Saturday, February 06, 2016

Flat Earth, Disinformation, and the Eternal Search for Truth

I'm writing this as a stopping point in my search about evidence for the flat earth. It is intriguing. There are two people that I trust at this moment with their research. One is the originator of the current controversy, Eric Dubay (At least as I understand it). He published his book, The Flat Earth Conspiracy, in 2014. The other is Rob Skiba - more from him in just a moment. Rob's site and many other sites latched on to his fresh look at this with new technologies. You can find Eric at his website, The Atlantean Conspiracy. It is a bit of an older controversy however.

For thousands of years EVERYONE believed we were on a flat earth, irrespective of religion or culture. The Bible describes Earth as a flat circle, or a a disk. The two people I cited above have excellent articles and videos on this fact.  Samuel Birley Rowbotham published his book on Zetetic Astronomy in 1881. The debate raged from before Copernicus right up to the beginning of the 20th century. Perhaps it stopped because the powers that be had finally managed to capture the educational systems through compulsory schooling. But that is another story.

The other person I found who conducts excellent research is a Christian, Rob Skiba. He is open and honest with his research, doing it all in public. He is not a flat earther, but is questioning the official narrative. You can find him here and here.

It is interesting to me that Christian and non-Christian alike are questioning this and have some very valid perspectives.

By the way, please stay away from the co-intel agents already infiltrating the discussion and seeking to control the narrative.

One other site not mentioned in the above link is Mr. Survive and Thrive. I  have watched only a few of his videos, but he seems credible thus far. He has a youtube channel with many more videos.

He mentions the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's development of the Special Theory of Relativity in response to the results of that experiment. Here is the established, mainstream view of the experiment: Michelson-Morely

Here is the alternate explanation: 3 Experiments disproving the spinning globe. I'm not sure what it proves because the point of the experiments were to prove the "aether." They failed. One other experiment worth mentioning is the Airy Experiment. I don't know how much of a cover up this is other than simply another failed experiment.

The math is what really intrigued me. The first thought was about flight paths on a spinning globe. You can see an excellent video here by Eric Dubay. The other attempted scientific approach of this was from Brian Mullin. The video is hosted by Globe Skeptic. I will say more on the flight paths question in a moment.

The other mathematical problem that seems to be completely without dispute is the curvature of the earth. The curvature of the earth is not visible. From anywhere. From any real picture. The NASA photos are composites. They freely admit as much on their website. Based on the stated circumference of the flat earth, the earth and your line of site should curve away from you as the distance from the observer to the target increases. The accepted figure is 8 inches per mile. Here is the formula:
r = earth's radius
^2 = squared
Horizon Miles: Sqrt of ((r + height / 5280) ^2) - r^2
This has been proven in experiments to be false. The flat earther's see this as a function of perspective, which comes from the science of optics. Based on the math, you absolutely should not be able to see a building or ship shorter than 600 feet at 30 miles away. Why? because according to the basic math, the horizon has dropped from your perspective by 600.16 feet. Thus, a 100 foot tall building or a 20 foot tall ship from the waterline to the top should not be visible at 30 miles away. It should be physically impossible. Yet if you get binoculars, the ship or the building comes back into view, accounting for the change in perspective due to optics.

Now the established answer uses magical terms like refraction and mirage to explain this. And it isn't easily explained. See here and here. I don't think the articles address it at all. You be the judge.

Yet even with all that, here is the objection I still have. I work in a scientific field. I studied Aerodynamics, Astronautics, Orbital Mechanics, and Physics. My first job out of college was as a Satellite Operations Officer in the Air Force. The math works out for a globe model. I have seen the telemetry first hand from our geostationary satellites. 

Back to the flight paths question. As I was reviewing the math related to that, I reviewed the equations for Small Scale Ballistic Missiles (SSBM's) and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM's). There is a correction for a moving earth in these equations. I researched it a bit more and realized I should review rotating coordinate systems and the equations of motion. As I was looking for texts online, I came across this link: Fluid Dynamics of the Atmosphere and Ocean. This is part of a joint program between Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and MIT. It is part of a Master's and PhD track. The point is, the mathematics are advanced. And it is taught as truth by our most renowned institutions. 

