Does your faith need strengthening? Are you confused and wondering if Jesus Christ is really "The Way, the Truth, and the Life?" "Fight for Your Faith" is a blog filled with interesting and thought provoking articles to help you find the answers you are seeking. Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." In Jeremiah we read, "Ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall seek for Me with all your heart." These articles and videos will help you in your search for the Truth.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Trump Says Giving Peace a Chance Before U.S. Embassy Move to Jerusalem: Interview

(Reuters) President Donald Trump said in an interview broadcast on Saturday that he wanted to give a shot at achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians before moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Dennis Edwards: Good news. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem could have a very strong reaction from the international community and the Arab nations. It would be a sign that the US has forgotten the two-state solution completely, though that may in fact be the US position behind closed doors. The United Nations has stood for a two-state solution for many years, at least since resolution 242 back in 1967. Wikipedia gives us some of the details: 

The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration. The preamble refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security."

Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."[1]

Bible prophecy seems to indicate that the situation in the Middle East will one day blow up in the face of the whole world. Some eschatology experts believe that a "Holy Covenant" will bring some sort of peaceful solution to the present Israeli/Palestinian tension, even allowing Israel to build its Third Temple on or near to the Temple Mount. However, if understood correctly, the prophecies seem to show that peace will be short lived, a period of 3 and 1/2 years, followed by a period often called "the Great Tribulation," also 3 and 1/2 years. This 7 years is often referred to as the last 7 years and ends with the famous Battle of Armageddon.

All that to say, it's important to keep your eyes on the Middle East situation as it seems to be the tinderbox that will light the world in the very last days of man's autonomous governments. Trump's decision to not push to have the US embassy in Jerusalem could very well mean we have more time. But slowly, and surely things are moving in the direction predicted by God's prophets hundreds of years ago.

Science tells us this is all true!

On April 30, 1934, under pressure from Italian-American lobby groups, the United States Congress passed a law enshrining Columbus Day as a national holiday. 

President Franklin Roosevelt quickly signed the bill into law, and the very first Columbus Day was celebrated in October of that year. 

Undoubtedly people had a different view of the world back then… and a different set of values. 

Few cared about the plight of the indigenous who were wiped out as a result of European conquest. 

Even just a few decades ago when I was a kid in elementary school, I remember learning that ‘Columbus discovered America’. There was no discussion of genocide. 

It wasn’t until I was a sophomore at West Point that I picked up Howard Zinn’sPeople’s History of the United States (and then Columbus’s own diaries) and started reading about the mass-extermination of entire tribes. 

Columbus himself wrote about his first encounter with the extremely peaceful and welcoming Arawak Indians of the Bahama Islands: 

“They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron...They would make fine servants...With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.” 

And so he did. 

“I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts.” 

Columbus had already written back to his investors in Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella, that the Caribbean islands possessed “great mines of gold.” 

It was all lies. Columbus was desperately attempting to justify their investment.

In Haiti, Columbus ordered the natives to bring him all of their gold. But there was hardly an ounce of gold anywhere on the island. So Columbus had them slaughtered. Within two years, 250,000 were dead. 

Now, this letter isn’t intended to rail against Columbus. Point is, I never learned any of this information in school. Decades ago, no one really did. 

But today, people are starting to be aware of what Columbus did. And our values are vastly different today than they were in 1937. Or in 1492. 

Decades ago... and certainly hundreds of years ago... the idea of a ‘superior race’ still prevailed, endowed by their creator with the right to subjugate all inferior races. 

This readily-accepted belief was the pretext of slavery and genocide. 

Even as recently as the early 1900s, there were entire fields of ‘science’ devoted to studying the technical differences among various races and drawing data-driven conclusions about superiority. 

Phrenologists, for example, would take precise measurements of people’s skulls-- the circumference of the head, the ratio of forehead to eyebrow measurements, etc.-- and deduce the intellectual capacity and character traits of entire races. 

