We Americans live in an odd time and place. Most of us would readily concede that some ideas are better than others. Nevertheless, many stubbornly persist in believing all religions are equal. Yet as religions go, Islam is an especially bad idea, and people need to know why. Therefore, when I saw Reminders About Islam at Always On Watch, I decided to reblog it.

Inspired in part by the web site Citizen Warrior, the video below covers important details about abrogation of verses in the Koran, shari’a, and taqiyya:

From the mouth of Pavel Pechyonkin, former paramedic and one of the suspects in the recent Volgograd train station bombing in Russia:

(continued here)

One of the points the video makes is that the peaceful parts of Koran came first and the warlike parts came latter. Suras 2:106 and 16:101-102 (which come late in the formation of the Koran (see Chronological Order of the Qur’an) say that where a contradiction exists the newer verses override the older verses.

[2.106] Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? (from here)

[16.101] And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.
[16.102] Say: The Holy spirit has revealed it from your Lord with the truth, that it may establish those who believe and as a guidance and good news for those who submit. (from here)

Note that the Koran is traditionally ordered base upon the size of the suras. The Koran places the bigger suras first.

There are numerous articles that both sides of this issue.

  • Those that advocate Islam as the religion of peace say Westerners just don’t understand, and the Bible also advocates violence. Here and here are examples of that point of view. Generally, it is a ridiculous attack on Christianity that ignores the plain fact Jesus never advocated warfare. Men are violent by nature, but Christianity does not teach anything like jihad. Where does the New Testament advocate violence? Other than eliminating Canaanites from Canaan, people who brutally sacrificed their own children to red hot idols, where does the Old Testament advocate violent conquest?
  • Those that point out the violent character of Islam, past and present, point to the  Koran. Here, here, and here are examples.

Are any of the above examples authoritative? Not really. What we each need to do is read the Koran and study a bit of history. Once we know a little about Mohammed and what he did, it is not that hard to figure out why the Koran says what it says.

Should we hate Muslims? No. We just need to show them with our own example that we believe Jesus is God and the savior of our souls.


  1. @Keith: the reference to “this country” may indeed have been vague to people who are not particularly alert. I would have hoped the context would have indicated that I was referring to the United States of America, of which my state, the Commonwealth of Virginia, has been a part from Day 1 (i.e., 1789, although we did attempt to wiggle away in the Late Unpleasantness, but we’re back now). In fact, Tom and I are virtually neighbours.

    Sorry to have confused you. Next time, I’ll use more geographically precise descriptors. My iPhone gives me a handy latitude/longitude fix as I wander about. I’ll toss that in if it’s relevant to my comment.

    As to the substance of my comment (leaving aside my sloppy geographic reference), I’m standing by it. I’ve seen no indication that Christianity is in any way a scarce commodity among politicians, at least in the shallow sense of being invoked as a campaign aid. Of all the world’s religions, Christianity seems to be enjoying a fairly good run in terms of pols thinking that it enhances their chances to be perceived as practising Christians. That generalization (and I acknowledge that it is a generalization) runs fairly true from the President on down through Congress to statewide and local elections.

    As a Christian, I get pretty annoyed at politicians who wear their religion on their sleeves. I find it to be a degrading way to treat religion. But my position on this seems to be very much a minority view. I live with an avowedly Christian President, two Senators, Congressman, State Senator, State Delegate, etc. Their religion interests me very little in terms of their getting their jobs done. If they showed up at my church on Sunday on a regular basis, I would probably pay more attention to them.


  2. Citeen Tom

    I read the article about forbearance before and totally agree that is what religious leaders need to do to agree among themselves. No religion needs to submit or force their religious beliefs on another. That has been tried and proven in history to not work over time. Forbearance and respect are key to any agreement.

    I believe the new pope has been making efforts to try to accomplish this. Politicians need to sign in to support any effort to help..


  3. Citizen Tom,

    I do not believe I implied that religious leaders need to demand, but to agree among themselves. The reality of life is that there are different religious beliefs in the world and no religion can prove their God is the one true God. Religious leaders need to promote good will, not war. As I stated before, in my opinion, until they agree among themselves, peace in the world will never come about by the politicians without the religious leaders agreement first. Perhaps that is what our Creator wants us to achieve among ourselves when He gave us the power of free will.
    Regards and good will blogging..