As I began working through the equations, I realized that due to what was described above, our relationship to a moving ball earth has been explained by relativity, advanced fluid dynamics and coordinate systems, and a viable space program with satellite and missile tests every year.

I just can't believe there is a conspiracy to cover up this math and that the rest of our fellow human beings, who are incredibly smart, are compartmentalized to the point that they can't see the simple mathematical fallacy. The opposite must be true because we have used that very same advanced mathematics to launch satellites in near and far earth orbit.

Something else could be going on, but if you try and negate the globe earth with math, you will fail because we have 100+ years of math and science models that say the globe is correct. My question is how would a satellite stay in orbit if the earth is a flat disk?

Then it occurred to me. Since either we are moving or the stars are moving, we absolutely cannot know for certain which it is until we could see from a third person perspective. Relativity will give us different results. It could very well be that some other mechanism is holding up the satellites. But I want to focus back on the spiritual and philosophical perspectives.

With Copernicus and those that followed, we invented our own mathematics (Newton invented Calculus, though it is up for debate if von Leibniz beat him to it). The same observations can be explained by both a flat earth model with the stars spinning and the globe earth model with the earth spinning. The only difference is that God has been removed from necessity if the earth is a globe. Wouldn't it be just like Lucifer to cleverly drive man to an idea that doesn't need God, just like has been attempted with the unproven theory of Macro-Evolution?

I think this is a distinct possibility. We can make the math work that says a plane flying from east to west experiences inertial forces that delay its track over the earth so that it arrives when it does by simple time and speed calculation. We see the same observation though if the earth were flat with only wind resistance to deal with. So which is right?

This whole debate is interesting because in every area of science since the Renaissance, God and the need for Him has been progressively removed. Why would that be?

I still believe God even if the Earth were a globe. Jesus still came to a globe earth or a flat earth. Jesus still rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father on a globe earth or a flat earth. The Bible still correctly predicted many prophecies and Jesus' birth, life, and death. All of that is not up for debate with me. But it will call into question the claim of biblical inerrancy once again.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Vox Popoli: Inside the Syrian war

Vox Popoli: Inside the Syrian war

In this day and age of misinformation (Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread UNINTENTIONALLY. It is distinguished from Disinformation, which is INTENDED to mislead.), disinformation, and Propaganda, a first-hand account is refreshing. Please take a look at this article linked above from Vox Day.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Vaccine Freedom Under Fire

I came across an article shared on Facebook about vaccines - "Why I Chose Not to Vaccinate My Son." It was posted by a Homeopathic practitioner, Michele Brookhaus, RSHom(NA), CCH. You can find her website at Yahoo had picked it up on the 25th of July 2015. When I looked for it on the 28th of July, it was gone. I had to use web archive to try and find it. Fortunately, it had been captured and I found the original site or I never would have found the article or her site.

In the article, Ms. Brookhaus presented a cogent, rational argument on why she chose not to vaccinate her son. It was backed up with research. But when I went to the comments, the only thing I found were ninety percent negative against what she was saying.

What I'm learning is that despite someone's best efforts at rational discourse, people are going to believe what they want to believe. The commenters, instead of testing her theories and looking up the information she presented, simply dismissed them out of hand as the ravings of a quack doctor. They only have questionable studies that prove the efficacy of vaccines. They presented no information to refute the fact that eczema is listed in the vaccine insert as a side effect of the vaccine. They presented no reason why it is a good idea to force people to conform to their view of mandatory vaccination. Here are some references for those who are willing to look. In those articles you will find the references to journals that support a cautious approach to vaccines.

Herd immunity is a myth.

Outbreaks are more common in vaccinated populations than in unvaccinated ones.

Nutrition and hygiene were more strongly correlated with a decrease in disease than vaccines because all of the vaccines were introduced late in the trends. This is most true in the case of Measles.

There have been zero measles deaths in the last 10 years compared with 108 deaths from measles vaccines.

But none of this matters to the people who support vaccines. They don't care about the evidence, only their own indoctrination.

It does no good to post in Facebook comments. No one is changing anyone's mind through comments. Someone said this: "Just because something happens around the same time as something else doesn't mean it's related." They said that trying to claim no relationship exists between the Eczema and the vaccine. Yet, they won't see the same logic in refuting the claim that vaccines were not responsible for the decline in disease - good nutrition and hygiene was.

