. Por favor me encha com o Seu Espírito Santo e me dê o poder para partilhar o Seu Amor e Salvação com os outros. Peço em Seu Nome. Amém.



http:// www.afamilia.org

E-mail: familia@afamilia.org

1 Cf. João 15:13; 2 Coríntios 8:14; Atos 4:35; 11:29

1 Cf. Mateus 18:12-14; Cf.Lucas 1:53

2 Lucas 15:3-7; João 10:1-16

1 Romanos 8:31

2 Cf. Atos 5:38-39

31 Coríntios 13:8;

4 Cf. Mateus 24:35 1 João 4:8



Copyright © 2004 por A Família

Read More

Is Jesus God?

http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/3-is-jesus-god/1

Have you ever met a man who is the center of attention wherever he goes? Some mysterious, indefinable characteristic sets him apart from all other men. Well, that’s the way it was two thousand years ago with Jesus Christ. But it wasn’t merely Jesus’ personality that captivated those who heard him. Those who witnessed his words and life tell us that something about Jesus of Nazareth was different from all other men.

Jesus’ only credentials were himself. He never wrote a book, commanded an army, held a political office, or owned property. He mostly traveled within a hundred miles of his village, attracting crowds who were amazed at his provocative words and stunning deeds.

Yet Jesus’ greatness was obvious to all those who saw and heard him. And while most great people eventually fade into history books, Jesus is still the focus of thousands of books and unparalleled media controversy. And much of that controversy revolves around the radical claims Jesus made about himself—claims that astounded both his followers and his adversaries.

It was primarily Jesus’ unique claims that caused him to be viewed as a threat by both the Roman authorities and the Jewish hierarchy. Although he was an outsider with no credentials or political powerbase, within three years, Jesus changed the world for the next 20 centuries. Other moral and religious leaders have left an impact—but nothing like that unknown carpenter’s son from Nazareth.

What was it about Jesus Christ that made the difference? Was he merely a great man, or something more?

These questions get to the heart of who Jesus really was. Some believe he was merely a great moral teacher; others believe he was simply the leader of the world’s greatest religion. But many believe something far more. Christians believe that God has actually visited us in human form. And they believe the evidence backs that up.

After carefully examining Jesus’ life and words, former Cambridge professor and skeptic, C. S. Lewis, came to a startling conclusion about him that altered the course of his life. So who is the real Jesus? Many will answer that Jesus was a great moral teacher. As we take a deeper look at the world’s most controversial person, we begin by asking: could Jesus have been merely a great moral teacher?


Great Moral Teacher?

Even those from other religions acknowledge that Jesus was a great moral teacher. Indian leader, Mahatma Gandhi, spoke highly of Jesus’ righteous life and profound words.[1] Likewise, Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner wrote, “It is universally admitted … that Christ taught the purest and sublimest ethics … which throws the moral precepts and maxims of the wisest men of antiquity far into the shade.”[2]

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount has been called the most superlative teaching of human ethics ever uttered by an individual. In fact, much of what we know today as “equal rights” actually is the result of Jesus’ teaching. Historian Will Durant, a non-Christian, said of Jesus that “he lived and struggled unremittingly for ‘equal rights’; in modern times he would have been sent to Siberia. ‘He that is greatest among you, let him be your servant’—this is the inversion of all political wisdom, of all sanity.”[3]

Many, like Gandhi, have tried to separate Jesus’ teaching on ethics from his claims about himself, believing that he was simply a great man who taught lofty moral principles. This was the approach of one of America’s Founding Fathers, President Thomas Jefferson, who cut and pasted a copy of the New Testament, removing sections he thought referred to Jesus’ deity, while leaving in other passages regarding Jesus’ ethical and moral teaching.[4] Jefferson carried around his cut and pasted New Testament with him, revering Jesus as perhaps the greatest moral teacher of all time.

In fact, Jefferson’s memorable words in the Declaration of Independence were rooted in Jesus’ teaching that each person is of immense and equal importance to God, regardless of sex, race, or social status. The famous document sets forth, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights …”

But one thing Jefferson didn’t answer: If Jesus falsely claimed to be God he couldn’t have been a good moral teacher. But did Jesus really claim deity? Before we look at what Jesus claimed, we need to examine the possibility that he was simply a great religious leader?


Great Religious Leader?

Surprisingly, Jesus never claimed to be a religious leader. He never got into religious politics or pushed an ambitious agenda, and he ministered almost entirely outside the established religious framework.