    1. I do hope you read THE MYTH OF TOLERANCE and will give more thought as to the price you would pay for peace. Does it allow for disagreement? Think again about how you have defined “the reality of life” and the job description of religious leaders. How does that affect which candidates get your vote?

      How do we achieve peace? We can try to make everyone believe the same thing. That is the age-old formula. Alternatively, we can respect each others rights. How do we begin to respect each others rights? That requires forbearance. What forbearance involves is respecting the right of others to disagree and live according to the dictates of their own conscience.

      I don’t know what standard you use, but I am satisfied in my belief that Christ Jesus is God, that Jesus is a member of the Triune Godhead. Moreover, I believe that anyone who understands that Christ Jesus paid the price for his sins and still rejects that sacrifice risks his immortal soul. Therefore, I could not in good conscience attend a church led by a pastor who did not affirm that Christ Jesus alone provides the way to salvation.

      When the Romans conquered the peoples surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, they were “tolerant.” They added the idols of each conquered people to their own pantheon of gods, and they offered those they had conquered the gods of Rome.

      Because they would not go along just to get along, the Romans found the Jews irksome. The Jews insisted Jehovah alone was God, and they wanted no part of what Romans called gods. Were the Jews justified in their intolerance? Latter, when emperors insisted upon being worshiped as gods and Christians refused, acknowledging only One True God, were Christians justified in stubbornly holding onto their faith, their belief in the salvation offered by Christ Jesus?

      Rather than submit to the beliefs of others, even today Christians suffer and sometimes die. Because they recognize God gives each of us the choice of refusal, Christians do not force their choice upon others; they simply refuse to give up in their belief that Christ Jesus alone provides the way to salvation.

      Thanks again for your comments.


    2. If I’m following you correctly, you are suggesting that if religious leaders all say that their divine guidance is that no divine guidance should be followed, everybody would follow them (including those who are not religious?) and be at peace with each other.

      The implications here are interesting, including the odd notion that conflicts between people are limited to religion. And you refer to the need for religious leaders who “promote good will, not war.” Which religious leaders, in your mind, are promoting war?

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


      1. Religious philosophy has evolved over the course of history. For brief example Pope Urban stated that anyone who died in the Crusades would go to heaven. Japan in WWII sent kamikaze pilots suicide missions. Today we are witnessing Muslim suicide attacks. All were motivated by religious leaders.

        Religion is not the only reason for human conflict. However, when conflict does occur, I believe every religious leader should promote peaceful means to resolve the issues rather than promote a religious statement that anyone who sacrifices their life will obtain a Divine reward.

        If things don’t change, they will stay the same.

        Regards and good will blogging


        1. I wonder what your notions on the Crusades might be. And you might re-check your history on Japan.

          But when you say that “Today we are witnessing Muslim suicide attacks. All were motivated by religious leaders” … it appears that you are counting Usama bin Ladin and Zawahiri and the like as religious leaders. I actually do not disagree with this; there are dozens of others with a similar message that are considered influential leaders like Yusuf Qaradawi, and countless minor ones — but this is not something that has “evolved over the course of history”; their counterparts encouraged fighters in the Crusades, and were active with the Axis powers when Japanese pilots were dying in their own “Divine Wind.”

          The striking thing is their lack of evolution. “Modern” Islam is disdained as “weak,” and it is beaten back when it arises by “true Islam” movements, the most recent hundred years of which have been the Muslim Brotherhood.

          But your references to those who “promoting war” have always been pointed at “religious leaders” in general, rather than any single religion. Are you aware of any other religious leader besides the jihadists who is promoting war?

          ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


          1. In my opinion, when a religious leader remains silent and inactive to resolve the issues during of a religious conflict, their silence signals their followers they agree with the conflict, which is in effect promoting the conflict.,

            The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day”The fighting that has plagued Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims), the Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians vs. Bosnian and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants vs. Catholics), Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians), Ivory Coast (Muslims vs. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus), Philippines (Muslims vs. Christians), Iran and Iraq (Shiite vs. Sunni Muslims), and the Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis vs. Catholic and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few, recent cases in point.” Harris, Sam. 2006. Letter to a Christian Nation. New York: Knopf, p. 81-82


          2. The jihadist says “surrender completely and submit to Shariah law or we shall destroy you.”

            The leader of the threatened people — and it doesn’t matter if he is a “religious” leader or not, and may be of any faith or none — has two options. Surrender, or oppose surrendering. This is really the situation around many places in the world today, and not only in the Middle East.