Jews could not be trusted. Blacks and Asians were inferior. These assertions were based on ‘scientific evidence’, even in nations like Sweden, the United Kingdom, and United States. 

Today we’re obviously more advanced than our ancestors were. We know that their science was complete bullshit, and our values are totally different. 

There are entire movements now (particularly among university students) to remove statues, rename buildings, and re-designate holidays. 

Frankly this is a pretty slippery slope. If we judge everyone throughout history based on our values today, we’ll never stop tearing down monuments. 

Even someone as forward-thinking as Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. And that’s a LOT of elementary schools to rename. 

More importantly, there will come a time in the future when our own descendants judge us harshly for our short-sighted values. 

Fortunately we no longer have faux-scientists today writing dissertations about racial superiority. 

But we do have entire fields of ‘science’ that will truly bewilder future historians. Economics is one of them. 

Our society awards some of its most distinguished prizes for intellectual achievement to economists who tell us that the path to prosperity is to print money, raise taxes, and go into debt. 

Economists tell us that we can spend our way out of recession, borrow our way out of debt, and that there will never be any consequences from conjuring trillions of units of paper currency out of thin air. 

They created a central banking system whereby an unelected committee of economists possesses nearly totalitarian control of the money supply… and hence the power to influence the price of EVERYTHING-- food, fuel, housing, utilities, financial markets, etc. 

Economists have managed to convince the world that inflation, i.e. rising prices, is actually a GOOD thing… and that prices quadrupling and quintupling during the average person’s lifespan is ‘normal’. 

They’ve also succeeded in making policy-makers terrified of deflation (falling prices) even though just about any rational individual would naturally prefer falling (or at least stable) prices to rising prices. 

Economists make the most ridiculous assertions, like “The debt doesn’t matter because we owe it to ourselves...” as if it’s perfectly acceptable for the US government to default on its citizens. 

Or that the US economy is so strong because the American consumer spends so much money, i.e. consumption (and not production) drives prosperity. 

The public believes all this nonsense because the ‘scientists’ say it’s true. 

The scientists also come up with fuzzy mathematics to support their assertions. Last Friday, for example, the Labor Department reported that the US economy lost 33,000 jobs in September. 

Yet miraculously the unemployment rate actually declined, i.e. fewer people are unemployed despite there being fewer jobs in the economy. 

None of this makes any sense. Fewer jobs means lower unemployment. Spend more money. Print more money. Borrow more money. Debt is wealth. Consumption is prosperity. 

All of this is based on ‘science’. 

We may rightfully take umbrage with the values and ideas of our ancestors. 

But it’s worth turning that mirror on ourselves and examining our own beliefs… for there will undoubtedly come a time when our own descendants wonder how we could have been so foolish.

To your freedom,


Simon Black
October 9, 2017
Sovereign Valley Farm, Chile

Founder, SovereignMan.com

Monday, October 9, 2017

God Is the Gospel

“For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith.”—Romans 1:171

Many people are under the impression that the Gospel of God is about acknowledging the fact that we are a sinner and accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour so that when our time comes, we will go to heaven. This is wonderfully true, but it is not the Gospel, rather a consequence of the Gospel.

If we look at the Gospel as being about forgiveness and going to heaven as the primary objective, we will not understand what the objective is for today, tomorrow, and every day thereafter. Paul writes a very comprehensive exposition of the Gospel to the Romans, and interestingly never mentions going to heaven. The whole point of the Gospel is that we might be reconciled to God and restored into a right relationship with Him so that the righteousness of God, revealed in His Son, may be appropriated and experienced in our lives.

The righteousness of God is the moral character of God, which includes His love, kindness, compassion, patience and justice. These we respond to in worship and admiration, but it becomes far more personal than that, because the righteousness of God was intended to be intimately connected with the human race. Genesis 1:26 says, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…” When God created us, we were designed to be a physical and visible moral expression of what God is like. God is love, and we are intended to be loving. God is kind, merciful, and just, which we were created to be.