When one compares Jesus with the other great religious leaders, a remarkable distinction emerges. Ravi Zacharias, who grew up in a Hindu culture, has studied world religions and observed a fundamental distinction between Jesus Christ and the founders of other major religions.

“In all of these, there emerges an instruction, a way of living. It is not Zoroaster to whom you turn; it is Zoroaster to whom you listen. It is not Buddha who delivers you; it is his Noble Truths that instruct you. It is not Mohammad who transforms you; it is the beauty of the Koran that woos you. By contrast, Jesus did not only teach or expound His message. He was identical with His message.”[5]

The truth of Zacharias’ point is underscored by the number of times in the Gospels that Jesus’ teaching message was simply “Come to me” or “Follow me” or “Obey me.” Also, Jesus made it clear that his primary mission was to forgive sins, something only God could do.

In The World’s Great Religions, Huston Smith observed, “Only two people ever astounded their contemporaries so much that the question they evoked was not ‘Who is he?’ but ‘What is he?’ They were Jesus and Buddha. The answers these two gave were exactly the opposite. Buddha said unequivocally that he was a mere man, not a god—almost as if he foresaw later attempts to worship him. Jesus, on the other hand, claimed … to be divine.[6]

And that leads us to the question of what Jesus really did claim for himself; specifically, did Jesus claim to be divine?


Did Jesus Claim To Be The God Of Abraham & Moses?

Jesus continually referred to himself in ways that confounded his listeners. As Piper notes, Jesus made the audacious statement, “Before Abraham was, I AM.”[11] He told Martha and others around her, “I AM the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he is dead, yet shall he live.”[12] Likewise, Jesus would make statements like, “I AM the light of the world,”[13] “I AM the only way to God,”[14] or, “I AM the “truth.”[15] These and several other of his claims were preceded by the sacred words for God, “I AM” (ego eimi)[16]. What did Jesus mean by such statements, and what is the significance of the term, “I AM”?

Once again, we must go back to context. In the Hebrew Scriptures, when Moses asked God His name at the burning bush, God answered, “I AM.” He was revealing to Moses that He is the one and only God who is outside of time and has always existed. Incredibly, Jesus was using these holy words to describe himself. The question is, “Why?”

Since the time of Moses, no practicing Jew would ever refer to himself or anyone else by “I AM.” As a result, Jesus’ “I AM” claims infuriated the Jewish leaders. One time, for example, some leaders explained to Jesus why they were trying to kill him: “Because you, a mere man, have made yourself God.”[17]

Jesus’ usage of God’s name greatly angered the religious leaders. The point is that these Old Testament scholars knew exactly what he was saying—he was claiming to be God, the Creator of the universe. It is only this claim that would have brought the accusation of blasphemy. To read into the text that Jesus claimed to be God is clearly warranted, not simply by his words, but also by their reaction to those words.

C. S. Lewis initially considered Jesus a myth. But this literary genius who knew myths well, concluded that Jesus had to have been a real person. Furthermore, as Lewis investigated the evidence for Jesus, he became convinced that not only was Jesus real, but he was unlike any man who had ever lived. Lewis writes,

“Then comes the real shock,’ wrote Lewis: ‘Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time.”[18]

To Lewis, Jesus’ claims were simply too radical and profound to have been made by an ordinary teacher or religious leader. (For a more in-depth look at Jesus’ claim to deity, see “Did Jesus Claim to be God?”


What Kind Of God?

Some have argued that Jesus was only claiming to be part of God. But the idea that we are all part of God, and that within us is the seed of divinity, is simply not a possible meaning for Jesus’ words and actions. Such thoughts are revisionist, foreign to his teaching, foreign to his stated beliefs, and foreign to his disciples’ understanding of his teaching.

Jesus taught that he is God in the way the Jews understood God and the way the Hebrew Scriptures portrayed God, not in the way the New Age movement understands God. Neither Jesus nor his audience had been weaned on Star Wars, and so when they spoke of God, they were not speaking of cosmic forces. It’s simply bad history to redefine what Jesus meant by the concept of God.