People have their minds made up until it happens to them. Logic doesn't win arguments - emotional reactions do. Only when people are confronted with tragedy will they change their cherished beliefs. The indoctrination from the medical establishment (see the Flexner Report) is just too strong. Yet it is amazing the number of people who turn to "alternative" medicine when the pharmaceutical drugs fail them and even hurt them.

All I can say to Ms. Brookhaus is be encouraged. There are many of "us" on your side. I will speak the truth as much as I can. I will post the truth in articles for the world to see and ignore the trolling comments. I found her article and agree with it. I will ignore the hatred coming from the comments toward her.

Homeopathy has worked for our family. It will work in the future. Allopathy is a failed model. The people who hate Ms. Brookhaus for what she wrote are ignorant of the truth. They don't understand that the whole health model was dominant until Allopathy was forced upon the American people at  the turn of the twentieth century through the financial support of Rockefeller, Carnegie, and others.
History of AMA
Medical Mafia
They haven't yet been touched by tragedy. They don't know that the medical community is the third leading cause of death in the U.S. That link is from the Huffington Post in 2014. Their cognitive dissonance and pride prevent them from considering another viewpoint. I pity them.

But they become the enemy when they insist on forcing their totalitarian views on us through forced vaccinations. This is nothing more than Eugenics repackaged.

I long for the day when we can return to reasoned debate. Unfortunately, the pro-vaccine side is so woefully ignorant that reasoned debate will be impossible in the near future. Until then, let's agree to disagree and let freedom reign. Our bodies - our choice. Forced medication is nothing short of tyranny.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Apologetics are for Christians, Not the Unbelievers

Trying to argue for the existence of a standard moral law to which all humans should adhere is exhausting. I came across another blog today where the author was confidently proclaiming that people should adhere to his version of chivalry and self-sacrifice because - Natural Law!

When challenged on that assumption, the debate inevitably degenerated to a discussion of
"My god can beat up your god!"
"Nuh Uh! You can't say that! The Bible is just an old book!"
"Oh Yeah? Well you're just stupid!"
That's not what was said, but sadly that was the rationale between the warring factions.It's sophomoric. It's juvenile. It is the state of debate when people aren't even equipped to understand debate and rhetoric.

As a Christian, I tire of the back and forth. The appeal to "Reason" as the highest good. The demand for evidence that must adhere to "scientific" standards when the people asking for that evidence don't realize that observational evidence is only one type of rational evidence in the field of epistemology.

A commenter on the post recommended I watch a debate between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein. Good stuff.

Then it occurred to me that the Apologetics, the evidences, the legal rationale, etc. aren't for the unbelievers. They're to reassure the committed Christians that they are on the right path. And this is ok. The Bible has 1 John to tell us what a true Christian looks like.

  • He doesn't try to say he has no sin
  • He confesses sins
  • He loves his brother. If he doesn't, then he isn't really a Christian
  • He walks in the Light
  • He keeps God's commandments
  • He does not love the World
  • He does not deny Jesus is the Christ
  • He practices righteousness
  • He helps his brother in need, physically - not just spiritually
  • He has the Spirit of God

There are more, but these are apologetics from 1 John. I've lived awhile now, and NEVER have I seen an unbeliever from one of these debates come to Christ because of it. I can do a fair job of representing these ideas, but no one has ever fallen to their knees in abject appreciation for the message and "proofs" I've given them. No one has ever come to Christ from anything I've said in a debate.

What does that mean? The older I get, the more I think the Calvinists are right: No one can come to God unless God first calls them. The only thing I ever really had against them was the idea that someone can live as they pleased but were always saved. Yet just from observational evidence, it is clear that most people just don't want to hear the Gospel. God isn't calling them.

Presenting the Gospel to a willing heart is one thing. Trying to win a debate is another. But I'm pretty sure it is a small percentage that are won as a result of the debate.

Love alone doesn't win people to Christ either. Without an effective presentation of the Gospel, all the good works in the world won't win a person who is not ready to hear the message. They will gladly take your free food, free clothes, and warm beds for years and NEVER come to Christ for anything.

