The Heart of It All: Salvation- Predestination?

By Peter Amsterdam

January 15, 2013

In the previous article, I wrote about the different views within Protestantism regarding the assurance of salvation or the possibility of losing one’s salvation. There is another notable difference within the various Protestant belief systems related to the subject of salvation. This variance is rooted in different ways of looking at God’s providence, which is defined as His continuous activity of preserving and governing the whole of creation by His wisdom and goodness and power, for the fulfillment of His eternal purpose and for the glory of His name.[1]

There are two general overarching positions: the Reformed position, which follows John Calvin’s (1509–1564) teaching regarding predestination, and the Arminian position, which follows the teachings of Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609). While this article will use the terms Reformed and Arminian as referring to the two different positions, it is only referring to these positions in regard to the interpretation of predestination. It doesn’t reflect total agreement with all Arminan doctrine, nor disagreement with all Reformed doctrine.


Reformed Position

Some denominations, such as the Reformed churches that follow the teachings of John Calvin, believe that each human being’s actions are decreed by God, and thus God ordains all that happens in the world. Within their definition of God’s providence they state that God cooperates with the created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do; and directs them to fulfill His purposes.[2]

I wrote about this subject in an earlier article. In this line of belief, God is seen as the primary cause of all that happens on earth, but He causes things to happen in a way that is hidden and thus it’s not evident that He caused it. To an observer, there is something else that caused it which he calls the secondary cause … When applied to human actions, this doctrine means that all things that people do are foreordained by God as the primary cause, and that people do what God has foreordained. However, they have no awareness that they are doing these things due to the primary cause. Even though they feel they are doing these actions of their own volition, they are actually the secondary cause. Nevertheless, they are held accountable for their actions.[3]

Believers in the Reformed tradition consider that humans have free will, in that they make free choices, but the choices they make are predetermined by God. As stated in the earlier article on this topic, this belief [Reformed] holds that even though God has foreordained the choices individuals make, humans freely choose what God has foreordained them to do. According to this position, humans make willing choices and aren’t aware of any restraints by God on their decision making, even though those restraints exist.[4] Christians in the Arminian tradition also believe in God’s providence as defined above, but believe that humankind has been granted true free will, in that people can make choices that are not previously decreed by God.


The “Elect”

When these two different belief systems approach the matter of salvation, the question arises as to whether believers—those who are saved and are called “the elect” in scripture—are predestined to salvation or whether they make a freewill choice to accept salvation. Are the elect chosen by God for salvation from before the foundation of the world? Has He predetermined who will be saved and who won’t be? Or is it the case that God, in His foreknowledge, knows the freewill choices individuals will make, and thus knows in advance who will choose to accept salvation?

In the Reformed belief system, the view is that God chose those who would be saved before the world was created. In the Arminian belief system, it’s considered that He knew who would accept His gift of salvation which was offered to humanity because of His omniscience, but not because He predestined some to be saved and some not to be.

Within the Reformed belief system, humans are seen as making a free choice regarding salvation. They hear the Gospel call to salvation and they respond positively and thus have made a freewill choice. However, the Gospel call is seen as being irresistible. When the call is heard by those who are predestined to salvation, they heed the call. They choose to heed the call because they are predestined.

Wayne Grudem explained it this way:



When Paul says, “Those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called He also justified” (Romans 8:30), he indicates that calling is an act of God. In fact, it is specifically an act of God the Father, for He is the one who predestines people “to be conformed to the image of His son” (Romans 8:29) … This calling is rather a kind of “summons” from the King of the universe and it has such power that it brings about the response that it asks for in people’s heart. It is an act of God that guarantees a response … The powerful act of God is often referred to as effective calling, to distinguish it from the general gospel invitation that goes out to all people and which some people reject. [5]

In the Reformed understanding, the Gospel call goes out in a general way, but the only ones who respond, who receive the summons that guarantees the right response, are those who are predestined to salvation. Those who reject the call do so because they are not chosen for salvation.


Grace and Works

Those who hold the Arminian interpretation of free will and predestination see the Gospel call as offering the hearer a completely free choice to accept or reject the call. They see God’s election as having to do with His foreknowledge of an individual’s acceptance of salvation, rather than God choosing those who will be saved and those who won’t. From this perspective, God’s elect are those who God, in His omniscience, knows will respond when they hear the Gospel.

Within the Reformed belief system, if someone makes a choice to accept salvation, that would mean that the person is doing something to merit salvation—in other words, the person would have a part in their salvation and as such would feel they deserve some credit for being saved.

Wayne Grudem explained it this way:



If the ultimate determining factor in whether we will be saved or not is our own decision to accept Christ, then we shall be more inclined to think that we deserve some credit for the fact that we were saved: in distinction from other people who continue to reject Christ, we were wise enough in our own judgment or good enough in our moral tendencies or perceptive enough in our spiritual capacities to decide to believe in Christ.[6]

Both the Reformed and Arminian positions affirm that we are saved by grace and not by works. The difference between the two positions is that the Reformed put forth that salvation is a complete act of God, with God being the one to prepare the heart to receive the Gospel of those whom He has elected and foreordained to be called and chosen. He bestows irresistible grace on the foreordained, and because it is irresistible, the elect person can do nothing else but get saved. Thus there is no participation on the human side, and salvation is a complete act of God.

In the Arminian view, it is also understood that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace, and that no works are involved on the part of humanity. This free gift from God is offered to all, but not all accept it. Salvation is made available, but individuals are able to freely choose to either accept or reject God’s gift. That is a freewill choice, granted to humans by God. Such a choice isn’t seen as a “work” to merit salvation.

William Lane Craig makes the following point regarding our freewill choice:



John 6:65[7] means that apart from God’s grace, no one can come to God on his own. But there’s no suggestion there that those who refused to believe in Christ did not do so of their own free will … the fault does not lie with God that some persons freely resist God’s grace and every effort to save them; rather they like Israel fail to attain salvation because they refuse to have faith.[8]


Reprobation

The Reformed position is that God has chosen those who will receive salvation from before the foundations of the world. He has also chosen those who will not be saved. This is known as the doctrine of reprobation.

Some would say that this concept shows God as being unjust and unmerciful. The Reformed understanding is that God is under no obligation to save anyone who sins, yet in His mercy and love He has chosen to save some—those He has predestined to salvation.

The doctrine of reprobation teaches that reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before the creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest His justice.[9]

The Arminian position does not endorse the doctrine of reprobation. Their understanding is that salvation is available to all, and while God’s foreknowledge allows Him to know who will choose to accept and who will reject, it is a choice made by the individual, not by God Himself.


Who Did Jesus Die For?

The difference in beliefs carries over into Jesus’ work of salvation. The question arises: did Jesus die for the sins of everyone or only for the sins of those who were predestined to salvation?

