Ravi at Princeton University - Why I'm Not an Atheist
Monday, January 13, 2014
Ariel Sharon, former Israeli PM, dies at 85
By Josef Federman, AP, Jan 11, 2014
JERUSALEM (AP)—Ariel Sharon, the hard-charging Israeli general and prime minister who was admired and hated for his battlefield exploits and ambitions to reshape the Middle East, died Saturday, eight years after a stroke left him in a coma from which he never awoke. He was 85.
As one of Israel’s most famous soldiers, Sharon was known for bold tactics and an occasional refusal to obey orders. As a politician he became known as “the bulldozer,” a man contemptuous of his critics while also capable of getting things done.
He led his country into a divisive war in Lebanon in 1982 and was branded as indirectly responsible for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians at the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps outside Beirut when his troops allowed allied Lebanese militias into the camps. Yet ultimately he transformed himself into a prime minister and statesman.
Sharon’s son Gilad announced the death on Saturday afternoon. Sharon’s health had taken a downturn over the past week and a half as a number of bodily organs, including his kidneys, stopped functioning, and doctors on Thursday pronounced his condition “grave.”
"He has gone. He went when he decided to go," Gilad Sharon said outside the hospital where his father had been treated in recent years.
The life and career of the man Israelis called “Arik” will be remembered for its three distinct stages: his eventful and controversial time in uniform, his years as a vociferous political operator who helped create Israel’s settlement movement and mastermind of the Lebanon invasion, then his successful term as a pragmatist prime minister, capped by a dramatic withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and curtailed at the height of his popularity by his sudden stroke.
The Gaza pullout culminated a gradual abandonment of the hard-line policies for which he was known. In the tumultuous summer of 2005, he pulled all of Israel’s settlers and soldiers out of the seaside strip, having played a key role in putting them there in the first place. “The fate of Netzarim is the fate of Tel Aviv,” Sharon had famously said, referring to a Gaza settlement, just three years earlier.
Characteristically, the move was unilateral; Sharon was dubious that much good could come of talks with the Palestinians.
Sharon painted his “disengagement” plan as a step to reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians. It was accompanied by construction of a massive separation barrier in the West Bank. While presented as security measures, they also represented an admission of sorts that continued control of the fast-growing Palestinian population could threaten Israel’s Jewish and democratic character.
A few months later he left the hawkish Likud party, which he helped found, and created the centrist Kadima as a vehicle for himself, planning to lead it to a third election victory. But a few months later—77 years old, and considerably overweight—he suffered two strokes. The second one, in 2006, left him comatose in a Jerusalem hospital. His deputy, Ehud Olmert, became prime minister and led Kadima to victory in the election.
Ariel Sharon was born to Russian immigrant parents on Feb. 26, 1928, in the small farming community of Kfar Malal, north of Tel Aviv. He joined the Haganah, the pre-state Jewish defense force, at 14 and later went on to command an infantry platoon during the 1948 Mideast war over Israel’s creation. He was seriously wounded in battle with the Jordanian Legion over control of the road to Jerusalem.
By 1953 he was commanding Unit 101, a commando force formed to carry out reprisals for Arab attacks. After the slaying of an Israeli woman and her two children, his troops blew up more than 40 houses in Qibya, a West Bank village then ruled by Jordan, killing 69 Arabs, most or all of them civilians. Three years later, after Israel’s invasion of the Sinai Peninsula, Sharon was rebuked for engaging in what his commanders regarded as an unnecessary battle with Egyptian forces in which some 30 Israeli soldiers died.
But accolades mounted as well. His finest hour in uniform, as he described it, came after Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in the 1973 Mideast war. Sharon was brought out of retirement by an army desperate for leadership and commanded 27,000 Israelis in a daring drive across the Suez Canal, an operation that turned the tide of the fighting. A photograph of a boyish, 45-year-old Sharon, a bloody bandage around his head, remains one of the most enduring images of that war.
Sharon later became a Cabinet minister in the hawkish government led by Menachem Begin. When Begin shifted to the center—much as Sharon would do decades later—and signed a peace agreement with Egypt that required an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, Sharon voted against it.
He served as Begin’s defense minister, even though the prime minister once said he was reluctant to give Sharon the job lest he “encircle the prime minister’s office with tanks.”
Next came the episode that most assumed would end his political career.
In 1982, after a string of attacks by Palestinian gunmen based in Lebanon, Sharon engineered Israel’s invasion of that country, portraying it as a quick, limited strike to drive Palestinian fighters from Israel’s northern border.
Later it emerged that Sharon’s plan had always been far more ambitious: He wanted to reach Beirut and install a regime that would make peace with Israel. That plan was concealed not only from the public, but also from the Cabinet ministers who had approved it. It was, some Israeli commentators said, the closest the country had come to a coup d’etat.
That September, the Israeli military, controlling parts of Beirut, allowed members of the Phalange, a Lebanese Christian militia allied with Israel, to enter the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Chatilla in Beirut to root out “terrorists.” The militiamen systematically slaughtered hundreds of civilians, including women and children. The massacres sparked mass protests in Israel and abroad.
An Israeli commission rejected Sharon’s contention that he had not known what was coming and he was fired, though his popularity and political clout left him in the Cabinet as a minister without portfolio. His political ambitions were crippled, but not destroyed.
The fast operation Sharon had promised eventually left Israel mired in Lebanon for 18 years. It also led to battles in the courtroom.
In 1983, Sharon filed a $50 million lawsuit against Time Magazine for alleging that Sharon, while defense minister, had discussed avenging the murder of Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel with Lebanese Christian militia leaders. Time said the discussion was held the day before the Sabra and Chatilla massacres. A six-member jury in New York concluded that the Time report was false but acquitted the magazine of libel, saying it published the report in good faith.
Over the years, Sharon rehabilitated his political career and used various Cabinet posts to build dozens of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, despite international protests. As foreign minister in 1998, Sharon famously called on Jewish settlers to occupy as much land as possible before a deal was reached with the Palestinians.
