Isaías 59
O pecado, a confissão e a redenção
1Agora escutem! O Senhor não é nenhum ser fraco que não possa salvar-nos; nem tão-pouco se está a tornar surdo! Ele ouve perfeitamente quando clamam a ele!
2Mas o problema é que os vossos pecados vos separam de Deus. Por causa do pecado ele virou-vos a cara e já não vos ouve mais.
3Porque as vossas mãos são as de assassinos; os vossos dedos estão sujos de pecado. Mentem, refilam, recusam o que é recto.
4Ninguém se preocupa em ser honesto e verdadeiro; os vossos processos judiciais baseiam-se sempre na mentira; passam todo o tempo conspirando e armando ciladas.
5Gastam o tempo e energias arquitecturando planos maldosos que acabam na concretização de assassínios.
6Enganam e falseiam toda a gente. Tudo o que fazem é cheio de pecado; a violência é aquilo que vos marca.
7-8Os vossos pés correm para a maldade, precipitam-se para o assassínio; os vossos pensamentos são de pecado, e para onde quer que forem deixam atrás um rasto de miséria e de morte. Ignoram o que seja a verdadeira paz, nem o que quer dizer ser bom e ser justo; fazem continuamente o que é mau, e os que vos seguem não poderão experimentar alguma paz.
9-10É por causa de todo esse mal que não nos é feita justiça, e que a rectidão não nos alcança. Esperamos pela luz, e só há trevas: vivemos na escuridão. Andamos às apalpadelas como cegos; tropeçamos em plena luz do dia, como se fosse o lusco-fusco do anoitecer. Somos como mortos entre os vivos.
11Grunhimos como ursos, gememos como pombas. Esperamos pela justiça, mas em vão. Esperamos por salvação, mas é coisa que está bem longe de nós.
12Porque os nossos pecados amontoam-se perante o Deus justo e servem de testemunho contra nós. Sim, nós sabemos bem como somos pecadores.
13Conhecemos a nossa desobediência; rejeitámos o Senhor nosso Deus. Sabemos como somos rebeldes e injustos; é com todo o cuidado que inventamos as nossas mentiras.
14Os nossos tribunais opõem-se aos justos; não se sabe o que é a honradez. A verdade anda de rastos pelas ruas, e a justiça vive como os marginais, os fora-da-lei.
15Sim, a verdade foi-se; e todos os que tentam viver mais correctamente são atacados.
16O Senhor viu todo este mal, e pareceu-lhe muito mal que ninguém tomasse a iniciativa de lutar contra o pecado. Viu que não havia ninguém que se adiantasse e interviesse. Por isso ele próprio avançou para vos salvar por meio do seu grande poder e da sua justiça.
17Revestiu-se da armadura da justiça, pôs o capacete da salvação; vestiu-se com a roupagem do castigo e da ira divina.
18Retribuirá aos seus inimigos conforme as suas más acções. A sua cólera atingirá os seus adversários mesmo que se encontrem nas terras mais distantes de além-mar.
19E por fim hão-de reverenciar e glorificar o nome de Deus, do ocidente ao oriente. Porque ele virá como uma corrente de águas, impulsionado pelo sopro de Jeová.
20Virá como um redentor para os de Sião que abandonaram os seus pecados.
21Esta é a aliança que faço com eles, diz o Senhor: O meu Espírito, que está sobre ti, e as minhas palavras, que pus na tua boca, nunca mais as perderás, nem tu nem os teus descendentes, diz o Senhor, agora e para sempre.
quarta-feira, junho 27, 2007
segunda-feira, junho 25, 2007
O vulto das torres
por Lawrence WrightQuando achávamos que o fim da Guerra Fria marcava o 'fim da história' e a humanidade enfim viveria em paz, o atentado terrorista de 11/9 - o maior de todos os tempos - mergulhava o mundo em perplexidade. De repente, tomamos conhecimento de entidades e personagens até então desconhecidos - a Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, os campos de treinamento de terroristas no Afeganistão. Mas o que é a Al-Qaeda? Como surgiu? Aonde pretende chegar? Qual é sua ideologia? Qual o papel dos serviços de inteligência americanos no caso? São estas perguntas que Lawrence Wright, por meio de um trabalho de jornalismo investigativo, procura esclarecer neste livro.
sexta-feira, junho 22, 2007
Eternidade Finita: repensar nossa construção teologica do tempo
[Finite Eternity:]Rethinking Our Theological Construct of TimeBy J.M. Leary
In the past few centuries, the Church has struggled to keep up with the sciences. This is, of course, ironic, considering that for nearly a thousand years previous, the Church was the only reliable source for scientific advances. Mathematics, physics, biology, all have moved with incredible leaps and bounds, leaving the Church-at-large in the proverbial dust of discovery. Admittedly, worldly scientific discovery is not our job. We are to be spreading the Gospel through acts of becoming Christ, not reading the latest science journals. Right?