The Reformed position is that Jesus died for the sins of the elect, that it is a limited atonement, or a particular redemption, and He didn’t die for the sins of all. The Arminian belief is that of unlimited atonement or general redemption, that Jesus died for the sins of all, although the atonement, while available to all, isn’t accepted by all because of free will.

Following are some of the verses Reformed Christians use to put forth that Jesus died for only the predestined:



The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep … I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.[10]

The Reformed understanding is that the people Jesus laid down His life for are the sheep, those who know Him, because they were predestined to know Him. And the others aren’t His sheep, He doesn’t know them, and He didn’t lay down His life for them.

In these next verses, the interpretation in the Reformed thinking is that Jesus knew that there were those whom the Father gave to Him, and they were predestined to salvation, while others weren’t.



All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day.[11]

I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.[12]

The next verse is used to make the point that Christ gave Himself up for the church—meaning for the believers—inferring that He didn’t die for those who don’t believe.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.[13]

Based on these and other verses, the Reformed position is that Jesus died for particular people (specifically those who would be saved and whom He came to redeem), that He foreknew each of them and had them individually in mind for His atoning work.[14]

Those who embrace the Arminian position, who believe in universal—or general—atonement, base their understanding of Christ’s atonement on other verses which indicate that Jesus tasted death for everyone. That He died for the sins of the world, as a ransom for all, for whoever believes in Him.



[John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”[15]



I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.[16]



He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.[17]



For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all … [18]

We see Him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.[19]

The understanding in the Arminian position on these verses, which I agree with, is that Jesus died for the sins of the world, meaning for the sins of all. This doesn’t mean that all people in the world are saved, as clearly many people reject the offer of salvation, but it means that through Jesus’ death on the cross salvation is made possible for all men.

God doesn’t wish for anyone to perish, and He desires that all people receive salvation. In His great love, mercy, and patience, He has made salvation possible through Jesus’ atoning sacrifice for “the world,” for humankind, so any who believe can be saved.



This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.[20]

The Lord is not slow to fulfill His promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.[21]

The atonement is universal in God’s attitude and desire that none would perish, and in the saving grace made available through Jesus’ sacrifice. But not all believe or receive, so the atonement, the forgiveness of sin, and eternal life, is not given to all. It is bestowed on those who believe.

Theologian Jack Cottrell explained it this way:



God’s grace as it appears within His own nature in the form of a desire to give forgiveness to sinners is universal in scope. It is true that this gift is actually given only to particular individuals, but the limitation is the result of man’s choice and not God’s. It was God’s choice to create man with a relative independence and a relatively free will. He does not force His own desires upon man, but respects the integrity of the free will with which He endowed His image-bearers at the time of creation. The reason why some receive grace and some do not is because some freely reject it and some freely accept it. This is to say that the actual reception of grace is conditional; i.e., it is conditioned upon a man’s willingness to accept it.[22]

J. Rodman Williams wrote:



God yearns for their salvation … and Jesus Christ died for them all. It is reprehensible to speak of a limited atonement, that is to say, that Christ died only for those whom God elected to salvation. Christ did not come into the world to save some and condemn others, but to save all. The only barrier is man’s own disbelief: “This is the condemnation, that … men loved darkness” (John 3:19). Thus general calling is the calling of God’s outreaching love that would take every person to Himself. He has no hidden agenda, by which He has already decided to save some and reprobate, or bypass, the others. There is no predestination to death. God’s purpose is never destruction. Those who do not believe will go into darkness, but this is not God’s desire. They go, not because God didn’t choose them before the foundation of the world, but because in spite of His great love and act of reconciliation they do not choose to receive it in faith.[23]

As much as I admire many of the Reformed theologians and feel that they are right and very strong on many aspects of Christian doctrine and faith, I believe they are mistaken in this case, and I agree with the Arminian position in this instance.

While there is a difference in some beliefs between Reformed and Arminian Christians, we are, along with all Christians, all part of the body of Christ. All Christians believe God loves humanity, that everyone needs to hear the Gospel message from Christians who are willing to bring it to them. In explaining the differences regarding salvation and atonement, it is not to say that Arminian are better Christians than Reformed, or vice versa. There are differences in theological perspectives, but we are all brothers and sisters in Christ, who love Him deeply and who desire to see others receive God’s gift of salvation.

God loves humanity. In His great love, He made it possible for human beings to become reconciled with Him, justified before Him, and able to possess eternal life, all through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus. He loves each human being. His Son died for the sins of each individual. He has given humans the ability and the freewill choice to believe and receive salvation or to decide against it. His desire is for all men to receive redemption, but in choosing to create human beings with free will, He does not force people to accept His love.



For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.[24]



[1] Jack Cottrell, What the Bible Says About God the Ruler (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1984), 14.


[2] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 315.


[3] The subject of predestination was touched on in The Heart of It All: The Nature and Character of God; God’s Omniscience (Part 2).


[4] The Heart of It All: The Nature and Character of God; God’s Omniscience (Part 2).


[5] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000) 692–693.


[6] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 678.


[7] [Jesus] said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father” (John 6:65).


[8] William Lane Craig, Molinism and Divine Election.


[9] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 684.


[10] John 10:11, 14–15.


[11] John 6:37–39.


[12] John 17:9.


[13] Ephesians 5:25.


[14] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 596.


[15] John 1:29.


[16] John 6:51.


[17] 1 John 2:2.


[18] 1 Timothy 2:5–6.


[19] Hebrews 2:9.


[20] 1 Timothy 2:3–4.


[21] 2 Peter 3:9.


[22] Jack Cottrell, What The Bible Says About God the Redeemer (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1987), 382–383.


[23] J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology, Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective, Volume 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 20.


[24] John 3:16.



Copyright © 2013 The Family International.