"Everyone there should move, should run, should grab more hills, expand the territory. Everything that’s grabbed will be in our hands, everything that we don’t grab will be in their hands," he said.
In 2000, as leader of the opposition, he paid a high-profile visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary. The tense site is holy to Jews and Muslims, and houses Islam’s third-holiest shrine.
The visit came at a time of heightened tensions. Peace talks had stalled at a time when the sides were on the verge of an agreement, and Palestinian riots escalated into a full-fledged uprising that lasted years and claimed thousands of lives.
Critics said the visit was an act of recklessness at a time of rising tensions. Others maintained the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, who rejected an Israeli peace offer not long before, used the visit as a pretext to unleash the uprising.
Four months later, with suicide bombers exploding in their cities, Israelis elected Sharon by a landslide. The new prime minister led Israel’s aggressive military response to the uprising, including a tough offensive in the spring of 2002 following an especially bloody Passover suicide bombing inside Israel, and had all but ended it by 2004.
At the same time, he began to soften his opposition to territorial withdrawals. He called Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza an “occupation” for the first time, conceded that an independent Palestinian state was inevitable, and spearheaded the Gaza pullout.
Domestically, Sharon became the latest in a long line of Israeli prime ministers whose terms were marred by corruption probes.
He was accused of improper fundraising and accepting bribes, allegedly paid to one of his sons, from a prominent real-estate developer, but never charged. His oldest son, Omri, however, later served seven months in prison for fraud convicted to campaign fundraising for his father.
JERUSALEM (AP)—Ariel Sharon, the hard-charging Israeli general and prime minister who was admired and hated for his battlefield exploits and ambitions to reshape the Middle East, died Saturday, eight years after a stroke left him in a coma from which he never awoke. He was 85.
As one of Israel’s most famous soldiers, Sharon was known for bold tactics and an occasional refusal to obey orders. As a politician he became known as “the bulldozer,” a man contemptuous of his critics while also capable of getting things done.
He led his country into a divisive war in Lebanon in 1982 and was branded as indirectly responsible for the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians at the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps outside Beirut when his troops allowed allied Lebanese militias into the camps. Yet ultimately he transformed himself into a prime minister and statesman.
Sharon’s son Gilad announced the death on Saturday afternoon. Sharon’s health had taken a downturn over the past week and a half as a number of bodily organs, including his kidneys, stopped functioning, and doctors on Thursday pronounced his condition “grave.”
"He has gone. He went when he decided to go," Gilad Sharon said outside the hospital where his father had been treated in recent years.
The life and career of the man Israelis called “Arik” will be remembered for its three distinct stages: his eventful and controversial time in uniform, his years as a vociferous political operator who helped create Israel’s settlement movement and mastermind of the Lebanon invasion, then his successful term as a pragmatist prime minister, capped by a dramatic withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and curtailed at the height of his popularity by his sudden stroke.
The Gaza pullout culminated a gradual abandonment of the hard-line policies for which he was known. In the tumultuous summer of 2005, he pulled all of Israel’s settlers and soldiers out of the seaside strip, having played a key role in putting them there in the first place. “The fate of Netzarim is the fate of Tel Aviv,” Sharon had famously said, referring to a Gaza settlement, just three years earlier.
Characteristically, the move was unilateral; Sharon was dubious that much good could come of talks with the Palestinians.
Sharon painted his “disengagement” plan as a step to reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians. It was accompanied by construction of a massive separation barrier in the West Bank. While presented as security measures, they also represented an admission of sorts that continued control of the fast-growing Palestinian population could threaten Israel’s Jewish and democratic character.
A few months later he left the hawkish Likud party, which he helped found, and created the centrist Kadima as a vehicle for himself, planning to lead it to a third election victory. But a few months later—77 years old, and considerably overweight—he suffered two strokes. The second one, in 2006, left him comatose in a Jerusalem hospital. His deputy, Ehud Olmert, became prime minister and led Kadima to victory in the election.
Ariel Sharon was born to Russian immigrant parents on Feb. 26, 1928, in the small farming community of Kfar Malal, north of Tel Aviv. He joined the Haganah, the pre-state Jewish defense force, at 14 and later went on to command an infantry platoon during the 1948 Mideast war over Israel’s creation. He was seriously wounded in battle with the Jordanian Legion over control of the road to Jerusalem.
By 1953 he was commanding Unit 101, a commando force formed to carry out reprisals for Arab attacks. After the slaying of an Israeli woman and her two children, his troops blew up more than 40 houses in Qibya, a West Bank village then ruled by Jordan, killing 69 Arabs, most or all of them civilians. Three years later, after Israel’s invasion of the Sinai Peninsula, Sharon was rebuked for engaging in what his commanders regarded as an unnecessary battle with Egyptian forces in which some 30 Israeli soldiers died.
But accolades mounted as well. His finest hour in uniform, as he described it, came after Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in the 1973 Mideast war. Sharon was brought out of retirement by an army desperate for leadership and commanded 27,000 Israelis in a daring drive across the Suez Canal, an operation that turned the tide of the fighting. A photograph of a boyish, 45-year-old Sharon, a bloody bandage around his head, remains one of the most enduring images of that war.
Sharon later became a Cabinet minister in the hawkish government led by Menachem Begin. When Begin shifted to the center—much as Sharon would do decades later—and signed a peace agreement with Egypt that required an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, Sharon voted against it.
He served as Begin’s defense minister, even though the prime minister once said he was reluctant to give Sharon the job lest he “encircle the prime minister’s office with tanks.”
Next came the episode that most assumed would end his political career.
In 1982, after a string of attacks by Palestinian gunmen based in Lebanon, Sharon engineered Israel’s invasion of that country, portraying it as a quick, limited strike to drive Palestinian fighters from Israel’s northern border.
Later it emerged that Sharon’s plan had always been far more ambitious: He wanted to reach Beirut and install a regime that would make peace with Israel. That plan was concealed not only from the public, but also from the Cabinet ministers who had approved it. It was, some Israeli commentators said, the closest the country had come to a coup d’etat.