            If he decides not to surrender, would you say he is “promoting war”?

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


          3. Your question has too many variables to consider to obtain a simple answer. If for example, a person is surrounded, they must decide if they want to live to fight another day, agree to the demands, or die. This scenario has been repeated numerous times over history of conquest by war dating back to Alexander the Great.
            Your scenario will continue until the time comes that all religious leaders agree not teach and preach to their followers that there is no such thing as a just war based on religious beliefs.
            I believe you stated that jihadists are Muslims or Islamists. So to end the concept of Jihadist just wars, all religious leaders need to speak up, meet and agree not to promote the concept of just wars based on any religion. Until that time comes, religious wars will continue in my opinion.


          4. The question was simple. Is a leader who refuses a demand to surrender “promoting war”?

            You keep using the phrase “all religious leaders” — and I ask again: what “religious leaders” besides jihadists are promoting war?

            ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


          5. Your question has too many variables. Who, what, where, or when? Regardless, any reply I would make would be useless second guessing.personal opinion. since I was not the leader.

            I believe I already gave you a listing of recent religious conflicts..


        2. Where respect to the history of the Crusades, I think there are several things to keep in mind.
          1. It is a stretch to say that what Christ Jesus taught authorized a pope to grant indulgences. That includes indulgences to crusaders. That is the sort of thing that led to the Protestant Reformation.
          2. When Pope Urban initiated the First Crusade, he did so to defend a Christian kingdom under assault by Muslim invaders.
          3. The individual personalities involved in the Crusades often had much more effect on the conduct of the warriors than the supposed religious beliefs of the warring parties. Thus, during the third crusade Saladin is recorded to have behaved nobly whereas the leaders of the Byzantine Empire were not exactly model Christians. The Christian crusaders themselves sometime succumbed to the temptations of the moment in a land they must have found very strange.

          Interesting comments, BTW.


        3. scatterwisdom – When you bring up Sam Harris, that adds a certain irony to this discussion. Keith is an avowed non-theist. Whereas Harris did the opposite (see, Keith argues that the behavior of Muslims demonstrates that all religious beliefs are not the same.

          So how do we achieve peace? Frankly, without Jesus, I don’t think we can, but we are suppose to do the best we can. Since we cannot change human nature, we can only change what people believe. Unfortunately, for as long as there have been people, we have been stumbling over the same human weaknesses.

          The more things change, the more they stay the same. –Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr

          Our worst weakness is our pride. Because of our pride, we tend to insist that others share our beliefs. Harris, for example, thinks his Atheism is something special, but it is just another belief about God (i.e., a belief that effectively makes Mankind god). Nonetheless, because Harris is prideful, he thinks his belief is special. Because he thinks he is right, he thinks that rightness gives him the right to pressure others to adopt Atheism.

          Earlier in this thread you proposed two points:

          In my humble opinion, there will never be peace in the world if religious leaders do not get together and agree to at least two basic concepts.
          1. Preaching violence and killing to solve disagreements is wrong.
          2. Respect each other beliefs and stop declaring their beliefs are the only true God.

          On the surface (since you did not advocate force), what you propose seems reasonable. Because Christians believe in individual rights, we have demonstrated the capacity to protect each others other rights including religious freedom. Given that what we have done works, why not do what you propose? The answer is that we would have to use force and violate the religious freedom of our fellow human beings. We have the right to demand that bullies leave others in peace, but that is about as much as we have a right to ask of each other.

          Is peace that requires religious leaders to shed their present beliefs and to adopt the beliefs of others truly peace? Is that what you really want? No? Then what is the point? Why suggest an impossible solution?

          God made us all different, and there is value in that diversity, but that value has little to with what the Democrats crow about. In a society where a great many faith traditions exist, each religious faction quickly sees the value in protecting religious freedom. When your own religious tradition exists as a small minority, then the last thing you want is a government empowered to establish a religion. Unfortunately, our leaders have executed an end-run. In the name of secularism, they would “disestablish” any religious influence upon the state. Effectively, these leaders would replace the free exercise of religion with freedom of worship. Already, these leaders have removed Christian influences from the public classroom, replacing that influence with various “isms” including multiculturalism.