Read More

Around the World with Ken Ham

---

Roe v. Wade Month—Part One Posted: 16 Jan 2013 08:35 AM PST The 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is this month (the case was decided on January 22, 1973), and Time magazine’s cover story for the January 14, 2013, issue claims, “40 Years Ago, Abortion-Rights Activists Won an Epic Victory with Roe v. Wade—They’ve Been Losing Ever Since.” But how true is this claim? You know, there are many states that have passed laws requiring women seeking an abortion to first submit to a waiting period, counseling, parental consent (in the case of underage girls), or even an ultrasound. You can view a chart from our Answers magazine that details which states have which requirements, as well as any contested state laws, on this article. Sadly, however, the number of abortions performed each year seems to be remaining consistent. You see, the National Right to Life’s statistics show that since Roe v. Wade was passed, more than 1.2 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. each year. The total number of abortions performed since Roe v. Wade is more than 54 million. That’s 54 million human beings who have been brutally murdered before birth—since 1973.   By the way—that’s almost three times the population of my homeland of Australia—really puts it in perspective, doesn’t it? Now, last year, Answers magazine published an interview with Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association. He explained clearly why Christians should speak out against abortion: In 1973, when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, the court said that if it could ever be proved that the unborn is a person, it would be a gamechanger. That’s why AFA has been promoting personhood amendments. We want to see that question come before the U.S. Supreme Court again now that we have this new medical technology. . . . We need to keep our hands to the plow. There’s nowhere else for us to go to start over; this is it. We cannot abandon our role in the culture, including politics and government. . . . The main thing is that we shouldn’t give up or take the attitude that our vote doesn’t matter because to disengage or not participate or take a fatalistic attitude is to give up on God. God can send revival to our land. And while I agree that believers must not abandon their place in our culture and that we must oppose abortion, I believe abortion is only the symptom of a bigger problem. For many years, I’ve said that even if we managed to change the laws about abortion, the culture would just change them back, if it continues to look to man’s word for ultimate authority instead of God’s Word. You see, evolutionary ideas have destroyed the basis for the dignity of human life, which says that man is made in God’s image. Think about it—if you get rid of spare cats, then why not get rid of spare kids? After all, we’re just animals in this evolutionary world! Sadly, that’s really what generations of kids are being taught. By way of contrast, the evolutionary contention that man is only an animal provides no moral basis to oppose the murder of the unborn. So, what can we do to stop abortion? That’s for tomorrow’s blog post. For more information on the issue of abortion, I encourage you to read Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell’s (AiG–U.S.) articles: Semantics Don’t Change Truth Embryo Protection Also, return to our website on Friday morning for another commentary on the Roe v. Wade anniversary—it will be our lead article. Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying, Ken

Read More

When Palestinians Use Settler Tactics

By Karl Vick, TIME, Jan. 14, 2013
Sometime between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. on Sunday, several hundred Israeli police officers in riot gear moved on a cluster of tents on a West Bank hilltop. Their target resembled the mainly Jewish campsites that pop up like mushrooms in the higher elevations of Palestinian territory, stippling the ridges that run from north to south across the striking biblical landscape. In the lexicon of a conflict that is fundamentally over land, the camps are called “outposts,” a term Israelis use to differentiate these more spontaneous efforts from the state-sanctioned “settlements” that look more like suburban subdivisions. At last count there were more than 100 of each, though some of the outposts have made the transition to settlement, the tents replaced over time by trailers, and the trailers by houses. Technically illegal under the law of Israel, in practice the outposts are typically provided with power and water by the country’s government and protected by the Israeli soldiers who have controlled the West Bank since 1967, the year Israel took the land with an ease that some Jews see as evidence of God’s intention that they should have it.

All of which accounts for the unusual briskness with which the new campsite was dispatched in the darkness of early Sunday morning—the settlers were not Jews, but Palestinians. Not two days before, some 100 Palestinian activists had set up tents on Palestinian land just east of Jerusalem. They dubbed the campsite Bab al-Shams, or Gateway to the Sun, though the area appears on Israeli planning maps as E-1. It’s the parcel that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Nov. 30 ordered be readied for transformation into an expansive Jewish settlement that diplomats and experts warned would, once built, effectively prevent the practical establishment of a Palestinian state, no matter that the U.N. had just recognized one in the airy realm of diplomacy.

In fact, it was the General Assembly’s Nov. 29 vote making Palestine a nonmember state that stirred Netanyahu to announce what Daniel Seidemann, who heads an Israeli NGO dealing with conflict resolution in Jerusalem, called the “doomsday settlement”—apparently to demonstrate that Israel retains the power to render the notion of statehood moot by choking the West Bank with Jewish homes at its narrowest point. Currently, more than half a million Israelis live beyond the Green Line that defined the 1967 limits of Israel’s territory, blocking Palestinian access to some 40% of the West Bank. As a practical matter, there’s little Palestinians can do about it. Israel has the army, and Washington, in the phrase of President Barack Obama, “has got Israel’s back.” The weekend encampment aimed to make the most of that powerlessness.

“If we want peace, we have to resist—nonviolently, but resist—and counter Israeli facts on the ground with Palestinian facts on the ground,” Mustafa Bargouthi, the Palestinian activist who helped organize the camp, tells TIME, a few hours after being arrested and deposited at the edge of Ramallah, the West Bank city. “They’re allowing Israeli settlers to stay on Palestinian land, while at the same time within 48 hours they attack and remove us.”

Israeli soldiers barred the international news media from witnessing the police sweep. Photographers who were already inside the camp recorded the action, which unfolded without significant injury to either side. The news blockade—a literal thing, as Israeli forces manned roadblocks on roads approaching the site—served to confirm that the Palestinian activists had mounted a potent demonstration. “It’s in my view a very successful protest that is exposing the Israeli policy in many ways,” says Hagit Ofran, who monitors settlements for the Israeli advocacy group Peace Now. “First of all, it puts E-1 back on the political agenda. Maybe it’s because we’re on the eve of elections, but the Prime Minister himself was responding to this provocation.”

Netanyahu, who finds himself facing an unexpected challenge from his right in the campaign that concludes Jan. 22, ordered the police action despite a Supreme Court injunction against demolition of the camp (an order authorities finessed by removing only the people; the tents were left standing). The Premier’s election slate has seen its support significantly eroded in polls by the pro-settler Jewish Home party, a situation analysts say accounts for Netanyahu’s pre-election flurry of promises to build additional housing units beyond the Green Line—11,000 announced in a week, as many as in nine previous years combined. “We will not allow anyone to harm the contiguity between Jerusalem and Maale Adumim,” Netanyahu said Sunday, naming the massive exurb that stands on the far side of the largely empty E-1 parcel.

The Bab al-Shams camp, named for an acclaimed novel by Lebanese writer Elias Khoury, aimed both to revive the international uproar over Netanyahu’s announced plans and to highlight the legalistic double standards that Bargouthi and others refer to as apartheid. “When the [Jewish] settlers do the same thing it takes years and lots of trips to the Supreme Court before anything moves, and here in less than 48 hours they managed to kick all of them out!” Ofran tells TIME. “On top of all this, when they evict settlers, sometimes they’re confronted with violence from the settlers. This is a very powerful contrast.”

Indeed, the campsite and its prompt removal marked a watershed for a generation of Palestinian activists who have struggled to channel the transformative energies of the Arab Spring into their own conflict. The problem has been, in part, that mass rallies advertised as nonviolent can be undone by a couple of kids from refugee camps throwing stones—giving Israeli forces the excuse to fire tear gas and rubber bullets that turn the event into familiar scenes of melee. But the campsite protest was staged miles from a refugee camp, by activists trained in the discipline of nonviolent resistance.