That September, the Israeli military, controlling parts of Beirut, allowed members of the Phalange, a Lebanese Christian militia allied with Israel, to enter the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Chatilla in Beirut to root out “terrorists.” The militiamen systematically slaughtered hundreds of civilians, including women and children. The massacres sparked mass protests in Israel and abroad.
An Israeli commission rejected Sharon’s contention that he had not known what was coming and he was fired, though his popularity and political clout left him in the Cabinet as a minister without portfolio. His political ambitions were crippled, but not destroyed.
The fast operation Sharon had promised eventually left Israel mired in Lebanon for 18 years. It also led to battles in the courtroom.
In 1983, Sharon filed a $50 million lawsuit against Time Magazine for alleging that Sharon, while defense minister, had discussed avenging the murder of Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel with Lebanese Christian militia leaders. Time said the discussion was held the day before the Sabra and Chatilla massacres. A six-member jury in New York concluded that the Time report was false but acquitted the magazine of libel, saying it published the report in good faith.
Over the years, Sharon rehabilitated his political career and used various Cabinet posts to build dozens of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, despite international protests. As foreign minister in 1998, Sharon famously called on Jewish settlers to occupy as much land as possible before a deal was reached with the Palestinians.
"Everyone there should move, should run, should grab more hills, expand the territory. Everything that’s grabbed will be in our hands, everything that we don’t grab will be in their hands," he said.
In 2000, as leader of the opposition, he paid a high-profile visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary. The tense site is holy to Jews and Muslims, and houses Islam’s third-holiest shrine.
The visit came at a time of heightened tensions. Peace talks had stalled at a time when the sides were on the verge of an agreement, and Palestinian riots escalated into a full-fledged uprising that lasted years and claimed thousands of lives.
Critics said the visit was an act of recklessness at a time of rising tensions. Others maintained the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, who rejected an Israeli peace offer not long before, used the visit as a pretext to unleash the uprising.
Four months later, with suicide bombers exploding in their cities, Israelis elected Sharon by a landslide. The new prime minister led Israel’s aggressive military response to the uprising, including a tough offensive in the spring of 2002 following an especially bloody Passover suicide bombing inside Israel, and had all but ended it by 2004.
At the same time, he began to soften his opposition to territorial withdrawals. He called Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza an “occupation” for the first time, conceded that an independent Palestinian state was inevitable, and spearheaded the Gaza pullout.
Domestically, Sharon became the latest in a long line of Israeli prime ministers whose terms were marred by corruption probes.
He was accused of improper fundraising and accepting bribes, allegedly paid to one of his sons, from a prominent real-estate developer, but never charged. His oldest son, Omri, however, later served seven months in prison for fraud convicted to campaign fundraising for his father.
Testemunhar em Situações DifÃceis
M. Fontaine
Ao servo do Senhor não convém brigar mas, sim, ser amável para com todos aptos para ensinar, paciente. Deve corrigir com mansidão os que se lhe opõem, na esperança de que Deus lhes conceda o arrependimento, levando-os ao conhecimento da verdade.—2 Timóteo 2:24–25[1]
Relações com pessoas, até mesmo as que têm opinião contrária às nossas, envolvem amor. A maneira de Deus é agir com amor, amor pelos perdidos, amor uns pelos outros, amor por aqueles que o Senhor coloca no nosso caminho, e até pelos que se colocam contra nós, deliberadamente ou não. Podemos considerar o contato com cada pessoa, quer ela seja receptiva ou não, ou até seja nossa adversária, como uma oportunidade de demonstrarmos o amor do Senhor a alguém que precisa desesperadamente dEle, mesmo que pareçam estar se desviando dEle e do Seu amor.
Existem testemunhos incontáveis na BÃblia e de grandes missionários do passado de pessoas para quem testemunharam em situações muito difÃceis. Almas foram guiadas a Jesus e vidas foram transformadas para sempre pelo testemunho de amor durante uma adversidade ou rejeição. O Senhor é especialista em usar esses momentos em que sentimos que devemos defender a fé para levar a Palavra a outros.
Só Jesus consegue ver o coração do homem. Só Ele conhece a luta interna e o conflito pelo qual a pessoa com quem você tem contato está passando, as dificuldades que ela está enfrentando, os temores que a avassalam, o sentimento de solidão e perda. Se perguntar a Jesus, Ele lhe revelará os pensamentos e sentimentos da pessoa, e lhe mostrará a melhor maneira de chegar a ela, ou como fazer a sua parte para ser um fiel mensageiro da Sua verdade e amor, mesmo que, em um primeiro momento, ela não aparente ser receptiva.
Vamos aproveitar a oportunidade, mesmo que venha disfarçada de rejeição ou desafio, e demonstrarmos o amor do Senhor para alguém que talvez não tenha outra chance de vivenciar o amor do Senhor nesta vida. Em vez de considerarmos a dificuldade da situação como algo potencialmente negativo, por que não tentar ver como algo especial que o Senhor planejou para ser um testemunho e dar a mensagem a pessoas para quem você não teria testemunhado de outra forma?
Nós jamais saberemos por complete, só quando chegarmos ao Céu, o impacto que causamos da vida daqueles para quem testemunhamos. Vai ser maravilhoso quando virmos o fruto por termos “lutado pela fé” e testemunhado em momentos de oposição.[2]
Uma das coisas mais importantes nesses casos é fazer da oração a sua primeira linha de defesa. Reconhecer o Senhor e interceder fervorosamente em oração torna possÃvel o Senhor agir na situação e concretizar o Seu plano perfeito, por mais desafiadoras que sejam as circunstâncias. Mesmo no meio de uma situação difÃcil, quando não pode parar tudo para fazer uma reunião de oração, pode orar enquanto faz outras coisas, e entregar todos os detalhes nas mãos do Senhor.