Lewis explains,

Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God….But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world, who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.[19]

Certainly there are those who accept Jesus as a great teacher, yet are unwilling to call him God. As a Deist, we’ve seen that Thomas Jefferson had no problem accepting Jesus’ teachings on morals and ethics while denying his deity.[20] But as we’ve said, and will explore further, if Jesus was not who he claimed to be, then we must examine some other alternatives, none of which would make him a great moral teacher. Lewis, argued, “I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say.”[21]

In his quest for truth, Lewis knew that he could not have it both ways with the identity of Jesus. Either Jesus was who he claimed to be—God in the flesh—or his claims were false. And if they were false, Jesus could not be a great moral teacher. He would either be lying intentionally or he would be a lunatic with a God complex.


Could Jesus Have Been Lying?

Even Jesus’ harshest critics rarely have called him a liar. That label certainly doesn’t fit with Jesus’ high moral and ethical teaching. But if Jesus isn’t who he claimed to be, we must consider the option that he was intentionally misleading everyone.

One of the best-known and most influential political works of all time was written by Niccolò Machiavelli in 1532. In his classic, The Prince, Machiavelli exalts power, success, image, and efficiency above loyalty, faith, and honesty. According to Machiavelli, lying is okay if it accomplishes a political end.

Could Jesus Christ have built his entire ministry upon a lie just to gain power, fame, or success? In fact, the Jewish opponents of Jesus were constantly trying to expose him as a fraud and liar. They would barrage him with questions in attempts to trip him up and make him contradict himself. Yet Jesus responded with remarkable consistency.

The question we must deal with is: What could possibly motivate Jesus to live his entire life as a lie? He taught that God was opposed to lying and hypocrisy, so he wouldn’t have been doing it to please his Father. He certainly didn’t lie for his followers’ benefit, since all but one were martyred rather than renouncing his Lordship (see “Did the Apostles believe Jesus is God?” . And so we are left with only two other reasonable explanations, each of which is problematic.


Benefit

Many people have lied for personal gain. In fact, the motivation of most lies is some perceived benefit to oneself. What could Jesus have hoped to gain from lying about his identity? Power would be the most obvious answer. If people believed he was God, he would have tremendous power. (That is why many ancient leaders, such as the Caesars, claimed divine origin.)

The rub with this explanation is that Jesus shunned all attempts to move him in the direction of seated power, instead chastising those who abused such power and lived their lives pursuing it. He also chose to reach out to the outcasts (prostitutes and lepers), those without power, creating a network of people whose influence was less than zero. In a way that could only be described as bizarre, all that Jesus did and said moved diametrically in the other direction from power.

It would seem that if power was Jesus’ motivation, he would have avoided the cross at all costs. Yet, on several occasions, he told his disciples that the cross was his destiny and mission. How would dying on a Roman cross bring one power?

Death, of course, brings all things into proper focus. And while many martyrs have died for a cause they believed in, few have been willing to die for a known lie. Certainly all hopes for Jesus’ own personal gain would have ended on the cross. Yet, to his last breath, he would not relinquish his claim of being the unique Son of God. New Testament scholar, J. I. Packer, points out that this title asserts Jesus’ personal deity.[22]


A Legacy

So if Jesus was above lying for personal benefit, perhaps his radical claims were falsified in order to leave a legacy. But the prospect of being beaten to a pulp and nailed to a cross would quickly dampen the enthusiasm of most would-be superstars.

Here is another haunting fact. If Jesus were to have simply dropped the claim of being God’s Son, he never would have been condemned. It was his claim to be God and his unwillingness to recant of it that got him crucified.

If enhancing his credibility and historical reputation was what motivated Jesus to lie, one must explain how a carpenter’s son from a poor Judean village could ever anticipate the events that would catapult his name to worldwide prominence. How would he know his message would survive? Jesus’ disciples had fled and Peter had denied him. Not exactly the formula for launching a religious legacy.

Do historians believe Jesus lied? Scholars have scrutinized Jesus’ words and life to see if there is any evidence of a defect in his moral character. In fact, even the most ardent skeptics are stunned by Jesus’ moral and ethical purity.

According to historian Philip Schaff, there is no evidence, either in church history or in secular history that Jesus lied about anything. Schaff argued, “How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could a deceitful, selfish, depraved man have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character known in history with the most perfect air of truth and reality?”[23]

To go with the option of liar seems to swim upstream against everything Jesus taught, lived, and died for. To most scholars, it just doesn’t make sense. Yet, to deny Jesus’ claims, one must come up with some explanation. And if Jesus’ claims are not true, and he wasn’t lying, the only option remaining is that he must have been self-deceived.


Could Jesus Have Been Self-Deceived?