The idea of establishing an “outpost” was also clever—a bit of jujitsu, maybe aikido, whatever finds an advantage in being the ostensibly less powerful force. And though the idea of conspicuously taking over hilltops had been tried by other Palestinian activists, those pioneers pitched their camps deep in the West Bank, in remote redoubts difficult for journalists to cover. But E-1 had been made prominent by Netanyahu’s fresh announcement to build—in defiance of international outcry. And it straddles a four-lane highway just outside Jerusalem, where major international news organizations maintain bureaus.

“What happened the day before yesterday was the merging of all these nonviolent movements into one stream,” says Bargouthi, who is a physician and Palestinian politician and not to be confused with Marwan Bargouthi, the jailed Fatah militant. “We merged all these groups from the village and the district level to the national level. And there will be a lot more creative ideas in the coming period.”

Read More

George Patterson: Obituary

Daily Telegraph, 13 Jan 2013
One of three children of a strongly socialist coal miner, George Neilson Patterson was born at Redding, Falkirk, on August 19 1920 and brought up in nearby Laurieston as a member of the strict Plymouth Brethren. In his memoir, God’s Fool (1956), he recalled how, when seriously ill at the age of 17, he had felt confronted by a Dostoevskian choice between God and Marx. He decided to dedicate himself to God.

After leaving school aged 13, Patterson was apprenticed at a local company, Carron Engineering, where he worked on weapons production throughout the Second World War. At war’s end, when reading Sven Hedin’s book Trans-Himalaya, he felt that God was instructing him to go to Tibet. Penniless after donating all his savings to charity, he studied at the Missionary School of Medicine in London, after which, in 1946, he and Geoffrey Bull, a fellow member of the Brethren, travelled to Shanghai. They then went to the Sino-Tibetan border town of Tatsienlu , from where they trekked westwards for a month with their belongings on 24 mules, arriving at Poteu, in the Kham province of Tibet.

The province at the time was likened by Patterson to “the Wild West”. And it was there that he chanced upon Topgyay Pangdatshang, a Khamba chieftain and great merchant, born of Lhasa nobility, who ran his own tribal army and had done his utmost to wrench for Tibet a measure of independence from the Kuomintang Chinese Nationalist government.

Patterson mastered the local Khamba language and customs and was befriended by Topgyay, on whose behalf he carried out widespread medical work in exchange for his keep. At the time Topgyay was planning a second major revolt (following a failed attempt in 1934 to overthrow the feudal central Tibetan government in Lhasa). But in 1949 a new foe appeared—the communist Red Army, which massed on the Sino-Tibetan border and demanded co-operation. Determined to resist invasion, Topgyay asked Patterson to make a perilous winter journey to India to seek military aid, medical supplies and international protection. When the voice of God told him he should do what he could to help, Patterson knew he had no choice.

Though it was winter, he chose a route to Sadiyah, in northern Assam, which even Tibetans feared to cross. Leaving Geoffrey Bull behind, he and a trio of Tibetan soldiers made the three-month, 400-mile trek on horseback. “We had to deal with blizzards that came virtually every day,” Patterson recalled. “I slept with the horses some of the time. I even slept with a yak, just to get the body heat because it was biting cold. The Tibetans didn’t use tents, so it was easier to go with what they were used to. They used to find dung that previous travelling parties had used for fuel and set it alight using sparks from their guns.”

Eventually arriving in Calcutta in March 1950, Patterson went to the British High Commission to be met with blank stares and sniggers. He persisted, and finally met the First Secretary who, taking him seriously, introduced him to intelligence officials from Britain, America and India—but his requests for help were turned down.

He decided to return to Tibet, but a devastating earthquake, illness and the arrival of the monsoon kept him in India while the communist invasion began in October. Patterson settled near the border, travelling between the Indian hill stations of Darjeeling and Kalimpong. Soon he began sending regular reports to The Telegraph of terrible events taking place in Tibet, as related by the many refugees fleeing into India. Meanwhile, Geoffrey Bull was captured and imprisoned as a suspected spy. Held in solitary confinement, he underwent “re-education” and “thought reform” as his captors tried brainwashing him. His faith in God, however, kept him from breakdown, and three years later he was released to the British authorities in Hong Kong.

In 1951 Patterson was asked by the Dalai Lama’s family to plot his escape from Tibet. The Dalai Lama had been on the point of going, but yielded to entreaties that he should consult “the State Oracle” first. The State Oracle told him he had to return to Lhasa, and the escape was aborted. Four years later, however, Patterson helped the Dalai Lama’s elder brother, Thubten Norbu, escape to America.

Patterson then acted as a covert, unpaid messenger between the American administration and representatives of the Dalai Lama, whom the Americans were prepared to recognise as head of an “autonomous Tibet”. Patterson warned the American negotiators that the Tibetan language made no distinction between the concepts of “autonomy” and “independence”. Consequently, after the Dalai Lama actually fled in 1959, there was widespread disappointment among Tibetan exiles when it became clear that western promises of support meant little in practice.

In his reports for The Telegraph and other publications, Patterson described the “sullen, uncooperative, still rebellious populace and a ruthless Chinese occupation army determined to wipe out the Tibetan race by mass killings, transportation to forced labour camps, removal of thousands of children to China and confiscation of all wealth and property”. He was the first to tell the world about the wide-scale but abortive Lhasa uprising of 1959, and he chronicled the subsequent period of ruthless suppression by the Chinese which was met by reckless acts of defiance by individual Tibetans.

In reaction, on March 17 1959, the Indian government—nervous about relations with China—warned that it would be “constrained to interdict his [Patterson’s] residence” if he did not stop sending “misleading and exaggerated” reports. India’s Prime Minister Jawarhalal Nehru accused him of accepting “bazaar rumours” as fact. Later that day, however, Nehru was forced to announce that “fighting had broken out in Lhasa and the Indian consulate was damaged by shelling”. Later that year Patterson reported a build-up of Chinese troops along the Indian border, and India hardened its stance towards China.

In 1961 Patterson returned to Britain, where he had a BBC radio programme series, Asian Affairs in The British Press, and worked as a commentator and book reviewer. With David Astor, editor of the Observer, and others, he helped to establish, and became first director of, the International Committee for the Study of Group Rights, now called The Minority Rights Group International (MRG), an organisation working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples.

In 1953 Patterson had married a fellow medical missionary, Margaret (“Meg”) Ingram, to whom he had been introduced in Kalimpong. In 1964 they moved to Hong Kong, where she was appointed surgeon-in-charge at Tung Wah Hospital. For the next nine years Patterson used Hong Kong as a base for his travels throughout Asia, writing and broadcasting as he went.

In 1964, for example, Patterson, the British documentary film-maker Adrian Cowell and the cameraman Chris Menges became the first three Westerners to cross the border between Nepal and Tibet with the Khamba armed resistance, which at that time was active in the Himalayas ambushing Chinese military convoys. Claiming that they wanted to film scenes of Buddhist life, Patterson bluffed the team’s way into the remote Dzum valley, a restricted area in northern Nepal where a detachment of the guerrilla force was based. They then travelled over a 20,000ft pass into Tibet and captured dramatic footage of the guerrillas’ subsequent attack on a Chinese convoy.