What troubles me is that it's as if we decided, several decades ago, to drop any attempts at relevancy in science. Sure there are well developed arguments to combat evolutionary theory, but it took well over a century after the publishing of Darwin's works for those to gain public attention, and in truth, any accuracy.
Besides, as we gather more and more evidence for God's hand in Creation, science spurns forward, breaking new boundaries and explaining away the universe, one quasi-particle at a time. The travesty of this, is how the community of scientists edge closer and closer to mystery in their discoveries, and yet the church makes no unified response.
Lets take for example, recent advances in Quantum Mechanics. At the quantum level, particle movement is based around invisible relationships. One particle reacting to the movements of another at a completely different location, with no visible connection. Particles appearing where we thought they would, whether they had a reason to or not. All great mysteries, and those are just the simpe examples.
The theological implications and explanations for these 'relationships' are vast and beautiful. Invisible forces dancing and moving together in strange, but masterful unity, acting out of an unseen will, towards an unseen goal. Sound like anyone you know? These invisible particles make up the foundations of the universe. They are what we are made of, what everything is made of.
Beyond these, lets move to something a little more tangible: Time. Time was long thought to move forward as a force, a solid line, unaltering and steady. For so long we assumed that events existed as points on this line, which had a beginning and an end. It is fascinatingly ironic that so many years after Einstein disproved this concept, fiction is still making use of the old theory to sell pop culture books and movies.
I will not go into the theory of relativity, or it's implications and the theories stemming from it. I would suggest you read this book if you'd like to know more, or visit this page for a brief introduction. For now, I would like to go into some thoughts.
Let's just assume, for a moment, that God never intended this world, or this universe to have an end, but rather that it was meant to be eternal. We were never supposed die, nor was the world ever going to be destroyed. We would live on forever, in full communion with God and His creation, here.
I believe there's an abundant source of biblical backing for this, but I’ll let you be the judge.
Assuming this, we must reassess our definition of Hell and Heaven (not reinvent, or redefine them). If we were not meant to fall, to be separate from God, then there is no place for us to go, when our bodies fail (which they were not intended to do). Yet God found a place, though it had been created for others.
"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels!" – Jesus speaking in Matthew 25:41
Hell was never intended for us. When we die, and if we have chosen to ignore God all our lives, he grants us our choice, and sends us to the only place separate from Himself. Likewise, the humble, victorious servants will rise to be with Him in heaven until the time comes for the new earth, which will not crumble as this one.
All that to say that I believe God is not so far as outside of time, but rather he simply does not end. Likewise, we will never truly end, but just pass from the physical side of this world, into the ethereal of His, until the new earth. If God is the beginning and the end, then there is no in-between, only what is. The world started when God said it should, and it will end because of the decision of our forefather and mother. The next world will not. The next will be filled with those that long for true life in this life.
By taking full on the idea that time, in the sense of a beginning and end, only exists because of a decision of man, we are free to run alongside many of the current explorative theories of science. Let us take the straight and narrow, finding along the way not evidence that demands an answer, but Truth that is self-evident, mystery that is awe inspiring, and beauty that leaves us breathless.
In the past few centuries, the Church has struggled to keep up with the sciences. This is, of course, ironic, considering that for nearly a thousand years previous, the Church was the only reliable source for scientific advances. Mathematics, physics, biology, all have moved with incredible leaps and bounds, leaving the Church-at-large in the proverbial dust of discovery. Admittedly, worldly scientific discovery is not our job. We are to be spreading the Gospel through acts of becoming Christ, not reading the latest science journals. Right?
What troubles me is that it's as if we decided, several decades ago, to drop any attempts at relevancy in science. Sure there are well developed arguments to combat evolutionary theory, but it took well over a century after the publishing of Darwin's works for those to gain public attention, and in truth, any accuracy.