Albert Schweitzer, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1952 for his humanitarian efforts, had his own views about Jesus. Schweitzer concluded that insanity was behind Jesus’ claim to be God. In other words, Jesus was wrong about his claims but didn’t intentionally lie. According to this theory, Jesus was deluded into actually believing he was the Messiah.

Lewis considered this option carefully. He deduced that if Jesus’ claims weren’t true, then he must have been insane. Lewis reasons that someone who claimed to be God would not be a great moral teacher. “He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell.”[24]

Most who have studied Jesus’ life and words acknowledge him as extremely rational. Although his own life was filled with immorality and personal skepticism, the renowned French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78) acknowledged Jesus’ superior character and presence of mind, stating, “When Plato describes his imaginary righteous man…he describes exactly the character of Christ. …If the life and death of Socrates are those of a philosopher, the life and death of Jesus Christ are those of a God.”[25]

Bono concludes that a “nutcase” was the last thing one could label Jesus.

“So what you’re left with is either Christ was who He said He was—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we’re talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson….I’m not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside down by a nutcase, for me that’s far-fetched….”[26]

So, was Jesus a liar or a lunatic, or was he the Son of God? Could Jefferson have been right by labeling Jesus “only a good moral teacher” while denying his deity? Interestingly, the audience who heard Jesus—both believers and enemies—never regarded him as a mere moral teacher. Jesus produced three primary effects in the people who met him: hatred, terror, or adoration.

The claims of Jesus Christ force us to choose. As Lewis stated, we cannot put Jesus in the category of being just a great religious leader or good moral teacher. This former skeptic challenges us to make up our own minds about Jesus, stating,

“You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”[27]

In Mere Christianity, Lewis explores the options regarding the identity of Jesus, concluding that he is exactly who he claimed to be. His careful examination of the life and words of Jesus led this great literary genius to renounce his former atheism and become a committed Christian.

The greatest question in human history is, “Who is the real Jesus Christ?” Bono, Lewis, and countless others have concluded that God visited our planet in human form. But if that is true, then we would expect him to be alive today. And that is exactly what his followers believe.


Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead?

The eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ actually spoke and acted like they believed he physically rose from the dead after his crucifixion. If they were wrong then Christianity has been founded upon a lie. But if they were right, such a miracle would substantiate all Jesus said about God, himself, and us.

But must we take the resurrection of Jesus Christ by faith alone, or is there solid historical evidence? Several skeptics began investigations into the historical record to prove the resurrection account false. What did they discover?

Click here to take a look at the evidence for the most fantastic claim ever made—the resurrection of Jesus Christ!

Read More

Os evangelhos gnósticos

http://y-jesus.org/portuguese/more/ggh-evangelhos-gnosticos/

Eles são a verdadeira história de Jesus?

Existem textos secretos sobre Jesus?

Em 1945, foi feita uma descoberta no note do Egito, próximo à cidade de Nag Hammadi. Cinquenta e duas cópias de textos antigos, chamados de evangelhos gnósticos, foram encontradas em 13 códices de papiro envoltos em couro (livros escritos à mão). Eles foram escritos em copto e pertenciam a uma biblioteca de um monastério.Alguns estudiosos gnósticos chegaram até a afirmar que esses textos recentemente descobertos são a história verdadeira de Jesus em vez do Novo Testamento. Mas será que a fé deles nesses documentos bate com as evidências históricas? Vamos olhar com mais detalhes para ver se conseguimos separar a verdade da ficção.

“Conhecedores” Secretos

Os evangelhos gnósticos foram atribuídos a um grupo conhecido como (para nossa surpresa) os Gnósticos. Seu nome vem da palavra grega gnosis que significa “conhecimento”. Essas pessoas pensavam ter conhecimentos secretos e especiais, ocultos das pessoas comuns. Com a propagação do cristianismo, os Gnósticos combinaram algumas doutrinas e elementos do cristianismo com suas próprias crenças, transformando o Gnosticismo em uma simulação. Talvez tenham feito isto para aumentar o número de fiéis e tornar Jesus um garoto-propaganda para sua causa. Contudo, para que sua linha de pensamento fosse compatível com o cristianismo, Jesus precisava ser reinventado, retirando sua humanidade e sua divindade absoluta.