Logicamente, a melhor maneira de se preparar para oposição e desafios à nossa fé é estudando a Palavra e fazendo o melhor possÃvel por vivê-la. Se a sua fé estiver alicerçada na Palavra, e estiver preparado para “explicar a qualquer que lhe perguntar a razão da esperança que há em você, com respeito e cordialidade”,[3] terá as respostas necessárias para qualquer situação. O Senhor falará ao seu coração e lhe dará as respostas, mesmo quando se sentir despreparado ou incerto quanto ao que fazer. “Pois não sois vós quem falareis, mas o EspÃrito do vosso Pai fala em vós.”[4]
Vamos nos dispor a dialogar e apresentar nossas crenças com paciência e amor, respeitando o fato de que pode levar um tempo para a outra pessoa entender, assimilar e aceitar. Muitas vezes, as pessoas querem ser convencidas da verdade, até conseguirem entender tudo o que foi dito. E também devemos aceitar que certos aspectos da nossa crença algumas pessoas nunca vão entender ou seguir nesta vida.
Uma oportunidade de defendermos a nossa fé pode oferecer a oportunidade de ganharmos almas com a verdade. Se alguém desafiar a sua fé, pode pedir ao Senhor para ajudá-lo estar à altura da situação, e ajudar a outra pessoa a entender e aceitar a verdade. — Ou pelo menos ter uma visão mais equilibrada ou favorável das suas convicções. Não existem impossibilidades para o Senhor. Ele está disposto a realizar o milagre de transformar o coração das pessoas e levá-las até Ele. Então, não perca a oportunidade de ouro de ser um instrumento do Seu amor na vida de alguém que não teve a chance de ouvir ou acreditar.
Como, pois, invocarão aquele em quem não creram? E como crerão naquele de quem não ouviram falar? E como ouvirão, se não houver quem pregue? … Como está escrito: "Como são belos os pés dos que anunciam boas novas! "No entanto, nem todos aceitaram as boas novas. Pois Isaias diz: "Senhor, quem creu em nossa mensagem?" Consequentemente, a fé vem por ouvir a mensagem, e a mensagem é ouvida mediante a palavra de Cristo.—Romanos 10:14–17[5]
*
Não existe uma formula genérica para lidar com oposição e desafios à fé. Se estudar os Evangelhos e ocasiões quando recebeu oposição, verá que Eu não lidei com todas as situações da mesma maneira.
Às vezes Eu contava uma parábola para aqueles eram contra a Minha missão. Em outras ocasiões, Eu lhes fazia uma pergunta para terem algo em que refletir, esperando que entendessem e chegassem à conclusão correta. No entanto, em outras ocasiões, eu lutava pela fé diretamente, afirmava a Minha posição de uma maneira objetiva. Às vezes Eu até respondia com Minhas ações e sem palavras.
Eu mantinha Meus olhos no Meu Pai, e sabia que Ele não deixaria de Me dar as respostas quando Eu clamasse a Ele. E assim será com você. Tenha um espÃrito calmo e de confiança, proveniente da fé, e isso o ajudará a manter sua perspectiva e entender a situação como ela é na realidade. Mantenha os olhos em Mim. Não deixe as ondas da situação abalarem o seu barco. Eu estou no controle dos ventos e das ondas em cada situação e problema que enfrenta. E saber disso o ajudará a manter a sua perspectiva e equilÃbrio e entender a situação como ela é na realidade.
A sua fé em Mim e na Minha capacidade não só de ajudá-lo a superar adversidades e oposição, mas fazer tudo isso contribuir para o bem, é vital na vida de fé, andando por fé e não por vista. Toda vez que enfrentar desafios e dificuldades, firme os pés na Rocha e a sua fé não falhará. Você não será abalado, porque estará confiando em Mim e no Meu poder para resolver toda situação para o seu bem.—Jesus falando em profecia
Esteja preparado a tempo e fora de tempo, repreenda, corrija, exorte com toda a paciência e doutrina.—2 Timóteo 4:2[6]
Publicado originalmente em junho 2009. Adaptado e republicado em janeiro 2014. Tradução Hebe Rondon Flandoli.
[1] NVI.
[2] Judas 3.
[3] 1 Pedro 3:15 NVI.
[4] Mateus 10:20.
[5] NVI.
[6] GW.
Ao servo do Senhor não convém brigar mas, sim, ser amável para com todos aptos para ensinar, paciente. Deve corrigir com mansidão os que se lhe opõem, na esperança de que Deus lhes conceda o arrependimento, levando-os ao conhecimento da verdade.—2 Timóteo 2:24–25[1]
Relações com pessoas, até mesmo as que têm opinião contrária às nossas, envolvem amor. A maneira de Deus é agir com amor, amor pelos perdidos, amor uns pelos outros, amor por aqueles que o Senhor coloca no nosso caminho, e até pelos que se colocam contra nós, deliberadamente ou não. Podemos considerar o contato com cada pessoa, quer ela seja receptiva ou não, ou até seja nossa adversária, como uma oportunidade de demonstrarmos o amor do Senhor a alguém que precisa desesperadamente dEle, mesmo que pareçam estar se desviando dEle e do Seu amor.
Existem testemunhos incontáveis na BÃblia e de grandes missionários do passado de pessoas para quem testemunharam em situações muito difÃceis. Almas foram guiadas a Jesus e vidas foram transformadas para sempre pelo testemunho de amor durante uma adversidade ou rejeição. O Senhor é especialista em usar esses momentos em que sentimos que devemos defender a fé para levar a Palavra a outros.
Só Jesus consegue ver o coração do homem. Só Ele conhece a luta interna e o conflito pelo qual a pessoa com quem você tem contato está passando, as dificuldades que ela está enfrentando, os temores que a avassalam, o sentimento de solidão e perda. Se perguntar a Jesus, Ele lhe revelará os pensamentos e sentimentos da pessoa, e lhe mostrará a melhor maneira de chegar a ela, ou como fazer a sua parte para ser um fiel mensageiro da Sua verdade e amor, mesmo que, em um primeiro momento, ela não aparente ser receptiva.