Besides, as we gather more and more evidence for God's hand in Creation, science spurns forward, breaking new boundaries and explaining away the universe, one quasi-particle at a time. The travesty of this, is how the community of scientists edge closer and closer to mystery in their discoveries, and yet the church makes no unified response.
Lets take for example, recent advances in Quantum Mechanics. At the quantum level, particle movement is based around invisible relationships. One particle reacting to the movements of another at a completely different location, with no visible connection. Particles appearing where we thought they would, whether they had a reason to or not. All great mysteries, and those are just the simpe examples.
The theological implications and explanations for these 'relationships' are vast and beautiful. Invisible forces dancing and moving together in strange, but masterful unity, acting out of an unseen will, towards an unseen goal. Sound like anyone you know? These invisible particles make up the foundations of the universe. They are what we are made of, what everything is made of.
Beyond these, lets move to something a little more tangible: Time. Time was long thought to move forward as a force, a solid line, unaltering and steady. For so long we assumed that events existed as points on this line, which had a beginning and an end. It is fascinatingly ironic that so many years after Einstein disproved this concept, fiction is still making use of the old theory to sell pop culture books and movies.
I will not go into the theory of relativity, or it's implications and the theories stemming from it. I would suggest you read this book if you'd like to know more, or visit this page for a brief introduction. For now, I would like to go into some thoughts.
Let's just assume, for a moment, that God never intended this world, or this universe to have an end, but rather that it was meant to be eternal. We were never supposed die, nor was the world ever going to be destroyed. We would live on forever, in full communion with God and His creation, here.
I believe there's an abundant source of biblical backing for this, but I’ll let you be the judge.
Assuming this, we must reassess our definition of Hell and Heaven (not reinvent, or redefine them). If we were not meant to fall, to be separate from God, then there is no place for us to go, when our bodies fail (which they were not intended to do). Yet God found a place, though it had been created for others.
"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels!" – Jesus speaking in Matthew 25:41
Hell was never intended for us. When we die, and if we have chosen to ignore God all our lives, he grants us our choice, and sends us to the only place separate from Himself. Likewise, the humble, victorious servants will rise to be with Him in heaven until the time comes for the new earth, which will not crumble as this one.
All that to say that I believe God is not so far as outside of time, but rather he simply does not end. Likewise, we will never truly end, but just pass from the physical side of this world, into the ethereal of His, until the new earth. If God is the beginning and the end, then there is no in-between, only what is. The world started when God said it should, and it will end because of the decision of our forefather and mother. The next world will not. The next will be filled with those that long for true life in this life.
By taking full on the idea that time, in the sense of a beginning and end, only exists because of a decision of man, we are free to run alongside many of the current explorative theories of science. Let us take the straight and narrow, finding along the way not evidence that demands an answer, but Truth that is self-evident, mystery that is awe inspiring, and beauty that leaves us breathless.
quinta-feira, junho 21, 2007
Informativo 323 STJ
ENTORPECENTE. SUPERVENIÊNCIA. LEI MAIS BENÉFICA.
Trata-se de paciente condenado pela prática do delito tipificado no art. 16 da Lei n. 6.368/1976, antiga Lei de Tóxicos. Entretanto ressalta o Min. Relator que a superveniência da Lei n. 11.343/2006, em seu art. 28, que trata da posse de droga para consumo, ensejou verdadeira despenalização que, segundo a questão de ordem no RE 430.105-RJ (Informativo n. 456-STF), cuja característica marcante seria a exclusão de penas privativas de liberdade como sanção principal ou substitutiva da infração penal. Sendo assim, tratando-se de novatio legis in mellius, deve ela retroagir, nos termos do art. 5º, XL, da CF/1988 e art. 2º, parágrafo único, do CP, a fim de que o paciente não mais se sujeite à pena de privação de liberdade. Com esse entendimento, a Turma concedeu a ordem para que o paciente seja posto em liberdade e o juízo de execução (art. 66 da LEP) analise eventual extinção da punibilidade, tendo em vista a nova legislação e o tempo de pena cumprido. HC 73.432-MG, Rel. Min. Felix Fischer, julgado em 14/6/2007.
5a turma
terça-feira, junho 19, 2007
How much is an immigrant's life worth, exactly?