Propositional truths about God’s righteousness had already been given under the Old Covenant, and the character of God revealed in the Ten Commandments. Under the New Covenant, the righteousness of God is no longer in propositional form, but is written in our hearts by the indwelling of His Spirit that comes to us by faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is not a passive belief, but an active experience of the presence and working of God in our lives. Paul writes, “God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.”2 In Romans 8:16 he says, “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.” These are experiential and bring us into a relationship of love and dependency on God.

The Gospel of God is … about the here and now. It is about living every day with faith in Christ and our reconciliation to God with the experience of His working in our lives, so that we may increasingly reflect the image in which we were created.—Charles Price

The final and highest good

“One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in his temple.”—Psalm 27:4

Protestants have viewed the doctrine of justification (by grace alone, through faith alone, on the basis of Christ’s blood and righteousness alone, for the glory of God alone, as taught with final authority in Scripture alone) as “the heart of the biblical gospel.” … What does it mean? … What is good about being justified by faith alone? Or more broadly, why is the gospel, which has justification by faith at its heart, good news? Now this question is seldom asked, because being forgiven for our sins and being acquitted in court for capital crimes and being counted righteous before a holy God is so manifestly a happy situation that it seems impertinent to ask, Why is it good news?

But I believe we must emphatically ask this question. … The reason this must be asked is that there are seemingly biblical answers that totally ignore the gift of God himself. A person may answer, “Being forgiven is good news because I don’t want to go to hell.” … Or a person may answer, “I want to go to heaven.” But then we must ask why they want to go to heaven. They might answer, “Because the alternative is painful.” Or “Because my deceased wife is there.” Or “Because there will be a new heaven and a new earth where justice and beauty will finally be everywhere.”

What’s wrong with these answers? It’s true that no one should want to go to hell. … In heaven we will be restored to loved ones who died in Christ, and we will escape the pain of hell and enjoy the justice and the beauty of the new earth. All that is true. So what’s wrong with those answers? What’s wrong with them is that they do not treat God as the final and highest good of the gospel. They do not express a supreme desire to be with God. God was not even mentioned. Only his gifts were mentioned. These gifts are precious. But they are not God. And they are not the gospel if God himself is not cherished as the supreme gift of the gospel. That is, if God is not treasured as the ultimate gift of the gospel, none of his gifts will be gospel, good news. And if God is treasured as the supremely valuable gift of the gospel, then all the other lesser gifts will be enjoyed as well.

Justification is not an end in itself. Neither is the forgiveness of sins or the imputation of righteousness. Neither is escape from hell or entrance into heaven or freedom from disease or liberation from bondage or eternal life or justice or mercy or the beauties of a pain-free world. None of these facets of the gospel-diamond is the chief good or highest goal of the gospel. Only one thing is: seeing and savoring God himself, being changed into the image of his Son so that more and more we delight in and display God’s infinite beauty and worth.—John Piper

[1] NIV
[2] Romans 5:5 NIV

Everyone has warned me not to tell you what I am going to tell you...

C. S. Lewis

Everyone has warned me not to tell you what I am going to tell you in this last book. They all say "the ordinary reader does not want Theology; give him plain practical religion." I have rejected their advice. I do not think the ordinary reader is such a fool. Theology means "the science of God," and I think any man who wants to think about God at all would like to have the clearest and most accurate ideas about Him which are available. You are not children: why should you be treated like children?

In a way I quite understand why some people are put off by Theology. I remember once when I had been giving a talk to the R.A.F., an old, hard-bitten officer got up and said, "I've no use for all that stuff. But, mind you, I'm a religious man too. I know there's a God. I've felt Him: out alone in the desert at night: the tremendous mystery. And that's just why I don't believe all your neat little dogmas and formulas about Him. To anyone who's met the real thing they all seem so petty and pedantic and unreal!"

Now in a sense I quite agreed with that man. I think he had probably had a real experience of God in the desert. And when he turned from that experience to the Christian creeds, I think he really was turning from something real to something less real.