Em A História do Cristianismo de Oxford, John McManners escreveu sobre a mistura de cristianismo e crenças míticas dos gnósticos. O gnosticismo foi (e ainda é) uma teosofia com muitos ingredientes. Ocultismo e misticismo oriental combinam-se com astrologia e mágica. … Eles integram os ensinamentos de Jesus e acomodam-nos em sua própria interpretação (como no Evangelho de Tomás), oferecendo aos seus membros uma forma alternativa ou rival de cristianismo.[1]
Primeiros Críticos


Uma pequena linha filosófica gnóstica já crescia no primeiro século, apenas décadas depois da morte de Jesus. Os apóstolos, em seus ensinamentos e escritos, condenaram fortemente essas crenças como opostas à verdade de Jesus, de quem foram testemunha. Veja, por exemplo, o que o apóstolo João escreveu perto do fim do primeiro século:

Quem é o mentiroso? Senão aquele que nega que Jesus é o Cristo? É o anticristo esse mesmo que nega o Pai e o Filho. (1 João 2:22, NVI).

Seguindo os ensinamentos dos apóstolos, os líderes da igreja primitiva condenam unanimemente os gnósticos como um culto. O padre Ireneu, escrevendo 140 anos antes do Concílio de Niceia, confirmou que os gnósticos eram condenados pela igreja como hereges. Ele também rejeitou seus “evangelhos”. Porém, com relação aos quatro evangelhos do Novo Testamento, ele diz: “Não é possível que os evangelhos sejam em quantidade maior o menor do que são”. [2] O teólogo cristão Orígenes escreveu no início do terceiro século mais de cem anos antes de Niceia:

Conheço um certo evangelho chamado “O Evangelho segundo Tomás” e um “Evangelho segundo Matias” e muitos outros que li, já que não devemos ser considerados de nenhuma maneira ignorante pelos que imaginam ter algum conhecimento sobre esses. Contudo, dentre todos esses aprovamos somente os reconhecidos pela igreja, que são os únicos quatro evangelhos que devem ser aceitos.[3]
Autores Misteriosos


Com relação aos evangelhos gnósticos, cada livro leva o nome de uma personagem do Novo Testamento: O Evangelho de Filipe, o Evangelho de Pedro, o Evangelho de Maria e assim em diante. Mas será que eles foram mesmo escritos por seus supostos autores? Vamos dar uma olhada. Os evangelhos gnósticos são datados de 110 a 300 anos depois de Cristo e nenhum acadêmico crível acredita que algum deles poderia ter sido escrito por seus homônimos. No abrangente A Biblioteca de Nag Hammadi de James M. Robinson, vemos que os evangelhos gnósticos foram escritos por “autores desconhecidos e independentes”.[4] O estudioso do Novo Testamento Norman Geisler escreve: “Os escritos gnósticos não foram escritos pelos apóstolos, mas por homens do século dois (ou posterior) com intenções de usar a autoridade apostólica para divulgar seus próprios ensinos. Nos dias de hoje chamamos isto de fraude e falsificação”.[5]

Mistérios versus história

Os evangelhos gnósticos não são relatos históricos da vida de Jesus, mas sim declarações esotéricas, envoltas em mistério, que deixam de fora detalhes históricos como nomes, locais e eventos. Este é um contraste marcante com os evangelhos do Novo Testamento que contém diversos fatos históricos sobre a vida, ministério e palavras de Jesus. Em quem você preferiria acreditar: em alguém que diz “ei, tenho alguns fatos secretos que foram revelados pra mim misteriosamente” ou em alguém que diz “pesquisei todas as evidências e história e aqui estão elas para que você possa formar sua opinião”? Mantendo esta pergunta em mente, considere as duas afirmações a seguir, a primeira do Evangelho Gnóstico de Tomé (cerca de 110 a 150 d. c.) e a segunda do Evangelho de Lucas do Novo Testamento (cerca de 55 a 70 d. c.).
Esses são os ditos ocultos que o Jesus vivente falou e Judas Tomé, o gêmeo registrou.[6]
Muitos já se dedicaram a elaborar um relato dos fatos que se cumpriram entre nós, conforme nos foram transmitidos por aqueles que desde o início foram testemunhas oculares e servos da palavra. Eu mesmo investiguei tudo cuidadosamente, desde o começo, e decidi escrever-te um relato ordenado, ó excelentíssimo Teófilo, para que tenhas a certeza das coisas que te foram ensinadas. (Lucas 1:1-4, NVI)