By Steven E. Landsburg
da slate.com
Updated Tuesday, June 12, 2007, at 2:38 PM ET
How do you justify a border fence? Why is it OK to consign millions of unskilled Mexicans to lives of desperate poverty? I'm told it's because Americans should care more about their countrymen than about a bunch of foreigners. OK, but how much more? Surely there's some limit; virtually nobody thinks, for example, that Americans should be allowed to hunt Mexicans for sport. So, exactly how much are you willing to hurt a foreigner to help an American? Is a foreigner's well-being worth three-quarters as much as an American's, or half as much, or one-quarter as much?
(I'm grateful to the anonymous proprietor of the YouNotSneaky blog for raising this question, though my analysis is not the same as his.)
Let's do the math: When we admit an unskilled Mexican immigrant, his wage typically rises from about $2 an hour to $9 an hour—call it a $7-per-hour gain. To justify keeping him out, we'll have to weigh that gain against the harm he does to Americans.
Right away, our calculation runs into a problem, because on balance immigrants don't harm Americans; virtually all economists agree that immigration makes us richer, not poorer. Every immigrant is a potential trading partner, a potential employee, and a potential customer. He bids down wages, but that's a two-edged sword: It's bad for his fellow workers, but it's good for employers and good for consumers.
In the very short run, most of the gains go to employers, and a substantial fraction of those gains probably go to people named Walton. In the somewhat longer run, all that excess profit gets competed away and shows up in the form of lower prices for consumer goods. At that point, even the workers who took pay cuts can come out ahead: If your wage falls by 10 percent while prices fall by 20 percent, you're a winner.
But let's ignore all that. In order to make the best possible anti-immigrant case, let's ignore all the benefits of immigration and focus strictly on the costs to American workers, i.e., falling wages.
Since we're talking about a single immigrant, wages fall infinitesimally—but you've got to multiply that infinitesimal drop by millions of American workers. A high- end estimate is that 100 million Americans experience wage drops of about $.00000003 per hour. Multiply that out and you have a $3 per hour loss. (Note to econ-geeks: I assumed a wage rate of $10 an hour and an elasticity of wages with respect to labor of 0.3.) This estimate comes from the labor-economics literature, and it really applies only in the very short run, because in the long run, falling wages attract new businesses, which partly bid wages right back up again. But let's ignore all that, too, and assume a worst-case scenario, where the short-run effects are somehow never ameliorated.
Bottom line: When the immigrant crosses the border, Americans lose $3, and the immigrant gains $7. To oppose that, you'd have to count an immigrant as less than three-sevenths of an American.
But wait! It's worse than that. The $7 gain went to a $2-an-hour immigrant. The $3 loss came from $10-an-hour Americans. And we usually think of a dollar as more valuable in the hands of the desperately poor. The most conservative standard assumption is that the value of an extra dollar is inversely proportional to your income, so an extra dollar is worth five times as much to a $2-an-hour Mexican as it is to a $10-an-hour American. The immigrant's second dollar is worth a little less, and the third a little less than that.
Accounting for all that, it turns out that the immigrant's $7 gain is worth about five times the American's $3 loss. In other words, to justify keeping the immigrant out, you'd have to say he's worth less than one-fifth of an American citizen.
By contrast, there was a time when the U.S. Constitution counted a black slave as three-fifths of a full-fledged citizen. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley has recently apologized for the ravages of slavery. How long till politicians apologize for the ravages of our restrictive immigration policies?
da slate.com
Updated Tuesday, June 12, 2007, at 2:38 PM ET
How do you justify a border fence? Why is it OK to consign millions of unskilled Mexicans to lives of desperate poverty? I'm told it's because Americans should care more about their countrymen than about a bunch of foreigners. OK, but how much more? Surely there's some limit; virtually nobody thinks, for example, that Americans should be allowed to hunt Mexicans for sport. So, exactly how much are you willing to hurt a foreigner to help an American? Is a foreigner's well-being worth three-quarters as much as an American's, or half as much, or one-quarter as much?
(I'm grateful to the anonymous proprietor of the YouNotSneaky blog for raising this question, though my analysis is not the same as his.)
Let's do the math: When we admit an unskilled Mexican immigrant, his wage typically rises from about $2 an hour to $9 an hour—call it a $7-per-hour gain. To justify keeping him out, we'll have to weigh that gain against the harm he does to Americans.