Vamos aproveitar a oportunidade, mesmo que venha disfarçada de rejeição ou desafio, e demonstrarmos o amor do Senhor para alguém que talvez não tenha outra chance de vivenciar o amor do Senhor nesta vida. Em vez de considerarmos a dificuldade da situação como algo potencialmente negativo, por que não tentar ver como algo especial que o Senhor planejou para ser um testemunho e dar a mensagem a pessoas para quem você não teria testemunhado de outra forma?
Nós jamais saberemos por complete, só quando chegarmos ao Céu, o impacto que causamos da vida daqueles para quem testemunhamos. Vai ser maravilhoso quando virmos o fruto por termos “lutado pela fé” e testemunhado em momentos de oposição.[2]
Uma das coisas mais importantes nesses casos é fazer da oração a sua primeira linha de defesa. Reconhecer o Senhor e interceder fervorosamente em oração torna possÃvel o Senhor agir na situação e concretizar o Seu plano perfeito, por mais desafiadoras que sejam as circunstâncias. Mesmo no meio de uma situação difÃcil, quando não pode parar tudo para fazer uma reunião de oração, pode orar enquanto faz outras coisas, e entregar todos os detalhes nas mãos do Senhor.
Logicamente, a melhor maneira de se preparar para oposição e desafios à nossa fé é estudando a Palavra e fazendo o melhor possÃvel por vivê-la. Se a sua fé estiver alicerçada na Palavra, e estiver preparado para “explicar a qualquer que lhe perguntar a razão da esperança que há em você, com respeito e cordialidade”,[3] terá as respostas necessárias para qualquer situação. O Senhor falará ao seu coração e lhe dará as respostas, mesmo quando se sentir despreparado ou incerto quanto ao que fazer. “Pois não sois vós quem falareis, mas o EspÃrito do vosso Pai fala em vós.”[4]
Vamos nos dispor a dialogar e apresentar nossas crenças com paciência e amor, respeitando o fato de que pode levar um tempo para a outra pessoa entender, assimilar e aceitar. Muitas vezes, as pessoas querem ser convencidas da verdade, até conseguirem entender tudo o que foi dito. E também devemos aceitar que certos aspectos da nossa crença algumas pessoas nunca vão entender ou seguir nesta vida.
Uma oportunidade de defendermos a nossa fé pode oferecer a oportunidade de ganharmos almas com a verdade. Se alguém desafiar a sua fé, pode pedir ao Senhor para ajudá-lo estar à altura da situação, e ajudar a outra pessoa a entender e aceitar a verdade. — Ou pelo menos ter uma visão mais equilibrada ou favorável das suas convicções. Não existem impossibilidades para o Senhor. Ele está disposto a realizar o milagre de transformar o coração das pessoas e levá-las até Ele. Então, não perca a oportunidade de ouro de ser um instrumento do Seu amor na vida de alguém que não teve a chance de ouvir ou acreditar.
Como, pois, invocarão aquele em quem não creram? E como crerão naquele de quem não ouviram falar? E como ouvirão, se não houver quem pregue? … Como está escrito: "Como são belos os pés dos que anunciam boas novas! "No entanto, nem todos aceitaram as boas novas. Pois Isaias diz: "Senhor, quem creu em nossa mensagem?" Consequentemente, a fé vem por ouvir a mensagem, e a mensagem é ouvida mediante a palavra de Cristo.—Romanos 10:14–17[5]
*
Não existe uma formula genérica para lidar com oposição e desafios à fé. Se estudar os Evangelhos e ocasiões quando recebeu oposição, verá que Eu não lidei com todas as situações da mesma maneira.
Às vezes Eu contava uma parábola para aqueles eram contra a Minha missão. Em outras ocasiões, Eu lhes fazia uma pergunta para terem algo em que refletir, esperando que entendessem e chegassem à conclusão correta. No entanto, em outras ocasiões, eu lutava pela fé diretamente, afirmava a Minha posição de uma maneira objetiva. Às vezes Eu até respondia com Minhas ações e sem palavras.
Eu mantinha Meus olhos no Meu Pai, e sabia que Ele não deixaria de Me dar as respostas quando Eu clamasse a Ele. E assim será com você. Tenha um espÃrito calmo e de confiança, proveniente da fé, e isso o ajudará a manter sua perspectiva e entender a situação como ela é na realidade. Mantenha os olhos em Mim. Não deixe as ondas da situação abalarem o seu barco. Eu estou no controle dos ventos e das ondas em cada situação e problema que enfrenta. E saber disso o ajudará a manter a sua perspectiva e equilÃbrio e entender a situação como ela é na realidade.
A sua fé em Mim e na Minha capacidade não só de ajudá-lo a superar adversidades e oposição, mas fazer tudo isso contribuir para o bem, é vital na vida de fé, andando por fé e não por vista. Toda vez que enfrentar desafios e dificuldades, firme os pés na Rocha e a sua fé não falhará. Você não será abalado, porque estará confiando em Mim e no Meu poder para resolver toda situação para o seu bem.—Jesus falando em profecia
Esteja preparado a tempo e fora de tempo, repreenda, corrija, exorte com toda a paciência e doutrina.—2 Timóteo 4:2[6]
Publicado originalmente em junho 2009. Adaptado e republicado em janeiro 2014. Tradução Hebe Rondon Flandoli.
[1] NVI.
[2] Judas 3.
[3] 1 Pedro 3:15 NVI.
[4] Mateus 10:20.
[5] NVI.
[6] GW.
The Gift That Takes Guts to Give
by M. Fountaine
It takes some guts, boldness, and faith to walk up to someone who you don’t know and offer them solutions and help for whatever problems they might have. But when you are willing to put aside your own sense of awkwardness or feelings of embarrassment at making such a bold offer, and you reach out to share your faith and the answers you have found in Jesus and in His Word, you are offering solutions they may not find anywhere else.
That’s what I love about this particular method of witnessing through praying for others. You may have done it many times, or maybe you never have. Doing this and seeing the impact it can have on people can definitely prove habit-forming. I think that’s what is happening to me.