Você gostou da abordagem aberta e direta de Lucas? E acha que o fato de ter sido escrito mais próximo dos eventos originais favorece sua confiabilidade? Se sim, também foi isso que a igreja antiga pensou. E a maioria dos estudiosos concorda com a visão da igreja antiga de que o Novo Testamento é a história autêntica de Jesus. O estudioso do Novo Testamento Raymond Brown comentou dos evangelhos gnósticos: “não conhecemos nenhum novo fato verificável sobre o ministério de Jesus, apenas algumas novas declarações que podem ter sido dele”.[7] Portanto, mesmo que os textos gnósticos tenham impressionado alguns estudiosos, sua data tardia e autoria questionável não se comparam ao Novo Testamento. Tal contraste entre o Novo Testamento e os textos gnósticos é devastante para os que apoiam teorias de conspiração. O historiador do Novo Testamento F. F. Bruce escreveu: “não há obra de literatura antiga no mundo que goza de tamanha riqueza de comprovação textual do que o Novo Testamento”.[8]

Read More

Why Russia evacuated its naval base in Syria

By Fred Weir, CS Monitor, June 27, 2013

Moscow—In a surprise move, Russia has pulled all its military and nondiplomatic civilian personnel out of Syria. That includes a complete evacuation of the naval supply station in the Mediterranean port of Tartus, which is often discussed as one of Russia’s key reasons for its long and stubborn support of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

"We have neither servicemen nor civilians in Syria anymore. Or Russian military instructors assigned to units of the Syrian regular Army, for that matter," a Russian defense ministry spokesperson is quoted as telling the Moscow business daily Vedomosti yesterday.

The Tartus naval supply station, Russia’s only military base outside the former USSR, has been effectively closed, Russian deputy foreign minister and special Middle East envoy Mikhail Bogdanov confirmed in an interview with a Turkish newspaper. He insisted that the base, which housed about 70 fulltime military technicians to service visiting Russian warships, was of no strategic importance to Russia.

"It’s just a technical facility for maintaining ships sailing in the Mediterranean," he said.

That answer seems a trifle inadequate. The obvious question is: Why abandon Tartus now, given that the Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean has never been so large?

Earlier this month Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia will maintain a permanent naval flotilla in the region for the first time since the collapse of the USSR more than 20 years ago. “This is a strategically important region and we have tasks to carry out there to provide for the national security of the Russian Federation," he said.

The Russian Navy has been holding almost nonstop maneuvers in the eastern Mediterranean for more than a year, and currently has a 16-warship task force in the area.

"The first and likeliest reason for the closure is that Russia doesn’t want to risk the lives of 70 military personnel stationed at Tartus," says Vladimir Sotnikov, expert with the official Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow.

"Now that the battlefield initiative in Syria’s civil war is in the hands of the Assad regime, Russia might fear some [rebel] provocations against our people. Another possible reason may be to help promote the Geneva-2 talks. We have information that Russia, the United Nations and the US have agreed to a format for the talks. So, perhaps Russia wants to dispel impression that its position is based on some desire to hold on to this station," Mr. Sotnikov says.

"In any case, Russian ships have the opportunity to go to Cyprus for supplies and maintenance, and it’s safer for them to do so right now," he adds.

Russia has also been steadily evacuating the estimated 30,000 Russian citizens living in Syria since early this year, and yesterday the Ministry of Emergency Services reported that it had extracted another 130 Russians from Latakia in northwest Syria and flown them back to Russia.

Other Russian analysts agree that, whatever the reasons for Russia’s personnel pullout, it probably doesn’t signal any change of the pro-Assad position that Mr. Putin most recently reiterated at last week’s G8 summit in Northern Ireland.

"Russia’s position hasn’t changed. In fact it’s getting tougher," says Sergei Strokan, a foreign affairs columnist with the pro-business Moscow daily Kommersant.

"The reasons behind this evacuation probably come down to security. That base’s importance has been greatly overrated in Western reporting. It just isn’t that big a deal. So, I guess the thinking is, why risk some major incident that the rebels might stage by attacking Russians at this sensitive moment when all the hopes are pinned on a new Geneva peace conference?"