Right away, our calculation runs into a problem, because on balance immigrants don't harm Americans; virtually all economists agree that immigration makes us richer, not poorer. Every immigrant is a potential trading partner, a potential employee, and a potential customer. He bids down wages, but that's a two-edged sword: It's bad for his fellow workers, but it's good for employers and good for consumers.
In the very short run, most of the gains go to employers, and a substantial fraction of those gains probably go to people named Walton. In the somewhat longer run, all that excess profit gets competed away and shows up in the form of lower prices for consumer goods. At that point, even the workers who took pay cuts can come out ahead: If your wage falls by 10 percent while prices fall by 20 percent, you're a winner.
But let's ignore all that. In order to make the best possible anti-immigrant case, let's ignore all the benefits of immigration and focus strictly on the costs to American workers, i.e., falling wages.
Since we're talking about a single immigrant, wages fall infinitesimally—but you've got to multiply that infinitesimal drop by millions of American workers. A high- end estimate is that 100 million Americans experience wage drops of about $.00000003 per hour. Multiply that out and you have a $3 per hour loss. (Note to econ-geeks: I assumed a wage rate of $10 an hour and an elasticity of wages with respect to labor of 0.3.) This estimate comes from the labor-economics literature, and it really applies only in the very short run, because in the long run, falling wages attract new businesses, which partly bid wages right back up again. But let's ignore all that, too, and assume a worst-case scenario, where the short-run effects are somehow never ameliorated.
Bottom line: When the immigrant crosses the border, Americans lose $3, and the immigrant gains $7. To oppose that, you'd have to count an immigrant as less than three-sevenths of an American.
But wait! It's worse than that. The $7 gain went to a $2-an-hour immigrant. The $3 loss came from $10-an-hour Americans. And we usually think of a dollar as more valuable in the hands of the desperately poor. The most conservative standard assumption is that the value of an extra dollar is inversely proportional to your income, so an extra dollar is worth five times as much to a $2-an-hour Mexican as it is to a $10-an-hour American. The immigrant's second dollar is worth a little less, and the third a little less than that.
Accounting for all that, it turns out that the immigrant's $7 gain is worth about five times the American's $3 loss. In other words, to justify keeping the immigrant out, you'd have to say he's worth less than one-fifth of an American citizen.
By contrast, there was a time when the U.S. Constitution counted a black slave as three-fifths of a full-fledged citizen. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley has recently apologized for the ravages of slavery. How long till politicians apologize for the ravages of our restrictive immigration policies?
segunda-feira, junho 18, 2007
Esboços de Karl Barth
O maior obstáculo a fé é simplesmente essa eterna presunção e também essa angustia que subsistem no nosso coração. Nos não amamos viver pela graça, há sempre em nos alguma coisa que se insurge violentamente contra a graça. Nos não amamos receber a graça, nos amaríamos, no Maximo, atribui-la a nos mesmos. A vida humana é feita desse vai-e-vem entre o orgulho e o desespero, que apenas a fé pode eliminar. Se contar consigo mesmo, o homem não pode chegar a ela, uma vez que não podemos, nos mesmos, nos libertar do orgulho e da angustia. Se formos libertos é graças a uma ação que não depende de nós.
p. 23
A fé cristã é o dom do encontro que torna homens livres para escutar a Palavra da graça, pronunciada por Deus em Jesus Cristo, de maneira tal que eles se atêm às promessas e aos mandamentos dessa Palavra, apesar de tudo, de uma vez por todas, exclusiva e totalmente.
p. 15
BARTH, Karl Esboço de uma Dogmática Ed Fonte Editorial
sexta-feira, junho 08, 2007
talento não é tudo.
Mais uma vez, John C. Maxwell, o maior treinador de líderes do mundo, traz uma mensagem para você e para o mundo dos negócios: Talento não é tudo. Se observarmos bem, perceberemos que ele está certo. Veja as manchetes dos jornais, estude o mercado de trabalho ou simplesmente saia de casa. Você verá que algumas pessoas de muito talento atingem todo o seu potencial, enquanto outras permanecem presas à mediocridade. Mas afinal, o que seria determinante para estas pessoas alcançarem resultados tão antagônicos em suas carreiras? Maxwell insiste que as escolhas que as pessoas fazem, e não suas habilidades naturais, é que as impulsionam para as grandes realizações. Segundo ele, as pessoas bem-sucedidas sabem e aplicam 13 princípios que são fundamentais para o sucesso.
quarta-feira, junho 06, 2007
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)