The three evaded the CIA, which sought to relieve them of their footage, and Cowell’s subsequent documentary about the guerrillas, Raid Into Tibet, caused a sensation when it was shown on British television in 1966, providing Western audiences with the first glimpse of the continuing violent resistance to the Chinese occupation.

Meg Patterson, meanwhile, had discovered that electro-acupuncture analgesia (as applied for post-surgical pain control) could also significantly ameliorate the symptoms of opiate withdrawal. In 1973 the Pattersons returned to London so that she could pursue clinical and scientific investigation into the technique.

Together, based at her clinic in Harley Street, they developed Neuro Electric Therapy (NET) into an internationally recognised drug treatment programme, publishing numerous articles and books. During the 1970s and 1980s, Meg Patterson undertook much research in America and was credited with helping rock stars such as Eric Clapton and Pete Townshend come off drugs. The Pattersons argued that psychiatrists failed to resolve the drug problem because they could not address spiritual factors involved in addiction, while ecclesiastics failed because they could not tackle political and social factors. Alongside the physical treatment, therefore, they offered spiritual counselling.

In 1975 Meg asked George to help in the case of The Who’s drummer Keith Moon, who had become convinced that he was being taken over by demons, whom he called Mr and Mrs Singh. At first, Moon said, he had been able to call up these “familiars” of his own free will, and derived his powers from them. But gradually they had begun to take over his mind. “Keith recognised that he had sold his soul,” recalled Patterson.

Patterson told Moon that the demons could be defeated by a relationship with God and, for a time, Moon appeared to follow his advice. He invited Patterson to accompany the rock group on a tour of Europe in 1976. In Zurich for their first concert, Patterson saw Moon in his private dressing room with a fridge full of alcohol and a drawer full of drugs. “Your problem isn’t drugs or alcohol,” Patterson told him. “The only way this is going to work is if you go out on this stage with nothing, with the belief that I tell you about.”

Moon duly went on stage, performing without the aid of drugs or alcohol for what he claimed was the first time in 10 years. The drummer’s new-found “faith” carried him through the band’s European dates, but as soon as Patterson’s back was turned he returned to his old ways. Within two years he was dead.

Patterson was the author of 30 books covering the story of Tibet and his own involvement with its liberation struggle; the purposes of God; and the problem of drug addiction. He returned to Tibet again, visiting Lhasa for the first time in 1987, as an adviser to a proposed Hollywood film about himself which, however, to his slight disappointment, metamorphosed into Seven Years in Tibet—the story of Heinrich Harrer.

In 1999 Meg Patterson suffered a debilitating stroke a week after opening a drug addiction clinic in Tijuana, Mexico. In 2001 she and her husband returned to Scotland, where she died in 2002.

In recent years Patterson was pleased to see major reforms in China and efforts made throughout Tibet to restore and preserve the country’s ancient culture.

On hearing of George Patterson’s death, the Dalai Lama sent a personal message to his family, noting that Patterson was one of only a handful of Westerners to have known Tibetans intimately at first hand.

George Patterson is survived by two sons and a daughter.

Read More

Welcome, Chuck Hagel

By Uri Avnery, Antiwar.com, January 11, 2013

I find Chuck Hagel eminently likeable. I am not quite certain why. Perhaps it’s his war record. He was decorated for valor in the Vietnam War (which I detested). He was a mere sergeant. Since I was a mere corporal in our 1948 war, I find it elating to see a non-commissioned officer become Minister of Defense. Like so many veterans who have seen war from close up (myself included), he has become an enemy of war.

Wonderful. Now Hagel is violently attacked by all the neocon warmongers, almost none of whom has ever heard a bullet whistle in the wars to which they sent others, and the combined political regiments of the American Jewish establishment. His main sin seems to be that he objects to war against Iran. To be against an attack on Iran means to be anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, indeed to wish for the destruction of Israel if not all Jews. Never mind that almost all present and past chiefs of the Israeli army and intelligence community object to an attack on Iran, too.

But Binyamin Netanyahu knows better. Last week, the former much-lauded chief of the Shin Bet painted a frightening picture of Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak at a security meeting to discuss the bombing of Iran some time ago. The two were in high spirits, puffing on cigars and drinking whiskey, much to the disgust of the assembled security chiefs. In Israel, cigars are considered an ostentatious luxury and drinking at work is taboo. Netanyahu’s spin-doctors retorted that Winston Churchill, too, was a brandy drinker and smoked cigars. Seems that spirits and cigars are not enough to make a Churchill.

Actually, I think that the appointment of Hagel may come as a relief to Netanyahu. After years of depicting the Iranian nuclear bomb as the end of the world, or at least of Israel, the bomb is mysteriously absent from Netanyahu’s election campaign. Hagel’s appointment may allow Netanyahu to climb down from this tree altogether. But the catalogue of Hagel’s crimes is much more extensive. Many years ago he called the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington (would you believe it?) the “Jewish lobby”. Until then, it was understood that AIPAC is mainly composed of Buddhists and financed by Arab billionaires like Abu Sheldon and Abd-al-Adelson.

HOWEVER, HAGEL’S most heinous sin is not often mentioned. While serving as the Republican senator for Nebraska, he once uttered the unspeakable words: “I am an American senator, not an Israeli senator!” That is really the crux of the matter. US senators are nearly all Israeli senators. Ditto for US congressmen. Hardly any of them would dare to criticize the Israeli government on any issue, negligible as it may be. Criticizing Israel is political suicide. Not only does the Jewish lobby use its huge resources to get loyal pro-Israelis elected and re-elected, but it openly employs these resources to unseat the few elected officials who dare to criticize Israel. They almost always succeed.

In the present election campaign, the Likud is showing again and again (and again) the scene of Netanyahu addressing the US congress. The senators and congressmen are seen wildly applauding after every single sentence, jumping up and down like children in gymnastics class. The text of the clip says: “When Netanyahu speaks, the world listens!” (A curiosity: right after this shameful scene, the clip shows Netanyahu addressing the UN General Assembly. Since the applause there was sparse—hardly anyone, other than Avigdor Lieberman and the other members of the Israeli delegation in the half-empty hall did applaud—the editors of the clip used a little trick: they took the applause from the US Congress and transferred it to the UN Assembly hall.)

Somebody sent me a satirical piece saying that if Hagel’s appointment is not cancelled by the US Senate, Israel will have to use its veto power to block it. In such a case, the senate would have to muster a 90% majority to overcome the veto. If this fails, President Obama would have to choose another Defense Secretary from a list of three names provided by Netanyahu.Jokes aside, the Israeli defense establishment is not worried by the Hagel appointment. They seem to know him as quite receptive to Israeli requests. Several Israeli generals have already come to his defense.