It’s praying in person for those the Lord leads me to. I find that if I’m open to being His instrument in this way, He will lead me to those who need prayer. I simply say to the person, “I pray for people. Do you have anything that you would like me to pray for?” Of course, this isn’t a method to use with everyone. You probably wouldn’t walk down the street stopping everyone you meet, asking if you could pray for them. But then again, who knows what God may lead you to do. I know a man who takes his kids to a park, where they pray for people who are just casually strolling around or relaxing on a park bench or lounging on the grass. Many people are especially touched when the children show their concern by offering to pray for them.
It’s important that we’re Spirit-led in all things, and in our witness to others in particular, and of course we don’t want to be pushy or offensive. But there are often opportunities where we can offer to pray for people in need: their healing, their salvation, their peace of mind, their loved ones, their financial needs, etc. It seems that many people believe in the concept of praying to a higher power to some extent, and I have found that most people respect my faith in prayer. Those who might not pray themselves or expect personal answers from God nonetheless are often willing to accept an offer of prayer from someone else.
A wholehearted prayer that is prayed in full faith can have a powerful impact on the one you’re praying for. Have you ever wondered why that is? It could be because:
It shows that you care about them personally; you are willing to take your time to understand their needs. Such fundamental yet sincere caring can be outstanding, or even life-changing.
This is a different experience for most people, so it gets their attention and causes them to stop and think about God and the spiritual realm.
Often it helps them to feel God’s presence in a tangible way. As you lay your hand on their arm or take their hand, God often manifests His presence to them through the Holy Spirit and they know that something special is happening. Some cry. Others feel a calm and peace settle over them. When you pray for someone, the Lord in His all-encompassing love and care will always answer. It may not always be in the way expected, but we know He will manifest Himself to them in some way, and this can be a powerful proof to them and others of His love and care.
The effect of your prayers doesn’t end when you leave their side. When they see things change, they may realize that God has intervened in their life and done something very special for them. When you pray, the door has been opened for them to know that God loves them and that He is working in their lives.
Your example of simple, faith-filled prayer conveys expectancy. Many people have little experience of prayer beyond formal, impersonal prayers. Your prayer alone can be a little class on prayer, as you pray from your heart just as you would ask help of a dear and trusted friend. Witnessing such an intimate connection with the God of the universe can have a profound effect on that person’s faith to reach out and personally discover the power of prayer.
Your prayers demonstrate the absolute certainty in your heart that God hears you. Your trust in God’s desire to answer prayer can bring them the hope that He loves them.
Even if people are too embarrassed to have you pray for them on the spot, you can offer to pray for them privately after you leave. This can help them to realize that God understands them and is willing to take them where they’re at.
You can approach it any way you want, but when you say, “I pray for people,” it shows you do it regularly and are well versed in it. It also shows that you’re not singling them out for some strange reason, but that you pray as a matter of course. It engenders confidence in you.
For those you encounter on a regular basis, your prayers can continue to help them build a stronger connection with the Lord. For example, whenever you come in contact with someone whom you feel led to reach out to and have a few moments to talk, you can ask how they’re doing and offer to pray for any needs they may have. The more they sense their life being touched by your prayers, the more they will be willing to pour out whatever is burdening them. God’s personal touch through your prayers brings them closer to Him. It can develop a deeper personal relationship between them and the Lord.
Praying for someone is a simple act of selfless care and giving. It can melt the hardened exterior of a heart that has found little genuine, unselfish love. A few moments of letting God express His love through you to someone in need can change a life forever. It’s such a small price for us to pay to follow His example, but it results in such priceless benefits for those who need Him.
If you haven’t tried it lately, I encourage you to do so.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Lessons of 'Bridge-gate'
By Justin Raimondo, Antiwar.com, January 9, 2014
People talk about “the character issue” in politics, but is there really any other issue when it comes to judging a political candidate? After all, someone may be advocating Peace On Earth and Good Will Toward Men in public, while in private he could very well be hatching demonic schemes of revenge in retaliation for—let’s just say—not endorsing him for reelection. He might even stoop to closing two lanes onto the busiest bridge in the country, resulting in a cataclysmic traffic jam and causing a 91-year-old woman who needed an ambulance to wait for crucial extra minutes before paramedics could reach her. She died soon afterward.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in what will no doubt be known as “Bridge-gate” is the media mob’s target of the moment, with partisan Democrats pouncing all over it as evidence that the would-be 2016 presidential candidate’s aspirations for higher office are toast. And they may very well be right: but if they are, that isn’t necessarily good news for Democrats. That’s because what Christie and his advisors apparently did—use their authority to punish their enemies without regard for the wider consequences—underscores the utter lawlessness of overweening government power, undercutting the Democrats’ governing philosophy.
In Chris Christie’s world, there are no constraints: stop traffic to get back at a political rival? Spy on Americans? Violate the Constitution? Violate the trust of the people who elected you? You just go right ahead! Rules are for the Little People! When you’re a high-ranking member of the political class—when the “donor class” comes begging to you to run for the highest office in the land—the rules don’t apply.
Christie exemplifies everything that’s wrong with America, not only politically but psychologically: the man’s a bully. The problem, however, is that America loves a bully. Videos of Christie going ballistic and telling off various of his constituents for daring to question his ultimate wisdom are part of what made him famous—and attractive to the “donor class” as a putative presidential candidate. And while he’s kept his (horrible) foreign policy views relatively close to his vest, so far, if he’ll cause a major traffic jam in his own state to spite a political rival what would he do to spite a rival nation—and what kind of consequences would it augur for the rest of us? I shudder to think about it.
Christie’s apologists are already telling us this will all blow over, that it has nothing to do with issues relevant to the rest of the nation, and that the Governor really didn’t know what his closest top aides were doing. While they’re probably right about Bridge-gate blowing over, the argument that he didn’t know what was going on probably isn’t good for his reputation as a competent administrator. However, the real point is that his behavior is indeed all too relevant to national issues currently confronting us because it epitomizes everything Americans hate and fear about the governing class. This is why 72 percent of Americans, asked what is the biggest threat to the United States, answered their own government.