          What are our leaders doing? Are they creating the foundations of a peaceful society? No. What they are doing is empowering themselves. They are trying to establish government as the solution for every problem, making government the “newest” idol of the people. They are in fact just offering us more of the same.


          1. Citizen Tom

            I agree with the majority of your views. However, consider this, if religious leaders cannot agree on a simple question of morality what hope is there for ever achieving agreement for world peace?


        4. scatterwisdom – I deleted the duplicate comment.

          So what about your question? “If religious leaders cannot agree on a simple question of morality what hope is there for ever achieving agreement for world peace?”

          Before I give you an answer, let’s consider how you have defined the problem. You have made religious leaders responsible for war. That implies religious belief causes the problem of war. Yet when Keith question that contention, how did you answer him? Clearly? Have you actually given the matter sufficient thought? You have the communication skill to present an answer clearly, but have you have thought this matter through?

          I doubt most people give much serious thought as to the causes of war. Instead, we concern ourselves to much with the symptoms and leave unexamined our assumptions.

          The Bible, however, examines the causes of strife. Therefore, since you are student of the Bible (at the very least a fan of King Solomon), it seems appropriate to answer your question with a passage from the Bible.

          James 4:1-10 New King James Version (NKJV)

          Pride Promotes Strife

          4 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? 2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. 4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, “The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”?

          6 But He gives more grace. Therefore He says:

          “God resists the proud,
          But gives grace to the humble.”

          Humility Cures Worldliness

          7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up.

          Only the humble can be at peace with each other. That’s why the Christian’s answer to peace is “Jesus.” Because we resist humility, we may see parts of the world at peace and short periods when the world seems to be at peace, but this world will not see a true peace until after His Second Coming,


          1. Citizen Tom,

            Not all wars are religious. The source I referred to stated of all the wars in history, approx 1700 were not religious and only 123 were religious. My comments are mainly directed at the current terrorism wars which are religious.


        5. scatterwisdom – Consider that passage from the Book of James. Our wars have nothing to do with God. We just create excuses to get what we want. Sometimes what we worship serves as a convenient excuse.

          Islam, in particular, is a warrior religion.


  4. Your last sentence perplexes me, Tom. In this country, Christianity is very popular with politicians. You can hardly swing a cat at any level of government without find a bunch of pols trying to out-Christian one another. Stated obversely, one can hardly ever find a pol running on a platform that attacks Christianity.

    Of course, you and I both know that these pro-Christianity bellows are primarily for marketing purposes, but a lot of people, even Christians, are taken in by politicians purporting to be in the deepest relationships with the triune God.


    1. It is as you suggest. Instead of simply what they believe to be true, what men say is often propaganda. Propaganda can often be a pack of lies designed to deceive, not to inform. Unfortunately, because of the temptations of the power we give them, our leaders have the greatest motivation to deceive us.


    2. @Scout, who wrote: ” In this country, Christianity is very popular with politicians. You can hardly swing a cat at any level of government without find a bunch of pols trying to out-Christian one another.”

      And yet on other forums you have pretended to be from the United States. Where are you located, really? Just so that the circumstances in the US can be compared to the “this country” you refer to.

      Citizen Tom lives in the United States, as I do. Here, the chief “pol” as you put it is Barack Obama, the president, who is actively campaigning based in part on an attack on Christianity. Democrats, in general but including the president, make frequent reference to a “war on Women” driven by “the religious right” who are “religious extremists.”

      By “religious,” of course, these folks mean “Christian.” Other than Christianity and Judaism, both despised by many leftist politicians here, “religion” in the form of Islam is protected. The administration has organized Muslim Brotherhood consulting groups to make certain that US government/military materials make no derogatory references to Islam, whether or not such references are factual or important to our national defense.

      Instead, the Obama administration has undertaken to inject warnings about Christianity into these materials, describing Christians as “religious extremists” who are dangerous to the country. There are a few references left to jihadists (though never using that word, banned as “offensive” because of complaints from jihadists), but these leftover references are being blended in to the point where the uninitiated might think they were Christian, following the general line of hostility to Christianity in politics here.

      Since most of the American citizenry remains Christian, there are certain sops to Christianity tossed in even on a few leftist speeches. So far, Obama ends his larger speeches still with “God bless America,” though it sounds odd coming from him considering the rest of the content of those same speeches. And he rather famously has a long history of omitting references to God when quoting America’s formative documents, from the Declaration of Independence to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address where he used an interim version (not the one hanging in the White House) just to avoid that reference.