In the same way, if a man has once looked at the Atlantic from the beach, and then goes and looks at a map of the Atlantic, he also will be turning from something real to something less real: turning from real waves to a bit of coloured paper. But here comes the point. The map is admittedly only coloured paper, but there are two things you have to remember about it. In the first place, it is based on what hundreds and thousands of people have found out by sailing the real Atlantic. In that way it has behind it masses of experience just as real as the one you could have from the beach; only, while yours would be a single isolated glimpse, the map fits all those different experiences together.

In the second place, if you want to go anywhere, the map is absolutely necessary. As long as you are content with walks on the beach, your own glimpses are far more fun than looking at a map. But the map is going to be more use than walks on the beach if you want to get to America.

Now, Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But that map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really were in touch with God—experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map.

You see, what happened to that man in the desert may have been real, and was certainly exciting, but nothing comes of it. It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it In fact, that is just why a vague religion—all about feeling God in nature, and so on—is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work; like watching the waves from the beach. But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music.

Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map. In other words, Theology is practical: especially now. In the old days, when there was less education and discussion, perhaps it was possible to get on with a very few simple ideas about God. But it is not so now. Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones—bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas. For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today, are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected. To believe in the popular religion of modern England is retrogression—like believing the earth is flat. 

C S Lewis Mere Christianity

Sunday, October 8, 2017

Saturday, October 7, 2017

Jimmy Carter: What I’ve learned from North Korea’s leaders

By Jimmy Carter, Washington Post, October 4, 2017

As the world knows, we face the strong possibility of another Korean war, with potentially devastating consequences to the Korean Peninsula, Japan, our outlying territories in the Pacific and perhaps the mainland of the United States. This is the most serious existing threat to world peace, and it is imperative that Pyongyang and Washington find some way to ease the escalating tension and reach a lasting, peaceful agreement.

Over more than 20 years, I have spent many hours in discussions with top North Korean officials and private citizens during visits to Pyongyang and to the countryside. I found Kim Il Sung (their “Great Leader”), Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly, and other leaders to be both completely rational and dedicated to the preservation of their regime.

What the officials have always demanded is direct talks with the United States, leading to a permanent peace treaty to replace the still-prevailing 1953 cease-fire that has failed to end the Korean conflict. They want an end to sanctions, a guarantee that there will be no military attack on a peaceful North Korea, and eventual normal relations between their country and the international community.

I have visited with people who were starving. Still today, millions suffer from famine and food insecurity and seem to be completely loyal to their top leader. They are probably the most isolated people on Earth and almost unanimously believe that their greatest threat is from a preemptory military attack by the United States.

The top priority of North Korea’s leaders is to preserve their regime and keep it as free as possible from outside control. They are largely immune from influence or pressure from outside. During the time of the current leader, Kim Jong Un, this immunity has also applied to China, whose leaders want to avoid a regime collapse in North Korea or having to contemplate a nuclear-armed Japan or South Korea.

Until now, severe economic sanctions have not prevented North Korea from developing a formidable and dedicated military force, including long-range nuclear missiles, utilizing a surprising level of scientific and technological capability. There is no remaining chance that it will agree to a total denuclearization, as it has seen what happened in a denuclearized Libya and assessed the doubtful status of U.S. adherence to the Iran nuclear agreement.

There have been a number of suggestions for resolving this crisis, including military strikes on North Korea’s nuclear facilities, more severe economic punishment, the forging of a protective nuclear agreement between China and North Korea similar to those between the United States and South Korea and Japan, a real enforcement of the Non- Proliferation Treaty by all nuclear weapons states not to expand their arsenals, and ending annual U.S.-South Korean military exercises.

All of these options are intended to dissuade or deter the leadership of a nation with long-range nuclear weapons–and that believes its existence is threatened–from taking steps to defend itself. None of them offer an immediate way to end the present crisis, because the Pyongyang government believes its survival is at stake. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement last week that “we have lines of communications to Pyongyang. We’re not in a dark situation” is a good first step to defusing tensions.