THIS WHOLE episode might be considered trivial, or even funny, were it not for the question: Why did President Obama put forward this controversial figure in the first place? An obvious answer is: Revenge. Obama is a master of controlling his emotions. During all the months of Netanyahu supporting Mitt Romney, Obama did not react. But his anger must have been building up inside. Now the time has come. Appointing Hagel and openly humiliating the pro-Israel lobby was one way. More of this can be expected to come. Any slight nudge from America is bound to be felt by Israel as a heavy blow. By the way, this blow could be used by the opposition parties here to expose Netanyahu’s rank incompetence. Supporting Romney was plain stupid. All the more so as Netanyahu, who was raised in the US, depicts himself as an expert on US affairs. But no party dares to raise this subject in our election campaign, for fear of being considered less than super-patriotic. I don’t expect President Obama to change the US treatment of Israel in the near future, beyond some small punitive acts like this one. But when we raise our eyes towards the horizon, the picture looks different.

There is already a marked difference between Obama I and Obama II. When he was elected the first time, he chose Chas Freeman, a highly respected diplomat, to head the National Security Council. The pro-Israel lobby raised a storm, and the appointment was withdrawn. Obama then preferred public humiliation to a confrontation with the lobby. How different this time! This change may well become more marked in Obama’s second term and far beyond. The lobby’s stranglehold on Washington DC is loosening, slightly, slowly, but significantly. Why? I believe that one of the reasons is that the perception of the American Jewish community is changing. American politicians are beginning to realize that Jewish voters are far from unanimously behind the lobby. American Jewish “leaders”, almost all of them self-appointed and representing nobody but a small clique of professional representatives, as well as the Israeli embassy and some right-wing billionaires, do not control the Jewish vote. This became clear when Netanyahu supported Romney. The great majority of Jewish voters continued to support Obama and the Democratic Party. This is not a sudden development.

For years now, American Jews—especially young Jews—have distanced themselves from the Zionist establishment. Becoming more and more disillusioned with official Israeli policy, alienated by the occupation, disgusted with the pictures of Israeli soldiers beating up helpless Palestinians, they have quietly dropped away. Quietly, because they fear an anti-Semitic backlash. Jews are indoctrinated from early childhood that “we Jews have to stick together” in face of the anti-Semites. Only a few brave American Jews are ready to openly—though ever so timidly—criticize Israel. But US politics are slowly adjusting to the fact that much of the lobby’s strength is bluff, and that most American Jews don’t let Israel determine their voting pattern.

AMERICANS MUST be a race of angels—how else to explain the incredible patience with which they suffer the fact that in a vital sphere of US interests, American policy is dictated by a foreign country? For five decades, at least, US Middle East policy has been decided in Jerusalem. Almost all American officials dealing with this area are, well, Jewish. The Hebrew-speaking American ambassador in Tel Aviv could easily be the Israeli ambassador in Washington. Sometimes I wonder if in meetings of American and Israeli diplomats, they don’t sometimes drop into Yiddish. I have warned many times that this can’t go on forever. Sooner or later real anti-Semites—a disgusting breed—will exploit this situation to gain legitimacy. The hubris of AIPAC bears poisonous fruit. Since Israel is dependent on US support in almost every sphere—from the UN Security Council to the battlefields of future wars—this is a real existential danger. Perhaps the lobby is becoming alert to this danger. In the present affair, their voice is remarkably subdued. They don’t want to stand out.

THE SADDEST part of the story is that all these false “friends of Israel” in the US Congress and media are not really embracing “Israel”. They are embracing the Israeli right-wing, including the extreme and even fascist right-wing. They are, thereby, helping the right-wing to tighten their control over our country. American policy plays a major role in the agony of the Israeli peace camp, which is so manifest in the present election campaign. Just one example: the huge settlement effort now in process, which makes the two-state peace solution more and more difficult to implement, is financed by American Jews who funnel their donations through tax-free organizations. Thus the US government in practice finances the settlements, which it officially condemns as illegal. Since the 19th century, newspapers have got used to abbreviating their reports by saying “France protests” and “Germany declares” when they mean “the French government protests” and “the German government declares”. Thus the media today write that “Israel” promotes the settlements, when in actual fact it is the Israeli government which does so. Several respected recent polls prove that most Israelis want peace based on the two-state solution, which is undermined by our government on a daily basis.

BACK TO Senator Hagel: the Israeli government and the “friends of Israel” will do anything to undermine his appointment. Speaking for myself, I hope that his appointment will herald a new American policy—a policy of support for a sober, rational, liberal, secular, democratic Israel, striving for peace with the Palestinian people.

Read More

A Fonte da Verdadeira Felicidade

Compilação

Deus é tão imensamente maravilhoso, total e plenamente encantador, que pode, por Si só, satisfazer abundantemente, até transbordar, as mais profundas necessidades da natureza humana.—Aiden Tozer[1]

*

O ser humano se encaixa exatamente no deleitoso lugar que Deus projeta para ele dentro do Seu grande esquema. Quando ele o alcança, sente-se satisfeito e feliz. É como o alívio depois da cura de uma fratura em um osso. Quando o nosso desejo é ser algo além do que Deus planejou para nós, na realidade estamos desejando algo que não nos fará felizes. As exigências divinas que, para a nossa natureza parecem mais comandos de um déspota do que o desígnio de alguém que nos ama na verdade vão nos levar aonde desejaríamos ir -- se soubéssemos o que desejamos.—C. S. Lewis[2]

*

Eu sei o que é preciso na vida de cada pessoa para levá-la à posição na qual pode ver claramente a sua insuficiência, perceber a futilidade da carne e do mundo, e quando a sua necessidade por Mim se torna um fato genuíno.

É então que se percebe as coisas no espírito, pela Minha perspectiva, que é a visão da realidade mais verdadeira e profunda. Nesse ponto você entende que Eu sou o centro, a razão, o sentido de tudo, e que sem Mim não há nada.