So far, it looks as if the Calvinists are right. The only way people are won is by the working of the Holy Spirit in their lives. If they aren't being drawn, then they are lost. They not only WON'T hear, they CANNOT hear. They don't have spiritual eyes and hearts to see.

I don't want to waste any more time on people who aren't looking. I want to find the people that are looking for God. They come first.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

The PC War on Christianity - Ironically on a Men's Rights Site

So I decided to wade in to the manosphere yesterday. For those that don’t know what that is, here is a link or two:

I’m not advocating for or against any of those sites. But I do have to take issue with one particular site:
I commented on this article recently:
It was a youtube video of an excellent discussion of why millenials aren’t choosing marriage at the same rate as previous generations. I would argue that economics plays more of a role than social changes, but that’s an argument for another post.

I commented on the article in the same way that I do most articles: forthrightly and unapologetically. You can click through to see my comments. I thought I had found a small band of brothers. I thought I had found men that were Christians that saw things as I did. We seemed to agree on some of the issues surrounding marriage and family.

Imagine my surprise when my comment was immediately contradicted by an “agnostic.” What galls me about these people is that they look down their noses at Christians, while not understanding that their pseudo-intellectual arguments against God, the Bible, and Christianity in general have been absolutely demolished and discredited by serious books and research into the historicity, evidence, science, and philosophy surrounding it. Christianity is in fact a more rational and logical approach than Atheism or Agnosticism. But don't try and argue that--the Atheists don't have the understanding of Rhetoric and Logic that they think they do.

I’m not going online to proselytize, I’m really not. I know the futility of that effort. What I was trying to do is show that the Christian tradition does have a credible, well-documented, and historically verifiable answer to the question of marriage roles. It was in line with the theme of the article. What do I get in return for the olive branch in my hand? A bloody stump where my hand used to be.

I don’t understand the Christian church’s fascination with allowing itself to be ridiculed and spat upon in the market place of ideas. That isn’t love—it’s surrender! It’s rolling over like a whipped dog and admitting defeat. This doesn’t encourage people to come to Christ.

My attempt to share my own marriage observation was met with vitriol and banishment. Why? Because they follow a false god of moral relativism. The un-believers not only don’t believe in God, they don’t even believe that there can be one truth. And they’re oh so certain of their tolerant moral superiority.

What they don’t realize is that the ultimate fruit of their post-modern worldview will be abject disgrace, ugliness, hopelessness, and despair. Francis Schaeffer displayed the results beautifully in How Should We Then Live. The end result isn’t beauty, it’s apathy and despair. But they literally CANNOT see it because they are blind. 
"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them." 
2 Corinthians 4:3-4
What is skipped in the entire discussion is the Reformation. And when did that start? It started with Martin Luther in 1517 and with Guttenberg’s printing press 67 years before in 1450. The principles of property rights and liberty for the individual were also influenced by the Christian understanding. Too much credit is given to Locke and Hobbes on those ideas. Schaeffer argued that Locke appropriated his ideas from Samuel Rutherford’s, Lex Rex (Law is King) and discarded the Christian foundation for those views. Noah Webster also argued a similar rationale. The godless Renaissance and Enlightenment elevated Man to the same level as God. Man became his own measure.

But they don’t know what they don’t know. Their college educations were limited to only Hume, Nietzsche, and others who disputed Christianity.  This is what happens when you try to have an educational system devoid of the Bible. You create graduates ignorant of the very foundations of Christendom and Western Civilization that led to prosperity for the common man unheard of in the history of the world. The sad part is they feel triumphant in their ignorance to the point that you can’t even reason with them. The books and arguments are out there. Start with Augustine, move on to Aquinas, then look to the modern day philosophers such as Schaeffer, Plantinga, William Lane Craig, G.K. Chesterton, Paul Copan (His book, Is God a Moral Monster? is an excellent answer to many common Old Testament objections), Norman Geisler, Greg Koukl, C.S. Lewis, David Marshall, JP Moreland, Jonathan Morrow, Ravi Zacharias, and N.T. Wright. Evidences and legal justification can be found in the works of Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel

All you need to do is read William Bennett’s The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators and Robert Bork’s Slouching Towards Gomorrah to see where those ideas have led us. Also check out Barzun’s From Dawn to Decadence. Those books give example after example of the end game of post modernism. [Sigh] but yes, these secular humanists know better than us backwards Christians.