The next step should be for the United States to offer to send a high-level delegation to Pyongyang for peace talks or to support an international conference including North and South Korea, the United States and China, at a mutually acceptable site.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

I wanted to understand why racists hated me. So I befriended Klansmen.

By Daryl Davis, Washington Post, September 29, 2017

Daryl Davis, author of “Klan-Destine Relationships,” and subject of the documentary “Accidental Courtesy,” is an award-winning musician, actor, lecturer and race relations expert.

One night in 1983, I found myself playing in a country band at a truck stop lounge. I was the only black person in the joint. Taking a break after the first set of music, I was headed to sit at a table with my bandmates when a white gentleman approached from behind and put his arm around my shoulders. “I really enjoy y’all’s music,” he said. I shook his hand and thanked him. “This is the first time I ever heard a black man play piano like Jerry Lee Lewis,” he continued.

I told him that Lewis was a friend of mine and that he had learned his style from watching and listening to black blues and boogie-woogie pianists. My new fan didn’t buy it, but he did want to buy me a drink. While we sipped, he clinked my glass and said, “This is the first time I ever sat down and had a drink with a black man.”

Why? “I’m a member of the Ku Klux Klan,” he said. I burst out laughing. Then he handed me his KKK membership card, and I recognized the Klan’s symbols. In that moment, I was overcome by a question: How could anybody hate me when they didn’t even know me?

I was no stranger to racism. Having grown up a black person in the ‘60s and ‘70s, I knew that prejudice was common. But I had never understood why. Sitting in that lounge with my new friend, I decided to figure it out in the only way that made sense: By getting to know those who felt hostility toward black people without ever having known any.

Several years later, I recruited that man, whose name was Frank James, to put me in contact with the grand dragon of the Maryland Klan. He tried to deter me, warning that the leader would kill me. But eventually, after I promised not to reveal how I’d gotten the grand dragon’s contact information, James gave it to me. (I reveal it now, because James has since died.)

By then, I had decided to travel around the country and interview KKK leaders and members from various chapters and factions to get the answer to my question: How can you hate someone you’ve never met? I was planning to write a book detailing my interviews, experiences and encounters with these Ku Klux Klan members. (The book, “Klan-Destine Relationships,” was published in 1998.)

I had my white secretary, who typically booked my band and assisted me with my music business, set up a meeting with the Maryland grand dragon, Roger Kelly, explaining that her boss was writing a book on the Klan and would like his input. Per my instructions, she did not reveal the color of my skin.

Kelly agreed to participate, and we secured a room at a Frederick, Md., motel, where my secretary filled an ice bucket with cans of soda so I could offer my guest a drink. Regardless of how and what he felt about me, if he entered my room after seeing the color of my skin, I was going to treat him with hospitality.

Punctual to the minute, there was a knock on the door. The grand nighthawk (the grand dragon’s bodyguard) entered first, and then the dragon himself. “Hello,” I began, “I’m Daryl Davis.” I offered my palm, and Kelly shook my hand as he and the nighthawk introduced themselves. He sat in the chair I had set out, and the nighthawk stood at attention beside him.

We were both apprehensive of the other, and the interview started haltingly. We discussed what he had hoped to achieve by joining the Klan; what his thoughts were on blacks, Asians, Jews and Hispanics; and whether he thought it would ever be possible for different races to get along. A little while later, we heard an inexplicable crackling noise and we both tensed. The dragon and I stared each other in the eye, silently asking, “What did you just do?” The nighthawk reached for his gun. Nobody spoke. I barely breathed.

Seated atop the dresser, my secretary realized what had happened: The ice in the bucket had started to melt, causing the soda cans to shift. It happened again, and we all began laughing. From there, the interview went on without a hitch.

It was a perfect illustration that ignorance breeds fear and possibly violence. An unknown noise in an ice bucket could’ve led to gunfire, had we not taken a moment to understand what we were encountering.