Imagine President Christie’s NSA chief rationalizing spying on people who just happened to oppose Christie’s political agenda: why get bogged down in an “esoteric intellectual debate” about the ethics of such an act? And President Christie, who famously doesn’t involve himself in the Machiavellian plots of his amoral staff, could conceivably imagine himself blameless.
What Christie’s advisors did wasn’t just morally reprehensible: it’s a criminal act to engage in political retaliation against the entire population of a town under color of authority. Prosecutors are currently investigating the matter and I wouldn’t be surprised if charges are filed.
The big irony—and also a big problem for American democracy—is that a candidate probably couldn’t succeed in becoming President unless he or she was imbued with the kind of ruthlessness embodied by the Christie gang. The sheer number of bodies one has to walk over in order to reach the throne ensures that whomever makes it is morally unfit to be entrusted with the fate of 300 million Americans. Our system doesn’t just encourage these characteristics in a political leader, it requires them—as long as they aren’t caught.
People talk about “the character issue” in politics, but is there really any other issue when it comes to judging a political candidate? After all, someone may be advocating Peace On Earth and Good Will Toward Men in public, while in private he could very well be hatching demonic schemes of revenge in retaliation for—let’s just say—not endorsing him for reelection. He might even stoop to closing two lanes onto the busiest bridge in the country, resulting in a cataclysmic traffic jam and causing a 91-year-old woman who needed an ambulance to wait for crucial extra minutes before paramedics could reach her. She died soon afterward.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in what will no doubt be known as “Bridge-gate” is the media mob’s target of the moment, with partisan Democrats pouncing all over it as evidence that the would-be 2016 presidential candidate’s aspirations for higher office are toast. And they may very well be right: but if they are, that isn’t necessarily good news for Democrats. That’s because what Christie and his advisors apparently did—use their authority to punish their enemies without regard for the wider consequences—underscores the utter lawlessness of overweening government power, undercutting the Democrats’ governing philosophy.
In Chris Christie’s world, there are no constraints: stop traffic to get back at a political rival? Spy on Americans? Violate the Constitution? Violate the trust of the people who elected you? You just go right ahead! Rules are for the Little People! When you’re a high-ranking member of the political class—when the “donor class” comes begging to you to run for the highest office in the land—the rules don’t apply.
Christie exemplifies everything that’s wrong with America, not only politically but psychologically: the man’s a bully. The problem, however, is that America loves a bully. Videos of Christie going ballistic and telling off various of his constituents for daring to question his ultimate wisdom are part of what made him famous—and attractive to the “donor class” as a putative presidential candidate. And while he’s kept his (horrible) foreign policy views relatively close to his vest, so far, if he’ll cause a major traffic jam in his own state to spite a political rival what would he do to spite a rival nation—and what kind of consequences would it augur for the rest of us? I shudder to think about it.
Christie’s apologists are already telling us this will all blow over, that it has nothing to do with issues relevant to the rest of the nation, and that the Governor really didn’t know what his closest top aides were doing. While they’re probably right about Bridge-gate blowing over, the argument that he didn’t know what was going on probably isn’t good for his reputation as a competent administrator. However, the real point is that his behavior is indeed all too relevant to national issues currently confronting us because it epitomizes everything Americans hate and fear about the governing class. This is why 72 percent of Americans, asked what is the biggest threat to the United States, answered their own government.
Imagine President Christie’s NSA chief rationalizing spying on people who just happened to oppose Christie’s political agenda: why get bogged down in an “esoteric intellectual debate” about the ethics of such an act? And President Christie, who famously doesn’t involve himself in the Machiavellian plots of his amoral staff, could conceivably imagine himself blameless.
What Christie’s advisors did wasn’t just morally reprehensible: it’s a criminal act to engage in political retaliation against the entire population of a town under color of authority. Prosecutors are currently investigating the matter and I wouldn’t be surprised if charges are filed.
The big irony—and also a big problem for American democracy—is that a candidate probably couldn’t succeed in becoming President unless he or she was imbued with the kind of ruthlessness embodied by the Christie gang. The sheer number of bodies one has to walk over in order to reach the throne ensures that whomever makes it is morally unfit to be entrusted with the fate of 300 million Americans. Our system doesn’t just encourage these characteristics in a political leader, it requires them—as long as they aren’t caught.
Half of Congress Members Are Millionaires, Report Says
By Eric Lipton, NY Times, Jan. 9, 2014
WASHINGTON—It is hardly the kind of news that lawmakers in Congress would want to highlight during a week when unemployment benefits expired for more than a million Americans. But Congress has achieved something of a milestone.
For the first time in history, more than half the members of the House and Senate are now millionaires, according to a new analysis of financial disclosure reports filed last year.
The median net worth for lawmakers in the House and Senate was $1,008,767—up 4.4 percent, according to the analysis, conducted by the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, which examines the influence of money on politics in Washington.
Over all, at least 268 of the 534 current members of Congress had an average net worth of $1 million or more in 2012, which is the year covered by the reports that each lawmaker had to file in 2013.
The wealthiest member of Congress, as has previously been the case, was Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, who had a net worth of between $330 million and $598 million, a significant chunk of which he earned through the Viper car antitheft system that is marketed and sold by a company he owned.
The poorest was Representative David Valadao, Republican of California, who listed debts of about $12.1 million, mostly from loans on a family dairy farm.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress were about equally wealthy, with Democrats boasting a median net worth of $1.04 million, compared to $1 million for congressional Republicans. The averages in both cases were up compared with the previous year, when the numbers were $990,000 and $907,000, the analysis showed.
Many of the members of Congress who were first elected in 2012 were unusually wealthy, helping drive up the overall standard of living among representatives and senators.
The rise in wealth takes place at the same time that both parties are trying to position themselves as more sympathetic to the jump in inequity in the United States; the rich have gotten much richer while the median family income has been relatively flat or has declined, depending on different statistical measurements.