Read More

Ecuador unilaterally scraps U.S. trade deal

By Juan Forero, Washington Post, June 27, 2013 BOGOTA, Colombia—The leftist government of Ecuador, under pressure from the Obama administration for considering a request for sanctuary from the American intelligence leaker Edward Snowden, announced Thursday that it will back out of a preferential trade pact with the United States that top Ecuadoran officials say is being used to blackmail their country. The move, which President Rafael Correa’s government described as unilateral, came a day after the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee pledged to do all he could to block trade benefits for Ecuador should it grant Snowden political asylum. "Our government will not reward countries for bad behavior," Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said in a statement Wednesday. “Trade preferences are a privilege granted to nations, not a right." Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who is presumed to be in Moscow, has asked for asylum in Ecuador. While the government has made no decision in response to the request, Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño voiced sympathy for the 30-year-old fugitive in lengthy comments Monday. At a news conference Thursday, Minister of Communications Fernando Alvarado pushed back at perceived efforts to influence Ecuador’s decision. It “doesn’t accept pressure or threats from anybody, and it doesn’t trade its principles or give them up for commercial interests, no matter how important," the Quito-based newspaper El Comercio quoted him as saying. Alvarado said his country “unilaterally and irrevocably renounces those trade preferences" and defiantly quipped that Ecuador would provide $23 million to the Obama administration for human rights training.

Read More

New 'digital dementia' plaguing young tech users

Fox News, June 26, 2013

While dementia is a disease that typically plagues the elderly, a new type of cognitive condition is affecting younger individuals in their early 20s and teens—a disorder known as “digital dementia."

Digital dementia is characterized as the deterioration of brain function as a result of the overuse of digital technology, such as computers, smart phones and Internet use in general, Medical Daily reported. This excess use of technology leads to unbalanced brain development, as heavy users are more likely to overdevelop their left brains, leaving their right brains underdeveloped.

The left side of the brain is generally associated with rational thought, numerical computation and fact finding, while the right side of the brain is responsible for more creative skills and emotional thoughts. If the right brain remains underdeveloped in the long term, it can lead to the early onset of dementia.

"Ten to 15 percent of those with the mild cognitive disorders develop dementia," said psychiatrist Park Ki-Jeong.

Common symptoms of digital dementia include memory problems, shortened attention spans and emotional flattening.

According to experts, this disorder has become a significant problem in South Korea, which is home to the world’s largest population of Internet users. The World Bank found that 83.8 percent of South Koreans have Internet access, and The Wall Street Journal estimated that 85 percent of the country’s population will have smartphones by 2017.

Numerous clinics have been established in South Korea to address digital dementia, such as the Balance Brain Center in southern Seoul. Many experts have called for Internet addiction to be classified as a mental disorder and that it should be treated as a major public health issue.

Read More

The No-Show

By Anna Nemtsova, Foreign Policy, June 26, 2013

HAVANA—We’re waiting for you in Havana, Snowden. Are you on your way?

It’s still unclear what happened on Monday, June 24, the day after leaker Edward Snowden arrived in Moscow from Hong Kong. That day, Snowden was supposed to board a plane to Havana to then transfer to Ecuador, one of the very few places willing to shield him from the American officials who regard him as a traitor. He even had a boarding pass for the window seat in row F, in economy class. But he never showed up, and his seat stayed empty.

Was Snowden trapped in the transit zone of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo International Airport against his will by the Russian security service, curious to see the data he had in his computers? Or was he afraid of flying in a plane that could be grounded while passing over the United States, where American courts were waiting to lock him up in jail for over 30 years? Until the very moment the Aeroflot crew closed the plane’s door, it looked like he was coming: Russian police surrounded Gate 28, patrolling outside and inside the airplane. The crew members on the plane looked tense and upset, as if they were facing a horrible trial. We still don’t know what happened at the last moment, but in the end Snowden stayed in Moscow.

I was on that plane, waiting for him along with several dozen other journalists from international news agencies and TV channels, all of us eager to quiz him about his claims. I wanted to ask Snowden about the evidence he had to prove his claims that the U.S. and British intelligence agencies, despite their governments’ public advocacy for freedom of the Internet, had been spying and stealing tons of personal data from people in their home countries.

For a long time, after we took off, we still could not believe that Snowden was not among us: After all, who knew what disguise he might be using? (This might seem a bit less crazy when you consider that we just saw an American spy wearing a wig last month.) Trapped on the flight for 12 hours, journalists walked around the plane looking into every passenger’s face. Other reporters were already waiting to greet Snowden in Cuba. They looked for him inside and outside Havana’s airport, asking every young blond male if he was Snowden. I’m still hoping to meet up with Snowden here in Havana, though Ecuadorean diplomats now say it may take months to issue him political asylum.