Even though Kelly had told me he knew that white people were superior to blacks, our dialogue continued over the years. He would visit me in my home, and I would eventually be a guest in his. We would share many meals together, even though he thought I was inferior. Within a couple of years, he rose to the rank of imperial wizard, the top national leadership position in the Klan.

Over the past 30 years, I have come to know hundreds of white supremacists, from KKK members, neo-Nazis and white nationalists to those who call themselves alt-right. Some were good people with wrong beliefs, and others were bad people hellbent on violence and the destruction of those who were non-Aryan.

There was Bob White, a grand dragon for Maryland who served four years in prison for conspiring to bomb a synagogue in Baltimore, where he had been a police officer. When he got out, he returned to the Klan and later went back to prison for three more years for assaulting two black men with a shotgun, evidently intent on murder. But after I reached out to him with a letter while he was in prison for the second time, Bob became a very good friend, renounced the Klan and attended my wedding.

Frank Ancona, who headed a Missouri Klan chapter, would also become a very close friend. When Ancona was killed this year (his wife and stepson have been charged with his murder), one of his Klan members, knowing how close we had been, called me and told me before notifying the police. I accepted the Klan’s invitation to participate in his funeral service.

Three weeks after this summer’s violent clash in Charlottesville, I was invited by the leaders of the Tennessee and Kentucky chapters of Ancona’s branch of the Klan to speak at their national Konvocation. I accepted, spoke and took audience questions after the lecture. Whether or not anyone there immediately changed their minds, we talked as people–and we all benefitted from that.

I am not so naive as to think everyone will change. There are certainly those who will go to their graves as hateful, violent racists. I never set out certain that I would convert anyone. I just wanted to have a conversation and ask, “How can you hate me when you don’t even know me?” What I’ve learned is that whether or not I’ve changed minds, talking can still relieve tensions. I’ve seen firsthand that when two enemies are talking, they are not fighting. They may be yelling and beating their fists on the table, but at least they are talking. Violence happens only when talking has stopped.

And sometimes, people do change. One day in 1999, after having been in the Ku Klux Klan for about 20 years, Kelly, who had risen from grand dragon to imperial wizard, called me, said he was leaving the Klan and apologized for having been a member. He told me he could no longer hate people. I had not turned out to be what he had always thought of black people. He went on to become one of my best friends, and today I own his robe and hood–one set of many in my collection of garments donated to me by apostate Klansmen and Klanswomen, which is always growing. Accidental Courtesy

The common mistake that puts runners in danger on the road

By Ben Opipari, Washington Post, September 27, 2017

It’s a showdown that plays out every day: Two runners approach each other on the shoulder, one running with traffic and the other against. Who is running in the correct direction?

If there’s a sidewalk, the law says that’s where they should be. But if the shoulder is the only option, laws in the District, Maryland and Virginia say they must run against traffic. Maryland law, like the others, is clear: “If there is no sidewalk, always walk on the side of the road facing traffic.” Although no federal laws mandate which side you should be on, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Transportation Department recommend running against traffic.

One study bears this out. Researchers in Finland looked at data from auto accidents from 2006 to 2010, covering about 2,000 miles and 258 pedestrian accidents. The researchers found that pedestrians walking against traffic have on average a 77 percent lower risk of being struck and injured by a car. “If no pavement or pedestrian lane is available,” they write, “facing traffic substantially improves pedestrian safety.”

The reason is simple–you can’t react to something you can’t see. Facing traffic, you can react quicker to a wayward–or distracted–driver. Jean Knaack, executive director of the Road Runners Club of America, encourages runners to go against traffic. “Running against traffic allows you to see incoming vehicles and to react to them,” she says. “If your back is to incoming traffic, you’re far less likely to react if a car is not giving you an adequate right of way.”

Dennis Barker is the head coach at Team USA Minnesota, where he has coached 24 national track champions and an Olympian. Seeing oncoming traffic is important, he says, so that the runner and the driver know what the other is doing. When he used to run on rural two-lane roads, he noticed that when cars approached and passed one another, they would move away from the center–and closer to the runner. Running against traffic allows you to notice this adjustment.