Back to the article at hand, I merely said that a Christian marriage has made me happy. For that I am labeled a “tradcon.” I had to look that up. It means one that follows a traditional conservative mindset. Guilty as charged! (One caveat-I read Dean Esmay's article on Tradcons vs. Feminists; I agree that the more traditional family is extended, not the artificial construct of one man at work and one woman at home that was created in the 40's.) Pardon me for believing that committed Christians in loving homes produce great families, happy children, good citizens and a prosperous society. And yes there is ample research to support those claims. Look here, here, here, and here. It’s practically a priori for the first century and a half of the U.S. as well as other Christian countries in the West. Why don’t the muslim countries have that prosperity and freedom? Oh that’s right, because ostensibly “rich” countries like Saudi Arabia are too busy cutting off people’s heads. Yep, that’s Islamic progress for you.

I’m just not buying into the PC arguments anymore. The “enlightened” agnostics, humanists, and atheists at A Voice For Men banned me for “bigotry and general contempt for the work AVfM.” What they really banned me for was daring to suggest that the traditional Christian view of marriage might be something to look into. After all, if it is true for me, then perhaps it can be true for you? I was banned for a truth claim that Jesus was right when He said,
"...I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
- John 14:6
Truth claims are not allowed on that site. I didn’t realize it because yesterday is the first day I’ve ever visited the site. And no, I didn't read the comments rules at all. I didn't realize that the site was so touchy about who commented and how. I know better now.

And here is the crazy thing: I was banned by a FEMALE moderator on a MEN’s site! Oh the IRONY! She stated, “We ban people for disdain and bigotry, including religious bigotry.” So a truth-claim for Christianity is now religious bigotry. Do you see how that happened? That is a direct assault on freedom of speech and a prime example of how PC apologists try to capture and change the definition of terms. This steers the argument in their favor because they know they can't win on the merits of their arguments alone. I understand speech discrimination is allowed on a private site, but it is still discrimination against a form of speech they don’t like. And here I thought PC was all about tolerance. What it really says is tolerance for me, but not for thee. They can't have it both ways. They can't claim to be fair minded and equal when they are censoring viewpoints.

See, the World wants all of the benefits of God’s blessings with none of the trials. So what has the Christian church done? Dumbed it down and removed every reference to God to produce their success manuals. John Maxwell, Norman Vincent Peale, and others try and state that you can have success without God. Well, not without a price. That success is coming at the cost of having given your allegiance to the prince and power of the air, Satan. Here's Bob Dylan cryptically admitting as much.

I’m losing compassion for people who remain willfully ignorant and prideful.
"...for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
- Hebrews 11:6
These people need God, but they don't even want to consider the Christian perspective. It's "bigotry." The Christian church needs to be a little more militant and a little less cowed by claims that we don’t know what we’re talking about. We’ve been shamed into subservience to a world that desperately needs God but rejects all overtures. The people commenting on the article wring their hands over what to do, but reject time-honored advice like the following:
"22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body,[d] of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”[e] 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband."
- Ephesians 5:22-33

Instead, this is what we get: “It is AVfM’s official position that men’s issues are neither a matter of partisan alignment nor aided by religious doctrine,"

I disagree, and a couple of thousand years of Christian history beg to differ.
Blessings follow not just in the U.S. but everywhere Christianity is embraced. Running water, help for children, and help for the poor. I could go on and on. Check out the book, What if Jesus Had Never Been Born by Kennedy. Yeah, there would be no hospitals and we’d go the way of Rome and Sparta practicing infanticide were it not for Christianity. As an aside, Christianity also greatly enhanced the status of women in the ancient world. See here and here. As I said, the world loves the benefits, but not the costs of following Christ.

The non-believers love to try and quote scripture back to Christians and try and throw it in our faces. The fact though is that the non-believers simply can't grasp things because they are spiritually discerned. Finally, they have no place to judge us. They aren't of Christ. They don't love Christ and keep His laws. Here is the Bible's answer on that subject:
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy[a] Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 
1 Corinthians 2:13-15 
In conclusion, their assertion that religious doctrine does not aid in the discussion of men's issues, and by extension, family issues, is patently false. The purpose of the article was to discuss marriage, about which the Bible has a lot to say as I quoted earlier. They suppress opinions they don't like. Doesn't sound very fair-minded to me.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Charles Martel Should Have Been a Pacifist

At least that's what many academics and "thought leader" authors would have American Christian men believe.