O resultado final de permitir que passe por dificuldades é levá-lo a esse estado no espírito, quando chega ao seu limite e Eu então assumo o controle. Nessa condição você não é nada e Eu sou tudo. A partir daí eu entro e o possuo completamente.—Jesus falando em profecia[3]

*

Jesus é o meu Deus.
Jesus é o meu Esposo(a).
Jesus é a minha Vida.
Jesus é o meu maior Amor.
Jesus é a minha Plenitude.
Jesus é Tudo para mim.—Madre Teresa

*

Arrependa-se e acredite no Evangelho, Jesus diz. Mude o seu modo de pensar e acredite que as boas novas de que somos amados são melhores do que poderíamos esperar, e que acreditar nas boas novas, viver com base nelas e as tendo por meta, estar apaixonado pelas boas novas, é a melhor coisa de todas as coisas boas no mundo.—Frederick Buechner

*

Sossegado pensando em Deus,
Que alegria!
Refletir nEle e inspirar Seu nome,
Incomparável sensação de harmonia. Pai de Jesus, recompensa do amor!
Será arrebatador esse dia,
Diante do Trono reverenciar
E contemplar Tua face querida! —Frederick Faber

*

Foi-nos dito como nós, seres humanos, podemos ser atraídos para junto de Cristo e nos tornarmos parte desse presente maravilhoso que o jovem Príncipe deseja oferecer ao Seu Pai -- Ele próprio e nós a Ele agregados. Fomos criados para esse único propósito; a Bíblia nos dá sinais estranhos e excitantes de que, ao sermos atraídos para junto de Cristo, muitas outras coisas naturalmente começarão a se acertar. O pesadelo vai terminar e vai raiar o dia.—C. S. Lewis[4]

*

Para ganhar esta intimidade Comigo, na qual as coisas deste mundo são menos sedutoras ou atraentes, precisa ter as coisas deste mundo por perda — se elas o afastarem de Mim. Você talvez se indague, “Como vou fazer isso?”. Precisa manter os olhos no Céu, na eternidade, sabendo que as coisas desta Terra são como a neblina, que logo se dissipa, elas existem por alguns poucos anos, mas as coisas do Meu Espírito duram para sempre. É a visão eterna. A carne e as coisas desta Terra que muitas vezes parecem tão importantes, logo não existirão mais.

Então, avance para as coisas que estão adiante, prosseguindo para o alvo pelo prêmio da sua soberana vocação.[5] Concentre sua mente nos lugares celestiais, pensando no que há de vir, em vez de nas coisas que existem, nas muitas coisas que o rodeiam.

Todas as coisas mudam ou passam um dia, só Eu permaneço. -- Jesus, falando em profecia[6]

*

Mas o que para mim era ganho reputei-o perda por Cristo.

E, na verdade, tenho também por perda todas as coisas, pela excelência do conhecimento de Cristo Jesus, meu Senhor; pelo qual sofri a perda de todas estas coisas, e as considero como escória, para que possa ganhar a Cristo, e seja achado nele, não tendo a minha justiça que vem da lei, mas a que vem pela fé em Cristo, a saber, a justiça que vem de Deus pela fé. Para conhecê-lo, e à virtude da sua ressurreição, e à comunicação de suas aflições, sendo feito conforme à sua morte.

Não que já a tenha alcançado, ou que seja perfeito; mas prossigo para alcançar aquilo para o que fui também preso por Cristo Jesus.

Irmãos, quanto a mim, não julgo que o haja alcançado; mas uma coisa faço, e é que, esquecendo-me das coisas que atrás ficam, e avançando para as que estão diante de mim, prossigo para o alvo, pelo prêmio da soberana vocação de Deus em Cristo Jesus.—Apóstolo Paulo, Filipenses 3:7–10, 12–14

*

Descobrir que Eu basto é uma experiência pela qual cada pessoa tem que passar sem ajuda externa. Ter o desejo ardente de descobrir isso é fruto de Me amar e valorizar a Minha Palavra, de passar tempo Comigo e passar por todas as experiências da vida junto Comigo. E então, como alguém que se apaixonou, você vai querer ter mais de Mim, vai querer saber o que Eu penso, como sinto, como gostaria que fizesse uma determinada coisa. Descobrirá então como sou sábio, cheio de ideias e maravilhoso. Eu passarei a ser tudo para você.—Jesus falando em profecia[7]

Publicado no Âncora em janeiro de 2013.
Tradução Hebe Rondon Flandoli. Revisão Tiago Santana.


[1] Em Busca de Deus.

[2] The Problem of Pain.

[3] Publicado originalmente em junho de 2006.

[4] Cristianismo Puro e Simples.

[5] Filipenses 3:13–14.

[6] Publicado originalmente em junho de 2006.
[7] Publicado originalmente em junho de 2006.

Read More

Start Anew Today!

          Life is all about the little decisions you make every day. Decisions of the Past have had their effect, but every new day can be a new start. No matter what has happened up until now, you have a chance to make the right decisions today.


          Do not waste time reliving the pain of your past mistakes and wrong decisions. That only saps your power to do what you can do today. You can not change the past, but the future is what you make it starting right now, so take full advantage of the present.


          Learn from past mistakes and then put them behind you today. Forgive those who have wronged you and ask forgiveness from those you have wronged. That probably will not be easy, but do not put it off.—Do it today. Look to Me and My Word for fresh courage and hope, starting today. Dream new dreams today. Set new goals today. Spend time on things that truly count today. Love your family today. Be a friend today. Do things better, starting today.


          With My help, your future can be filled with wonderful accomplishments and fulfilment that will more than make up for past disappointments—and it all starts today!

 
                      From Jesus With Love—For Troubled Times, page 43 @auroraproduction.com

Read More

Take Back Your Life in Ten Steps

By Tony Schwartz, HBR, January 10, 2013
You’re smart, hard-working and good at what you do, but the truth is you also too often feel your life is just a relentless set of demands you have to meet, and too rarely a source of satisfaction. You long to feel more in control of your days, but the reality is you’re frequently racing just to keep up.

This is the story I hear over and over at every level in organizations, from first line managers all the way up to CEOs in large companies. I’m convinced it doesn’t have to be this way, and that the solution has to do with deeply embedding a series of simple practices into your life.

I have ten in mind, but it’s not realistic to add them all at once, assuming there are a number you don’t currently do.

The suggestions are in order from the most basic and fundamental, to the highest level.

1. Get sufficient sleep every night. Sleep is often the single most undervalued behavior in our lives and the one with the most immediate power to improve our experience in every waking moment. If you sleep in the 6-6½ hour range, like the average American, just one more hour of sleep a night will leave you feeling more physically energized, emotionally resilient, and mentally clear.

2. Move more. It’s not only good for your heart’s health, but also for your mental health. Do some form of exercise that significantly raises your heart rate for 30 minutes at least four times a week and move frequently during the day.

3. Eat less, more often. Food is fuel. Lean proteins and complex carbohydrates are high-octane fuel. You’re best off when you keep feeding your internal furnace in small doses throughout the day, beginning with breakfast.

4. Renew more. Human beings aren’t designed to work continuously. We’re meant instead to move between spending and renewing energy. Ideally, take a break every 90 minutes, even if only to spend a minute or two breathing deeply.

5. Invest in those you love. The greatest gift you can give is your absorbed attention. Better to be fully present with someone for an hour than physically present, but distracted, for multiple hours.

6. Give thanks. We’re far quicker to notice what’s wrong in our lives than we are what’s right. At least once a week, hand write and mail a note of appreciation to someone who deserves it, telling the person precisely what you’re grateful for.