“As a driver, I appreciated others who walked or ran facing traffic because it helped me see them better when they adjusted their position as I approached,” Barker says. “I, in turn, adjusted my position. We both took responsibility for each other’s safety.”

Runners should practice “defensive running” in the same vein as defensive driving. Defensive runners always look for oncoming distracted drivers encroaching their space. “Staying aware provides crucial time to avoid a distracted driver who may not be taking a straight line,” Barker says. “A runner going with traffic is not aware of what’s coming and is at the mercy of the driver.”

Making eye contact with the oncoming driver allows you to see what’s going on behind the wheel. Unfortunately, you may not like what you see.

The U.S. Transportation Department said that in 2015 there were nearly 3,500 fatalities and 400,000 pedestrian injuries because of distracted driving, primarily from people manipulating handheld devices. “Never assume a driver sees you. Try to make eye contact with drivers as they approach you to make sure you are seen,” the agency recommends.

It’s easier to be seen if you wear clothing that’s a different color from your surroundings. Todd Straka, who publishes the Boulder Running website and is the race director for a popular Boulder 5k race series, says that runners should look more like bikers. “Bikers often have blinking lights, even during the day. I would suggest runners wear something like that so they can be seen from afar,” he says.

Some people who run with traffic believe that if they are hit, the impact will not be as severe since they are moving in the same direction as the car. But physics proves this false. Rebecca Metzler, associate professor of physics at Colgate University, is a runner. Her rural community is two-lane roads, so she always runs against traffic. Metzler says that while the impact might not be as great if you get hit running with traffic, “you’re probably going to get hurt either way. Your reaction time is far more important, and that smaller force is outweighed by the ability to get out of the way in the first place.”

Wade Gordon, a retired Air Force colonel and an orthopedic trauma surgeon with extensive experience in traumatic and high energy injuries, agrees. “The force of being struck by a vehicle is great enough that it will break stuff, whether you’re traveling with or against traffic,” he says.

It’s also not any safer to run in the direction of traffic on neighborhood roads, even though speeds might be slower. Todd Templeman, an emergency physician at Suburban Hospital, says that head injuries are especially common, and can even be fatal, at these low impacts. Templeman says that he runs only on sidewalks or running paths like the Capital Crescent Trail. “I never run on the road. Ever. There are too many safety issues. “

If you do choose the road, however, experts agree that you should never wear headphones because you can’t hear the cars. One study examining pedestrian deaths from 2004 to 2011 noted the dangers of headphones. Headphones also cause inattentional blindness, which is the inability to notice unexpected objects even when they might be right in front of you. The cognitive function that you use to listen to music takes away from the more important cognitive function of seeing cars approach.

There are two instances, however, where running against traffic can be unsafe: as you approach the crest of a steep hill and as you round a sharp turn. The runner and the driver may not see each other until it’s too late. If this happens, it’s best to cross the road far in advance of the hill or the turn and run with traffic until it’s safe to cross back over to the left side of the road.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

The Beautiful Side of Evil - Johanna Michaelsen

Dennis Edwards: Have you ever been attacked spiritually by evil forces? Have you ever felt evil forces surround you, engulf you, sadden you, frighten you? In The Beautiful Side of Evil Johanna Michaelsen shares her personal story with the dark-side. It's a compelling story and worth a read and could be especially helpful to open the eyes of those doubtful that such powers exist. God's word tells us, "that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils."[1] Paul also warns that in the last days "evil men shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived."[2] Jesus when answering his disciples concerning the end times and His return warned three times that deception would be rampant. He said, "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."[3] "And many false prophets would arise and deceive many."[4] "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."[5] Johanna believes deception is not isolated to her unusual experience but is alive and well in many aspects of our lives.

Listen to her speak here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU9A0ddzkeo
Watch her speak here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsev0CrPwqU

Copyright © Fight for Your Faith