I'm looking for authentic examples of Christianity for men in America today. The Evangelical church has presented only one face. Here's what I see the Church today promoting:
The ideal Christian man in America loves his wife and practically worships her for all intents and purposes.  He keeps his promises to not dishonor her by looking at pornography. He promises not to cheat on her by having an affair with another woman (or man for that matter). These are not bad things. A Christian man should be faithful to his wife. He should not cheat on her or look at pornography. Perfect - I do agree. What else does the Church expect? They expect the man to live a purpose driven life. Yes, go out and make a difference, but only within established boundaries. Don't color outside the lines. Jesus wants you to keep your life and job intact. That purpose includes always looking inward and trying to be a better man so that he can lead his family spiritually. He volunteers to teach Sunday School. He even leads the men's ministry quarterly golf outing. He doesn't make waves. He supports his pastor during pastor appreciation month. He doesn't get involved politically because frankly he's too busy serving the church and his family and avoiding alcohol and pornography. Whew!
But isn't there more? I know the above is a caricature. There is much diversity, but how much is there really? Evangelicalism has emasculated men. Women run the Church and it has their imprint on it. How do I know? Look at how Mark Driscoll was vilified last year for daring to argue that perhaps Jesus was a special case with a special mission. That Jesus' ideas about non-violence have been misinterpreted. Oh yes, the emasculated men were out in force proudly proclaiming their pacifism and educating the rest of us just what Jesus meant by "real man." Of course, their feminist-inspired versions are correct and Mark Driscoll is a sad adult child of an alcoholic who just needs counseling from godless psychologists. Here's a link to the article.

Here's a critical question for men:  What would you do if the ISIS invaders came to your doorstep and threatened to kill your wife and children in front of you unless you converted to Islam?  What would you do in a home invasion where the intruders wanted to rape your wife in front of you?  Do you really think Jesus would have you turn the other cheek and call that holy while your wife and children were being murdered in front of you?  You really think that Jesus said you have no right of self-defense?

Or what about the machine gun preacher? Oh, he's horrid! Oh no!

Yep. We should just go protest and non-violently confront the kidnappers and war lords in Sudan. I'm sure they'll respond to your effeminate plea of "please Mr. bad man, please don't take these children! Oh. It's for the CHILDREN!" So, Christian men have no right to do whatever is necessary to help those children? Sam Childers isn't a Christian? Says who? You? Isn't that up to Jesus to decide?

And let's expand it a bit. The pacifists would say that Christians in Iraq and Syria, whose communities date back to the time of Christ, should just roll over and put their hands up and die wonderful martyrs deaths because such love is what will really convince those poor misled Muslims that Jesus is wonderful? Do Christians not have the right to defend their communities? Or should they turn the other cheek and let marauders come and burn their crops and starve them out?

I will concede that Imperialism as it has been practiced by Britain and the United States is a step too far. But to pull so far back that you won't even fight for your family is not only misguided, it is cowardly and sinful. Here's a gem from Revelation 21:8:
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
Interesting how both cowards and murderers are lumped together with the unbelievers and idolaters. I guess the whole lot of those commenters at RNS would throw stones at Charles Martel too. Don't know Charles Martel? You should. Without his bravery and his willingness to defend his borders, we may all be Christians in a Muslim land paying the jizya tax. Should he have just turned the other cheek?

These are the hard questions that the academics and theologians like to discuss while men like Sam Childers don't ask permission. They just go get it done. Mark Driscoll may be wrong, but at least he's wrong while taking action. I'll follow him rather than some effete author or pastor any day.

Where were the Christians leading the fight with Occupy Wall Street? Where are the Christians speaking out about the economic issues of the day? And why aren't pastors calling their congregations to simply stop paying taxes as a protest to Obamacare or Roe v. Wade? That's hard. I know. We have families to manage and raise. But God has called one person to do it. Read the link. Strong woman, which I say to the shame of most Christian men.