There’s one very specific reason Snowden may be having trouble finding a way out of the Moscow airport’s transit lounge, where he apparently is right now: his papers. Right now the only travel document he has is one of dubious status issued by the Ecuadoreans. After the American authorities canceled his U.S. passport on Monday, no airline wants to sell him another plane ticket. (He apparently managed to buy his ticket for Havana while his passport was still valid.)

There are other theories. “He got frightened that Americans would bring him down on that plane," says Igor Bunin, a Moscow political analyst. “He’s a huge pain for the Kremlin, a Catch-22. Now that he’s turned into an anti-American government star, Russia can’t kick him out, but keeping him means even a bigger international scandal." I’d love to ask Snowden about his days and nights in Russia if I ever get the chance to meet him.

My friend Olga Bychkova, a host from radio Echo of Moscow, described a scene she witnessed in the airport’s transit zone on the day of Snowden’s arrival on Sunday. “I saw about 20 Russian officials, supposedly FSB [security service] agents in suits, crowding around somebody in a restricted area of the airport," Bychkova told me. “The Kremlin pretends they have nothing to do with him being stuck in Moscow, but in reality they’re all over him."

What’s up Mr. Snowden? Do you really hate reporters? If you’re “a free man," as President Vladimir Putin says, why hide from crowds of journalists waiting to talk to you in Sheremetyevo airport for three days? WikiLeaks claims that you—the biggest leaker in the history of the National Security Agency—are “in a safe place." If you’re safe and free, why didn’t you use your ticket last Monday? You would have had a great chance to explain the reasons for renouncing your wealthy life with a beautiful girlfriend. Just imagine: 12 hours in front of the world’s major networks on the flight to Cuba! Russian commentators think that you’re not as free as the Russian leader claims, that somebody did not allow you to fly Monday. “Snowden will fly out of Russia when the Kremlin decides he can go," says Moscow political analyst Dmitry Oreshkin. “He might not even be in the airport. The safest place would be a GRU [Russian military intelligence] apartment." That would also explain why no one has seen your face in Moscow yet.

Read More

A Harvard Economist's Simple Productivity Secret

By Chip Cutter, LinkedIn, June 27, 2013

ASPEN, Colo.—It’s one of the most common complaints in the professional world: Too little time.

Workers who log 60-plus hour weeks gripe that they don’t have enough room in their schedule to even tame their inboxes, much less think about big projects in some creative way.

But time isn’t the problem, says Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan. The ultimate barrier to success is a shortage of mental “bandwidth," or the ability to focus on a task in the moment.

Mullainathan’s research focuses on scarcity, and how humans respond when they have a shortage of something—be it money, food or time. He presented his findings Thursday at the annual Aspen Ideas Festival, along with his research partner, Princeton psychologist Eldar Shafir.

What they’ve discovered is that shortages lead people to make poor decisions. That’s because the brain can only process so much.

The problem extends across income levels. Busy professionals fail to schedule their time in efficient ways for the same reasons low-income people fall for predatory lending schemes. They’re distracted, Shafir says.

Take an example from your own life: If you’re thirsty, and desperately want water, it’s hard to think about anything else. If you’re low on money, budget concerns frequently pop into your thoughts.

The same is true in the professional world. A lack of time isn’t the issue; a lack of focus is.

Mullainathan’s own productivity breakthrough came when he dropped his cellphone in a toilet.

That night, he went to dinner with friends, and found he had a surprisingly fun time. His friends didn’t get more interesting. The food wasn’t better than usual. What changed was that he didn’t have his phone.

That meant he couldn’t receive potentially bothersome emails or text messages before or during the meal. “My bandwidth for those two hours was focused on the thing I wanted to be focused on," he says.

Since then, he’s made other changes. He no longer receives work email on his phone. Before a meeting, he tries not to get to check email, so he’s focused on the discussion ahead.

And he’s come to a realization.

"All those times that I thought I was using my time well—‘Hey, I’ve got five minutes, let me check my email’—I was actually using my bandwidth badly."

Mullainathan concluded by urging the audience to think back to Henry Ford.

The automaker famously discovered in the early 1900s that, by increasing his employees’ schedules to 60 hours a week, he could squeeze more productivity out of them. But that burst of productivity lasted only about four weeks. Over time, the workers putting in 60 hours a week began producing less than their counterparts who worked 40 hours.

The people working overtime lacked “not just the ability to work hard, but the ability to actually think hard about the problem," Mullainathan said.

The lesson for professionals: Having precious little time doesn’t matter. Spending quality time with it does.

Read More

An Inconvient Tooth- Fluoride Documentary

Read More