7. Do the most important thing first. Early in the morning, you’re likely to have the most energy, and the fewest distractions. Start your workday by focusing without interruption, for 60 to 90 minutes, on the most important and/or challenging task you can accomplish that day.

8. Practice reflection. We’re so preoccupied with the urgent that we rarely take time to think about what it is we’re doing. Set aside 15 to 30 minutes at the end of each work day (or in the evening) to reflect quietly and without interruption on what you learned that day, and what your highest priorities are for the following day.

9. Keep learning. Our brains work better if we challenge them, and life becomes more interesting when we do. Reading books is a simple and surefire way to learn and grow, but so is building a daily practice around learning a new language, a sport, a musical instrument, or around how to write code, fix a car, or draw.

10. Give back. Take at least one hour a week to put your own needs aside and devote that time instead to adding value to the world at large. One hour a week is very little time, but it’s a start—and it’s also more than most of us regularly give.

Read More

For Americans Under 50, Stark Findings on Health

By Sabrina Tavernise, NY Times, January 9, 2013 Younger Americans die earlier and live in poorer health than their counterparts in other developed countries, with far higher rates of death from guns, car accidents and drug addiction, according to a new analysis of health and longevity in the United States. Researchers have known for some time that the United States fares poorly in comparison with other rich countries, a trend established in the 1980s. But most studies have focused on older ages, when the majority of people die. The findings were stark. Deaths before age 50 accounted for about two-thirds of the difference in life expectancy between males in the United States and their counterparts in 16 other developed countries, and about one-third of the difference for females. The countries in the analysis included Canada, Japan, Australia, France, Germany and Spain. The 378-page study by a panel of experts convened by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council is the first to systematically compare death rates and health measures for people of all ages, including American youths. It went further than other studies in documenting the full range of causes of death, from diseases to accidents to violence. It was based on a broad review of mortality and health studies and statistics. The panel called the pattern of higher rates of disease and shorter lives “the U.S. health disadvantage,” and said it was responsible for dragging the country to the bottom in terms of life expectancy over the past 30 years. American men ranked last in life expectancy among the 17 countries in the study, and American women ranked second to last. “Something fundamental is going wrong,” said Dr. Steven Woolf, chairman of the Department of Family Medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University, who led the panel. “This is not the product of a particular administration or political party. Something at the core is causing the U.S. to slip behind these other high-income countries. And it’s getting worse.” Car accidents, gun violence and drug overdoses were major contributors to years of life lost by Americans before age 50. The rate of firearm homicides was 20 times higher in the United States than in the other countries, according to the report, which cited a 2011 study of 23 countries. And though suicide rates were lower in the United States, firearm suicide rates were six times higher. Sixty-nine percent of all American homicide deaths in 2007 involved firearms, compared with an average of 26 percent in other countries, the study said. “The bottom line is that we are not preventing damaging health behaviors,” said Samuel Preston, a demographer and sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, who was on the panel. Panelists were surprised at just how consistently Americans ended up at the bottom of the rankings. The United States had the second-highest death rate from the most common form of heart disease, the kind that causes heart attacks, and the second-highest death rate from lung disease, a legacy of high smoking rates in past decades. American adults also have the highest diabetes rates. Youths fared no better. The United States has the highest infant mortality rate among these countries, and its young people have the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy and deaths from car crashes. Americans lose more years of life before age 50 to alcohol and drug abuse than people in any of the other countries. Americans also had the lowest probability over all of surviving to the age of 50. The report’s second chapter details health indicators for youths where the United States ranks near or at the bottom. There are so many that the list takes up four pages. Chronic diseases, including heart disease, also played a role for people under 50. “We expected to see some bad news and some good news,” Dr. Woolf said. “But the U.S. ranked near and at the bottom in almost every heath indicator. That stunned us.” There were bright spots. Death rates from cancers that can be detected with tests, like breast cancer, were lower in the United States. Adults had better control over their cholesterol and high blood pressure. And the very oldest Americans—above 75—tended to outlive their counterparts. The panel sought to explain the poor performance. It noted the United States has a highly fragmented health care system, with limited primary care resources and a large uninsured population. It has the highest rates of poverty among the countries studied. Still, even the people most likely to be healthy, like college-educated Americans and those with high incomes, fare worse on many health indicators. The report also explored less conventional explanations. Could cultural factors like individualism and dislike of government interference play a role? Americans are less likely to wear seat belts and more likely to ride motorcycles without helmets. The United States is a bigger, more heterogeneous society with greater levels of economic inequality, and comparing its health outcomes to those in countries like Sweden or France may seem lopsided. But the panelists point out that this country spends more on health care than any other in the survey. And as recently as the 1950s, Americans scored better in life expectancy and disease than many of the other countries in the current study.

Read More

'Snowball Truce' Brings Brief Joy to War-Weary Damascus

Reuters, January 10, 2013
BEIRUT (Reuters)—For a few fleeting hours, residents of Syria’s capital dropped their guns for snowballs and traded hatred for laughter.

A rare snowfall that covered Damascus in white on Wednesday sparked an overnight outbreak of playfulness among Syrians, who momentarily ignored their bloody civil war and forgot their affiliations as dissidents, loyalists and even soldiers.

“Last night, for the first time in months, I heard laughter instead of shelling. Even the security forces put down their guns and helped us make a snowman,” Iman, a resident of the central Shaalan neighborhood, said by Skype on Thursday.

“It was the first time in a long time that I remember talking to our neighbors who are pro-opposition.”

A winter storm ravaged Syria and its neighbors this week, flooding and freezing towns across the region. But residents in the capital said the snow briefly swept away their misery.

“We felt a smile that has been missing from our faces for almost two years and we were all just Syrians,” said Amin, a resident of central Damascus, speaking on the internet.

“For a few hours our hearts were as pure as the snow.”

These days, Damascus streets mostly empty after dark. Residents stay at home for fear of violence or kidnapping. Jittery soldiers guard checkpoints and public buildings from clashes and explosions that sometimes penetrate the heart of the city.

But on Wednesday night, residents in several neighborhoods said they had stayed out until the early hours to enjoy the snow, teased by soldiers who usually stand in grim silence.

“We were out until 2 a.m. just playing … Last night there were woman and children and men outside and no one was afraid,” said a resident speaking by internet from Midan, a largely pro-opposition neighborhood in Damascus.

“Last night the soldiers threw snowballs at us from their checkpoints. Everyone started coming out and the soldiers would joke: ‘Oh no, is this a protest?’” he said.

For most, the snow truce offered little hope of better days, but some said it showed Syrians could still coexist in future.

“I don’t think there is any hope we can stop this war—this morning, I could hear the shelling again,” said Iman.

“But yesterday, everyone loved each other. And I feel sure that one day we can live together again.”

Read More