The growing divergence may help explain why Congress, beyond the politics involved, would allow unemployment benefits to expire, critics said.
"Congress not only seems more responsive to policy desires of the very rich, but increasingly they are the very rich," said Josh Bivens, director of research at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington-based research group that focuses on income inequity and poverty. "They probably know far fewer people cut off by the failure to extend unemployment benefits, and that makes them less sensitive to just how much damage that cutoff is going to cause."
WASHINGTON—It is hardly the kind of news that lawmakers in Congress would want to highlight during a week when unemployment benefits expired for more than a million Americans. But Congress has achieved something of a milestone.
For the first time in history, more than half the members of the House and Senate are now millionaires, according to a new analysis of financial disclosure reports filed last year.
The median net worth for lawmakers in the House and Senate was $1,008,767—up 4.4 percent, according to the analysis, conducted by the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, which examines the influence of money on politics in Washington.
Over all, at least 268 of the 534 current members of Congress had an average net worth of $1 million or more in 2012, which is the year covered by the reports that each lawmaker had to file in 2013.
The wealthiest member of Congress, as has previously been the case, was Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California, who had a net worth of between $330 million and $598 million, a significant chunk of which he earned through the Viper car antitheft system that is marketed and sold by a company he owned.
The poorest was Representative David Valadao, Republican of California, who listed debts of about $12.1 million, mostly from loans on a family dairy farm.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress were about equally wealthy, with Democrats boasting a median net worth of $1.04 million, compared to $1 million for congressional Republicans. The averages in both cases were up compared with the previous year, when the numbers were $990,000 and $907,000, the analysis showed.
Many of the members of Congress who were first elected in 2012 were unusually wealthy, helping drive up the overall standard of living among representatives and senators.
The rise in wealth takes place at the same time that both parties are trying to position themselves as more sympathetic to the jump in inequity in the United States; the rich have gotten much richer while the median family income has been relatively flat or has declined, depending on different statistical measurements.
The growing divergence may help explain why Congress, beyond the politics involved, would allow unemployment benefits to expire, critics said.
"Congress not only seems more responsive to policy desires of the very rich, but increasingly they are the very rich," said Josh Bivens, director of research at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington-based research group that focuses on income inequity and poverty. "They probably know far fewer people cut off by the failure to extend unemployment benefits, and that makes them less sensitive to just how much damage that cutoff is going to cause."
Prayer Brings Miracle Healing for Woman With Malignant Tumor
Gina Meeks, Charisma News, Jan. 9, 2014
An Israeli woman who had a malignant tumor that almost took her leg had nothing left to do but pray. Miraculously, her prayers worked and she was healed.
Therese Daoud was scheduled to have surgery to amputate her leg, but after it was canceled three times for bureaucratic reasons, the Christian woman believed it was a sign.
Three months later, doctors found that her tumor had completely disappeared. Daoud, a high school science teacher, told her story to Israel Channel 2 Friday.
"I felt pain in my leg, in my ankle, with swelling," she recalled.
Her doctor, professor Jacob Bickels, says the tumor was “about the size of an orange.” He was shocked when he discovered it had disappeared.
"If someone had told me this story, I would have said that both the patient and doctor were psycho. It’s impossible," he told Channel 2.
Daoud consulted with oncology experts in Israel and the U.S., and the unanimous opinion was that she should have her leg amputated. When the surgery was canceled three different times, Daoud took it as a sign that she should not undergo the procedure.
"It was clear to me she was going to die within a short time," said Bickels, head of the oncology department at Tel Aviv’s Ichilov Hospital. "She is an educated, intelligent and sane woman, and when a person makes such a decision and is cognizant of its significance, we respect it."
Daoud returned to her home in Ussfiya, an Arab village outside Haifa, where she prayed for her health. Three months later, she went back to the hospital for a consultation with her doctor.
"I asked her what happened," Bickels recalled. "She grinned widely and said, ‘I prayed.’ I sent her for an MRI, and the tumor had shrunk dramatically. I had not seen anything like this or heard of such a thing. I do not know of a cancer of this type that retreats."
Daoud underwent another biopsy, which revealed the tumor was gone.
"Every time I prayed, I felt peace and security," she said. "I was afraid, but also at peace."
She added, “It’s a gift from God.”
An Israeli woman who had a malignant tumor that almost took her leg had nothing left to do but pray. Miraculously, her prayers worked and she was healed.
Therese Daoud was scheduled to have surgery to amputate her leg, but after it was canceled three times for bureaucratic reasons, the Christian woman believed it was a sign.
Three months later, doctors found that her tumor had completely disappeared. Daoud, a high school science teacher, told her story to Israel Channel 2 Friday.
"I felt pain in my leg, in my ankle, with swelling," she recalled.
Her doctor, professor Jacob Bickels, says the tumor was “about the size of an orange.” He was shocked when he discovered it had disappeared.
"If someone had told me this story, I would have said that both the patient and doctor were psycho. It’s impossible," he told Channel 2.
Daoud consulted with oncology experts in Israel and the U.S., and the unanimous opinion was that she should have her leg amputated. When the surgery was canceled three different times, Daoud took it as a sign that she should not undergo the procedure.
"It was clear to me she was going to die within a short time," said Bickels, head of the oncology department at Tel Aviv’s Ichilov Hospital. "She is an educated, intelligent and sane woman, and when a person makes such a decision and is cognizant of its significance, we respect it."
Daoud returned to her home in Ussfiya, an Arab village outside Haifa, where she prayed for her health. Three months later, she went back to the hospital for a consultation with her doctor.
"I asked her what happened," Bickels recalled. "She grinned widely and said, ‘I prayed.’ I sent her for an MRI, and the tumor had shrunk dramatically. I had not seen anything like this or heard of such a thing. I do not know of a cancer of this type that retreats."
Daoud underwent another biopsy, which revealed the tumor was gone.
"Every time I prayed, I felt peace and security," she said. "I was afraid, but also at peace."
She added, “It’s a gift from God.”