      The occasional toss out of “God bless America” is enough to keep many in the public happy. But the politicians here are transparent enough. You might recall the Democrats voting to remove God from the Democratic party platform — a vote which evolved only through frantic public relations, as they realized the impact of being quite so open about it.

      Even people who are known to be deeply Christian — Ted Cruz comes to mind — does not hammer on this in speeches. In one famous speech in October, for example, Cruz refers to God one time himself: “Apparently, chaplains are not supposed to be talking about God” (when noting that the administration was punishing a chaplain for posting the phrase “there are no atheists in foxholes”). He quotes from a letter (complaining about politicians attacks on Christianity) in which the correspondent mentions God. He later quotes a phrase from Ecclesiastes (“there is nothing new under the sun”). And ultimately closes with “God bless America.” That’s it, in a long speech.

      I live in the United States, where cities and counties all across the country are being challenged by hundreds of lawsuits and threatened suits to remove every trace of Christianity from their official seals, stationary, practices, and public lands. This is “working” in the sense that the changes are occurring now usually with little resistance. We have entire organizations receiving federal and state grants that were set up simply to pursue these threats and remove Christianity from the US, in the hopes that the American people would gradually forget their history.

      So, novascout, since the “no va” evidently doesn’t mean “northern Virginia,” what country are you taking about?

      ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle


  5. Nothing is going to change in my opinion until religious leaders all get together and agree that there is no moral or godly justification for killing themselves or their adversaries.. Too many political leaders believe that politics without the assistance of religion influence will solve world problems.

    An example is our US Constitution leaders included God. Too many of today’s leaders misinterpret separation of church and state to mean enlisting God’s help with religious leadership will lose them votes. Problem is the world religious leaders can’t get together to preach a common moral, killing is wrong. While at the same time political and world leaders aid by giving arms instead of food and humane assistance to solve conflicts.

    Sounds idealistic, but in history, there have been a few leaders that were successful in achieving peace for a short time.

    Regards and good will blogging.


    1. Thanks for an interesting comment.

      I use think the way you do. I had the notion that we could somehow perfect ourselves, but that is not what the Bible says. Experience has shown me that Bible is right.

      Let’s define the problem, but let’s back up a bit first. Why do we worship idols? I think the answer is that we want a god we can control. We want a god that gives us the power to control our own destiny. Yet such a god would not be god. What could a puny man or even all of mankind offer the Creator of all Things that He would need and could not have anyway?

      As it happens, what God wants (according to the Bible) is our voluntary love and obedience, and we are reluctant to give Him even that. We prefer to worship gods of our own design — idols. Thus, when we expect leaders (religious and government) to solve an intractable problem like world peace, we do so because we want to believe we can perfect ourselves. That is, we do not need God to help guide us towards perfection.

      The belief that we can — the desire to — do without our Creator leads to self destruction. It leads to us wanting our own idol(s) — our own god. Thus, we end up with a multitude of gods and religions, all in deadly competition with each other. Inevitably, that includes leaders using religion (and personalty cults) in a quest for personal power.

      What makes the Bible different is that it promotes freedom of religion. Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what Caesar’s and God what is God’s. The Bible says that what we each believe about God is a personal responsibility. Those on a quest for power hate that, of course. That’s why Christianity is so unpopular with power-hungry politicians.


      1. Citizen Tom
        In my humble opinion, there will never be peace in the world if religious leaders do not get together and agree to at least two basic concepts.
        1. Preaching violence and killing to solve disagreements is wrong.
        2. Respect each other beliefs and stop declaring their beliefs are the only true God.
        The subject of religious beliefs is volcanic. When religious leaders provoke followers, they erupt hot anger within them that produces bloodied noses and war.
        King Solomon recognized this as evidenced by a proverb. Peace prevailed under his reign until after his death. Then religious beliefs divided that nation and still does today.Religious leaders need lead the world to peace. Political leaders have never accomplished this goal and probably never will in my opinion.
        Regards and good will blogging.


        1. scatterwisdom – Is what you want religious leaders to do logical? Why would sincere believers in “The One True God” accept any other faith as equal to their own?

          What we believe makes a difference. What is self evident depends upon your worldview.

          Check out our Declaration of Independence. The men who wrote said government exists to protect our rights, not to tell us what to think. Before men can create a government that will protect each others rights they have to believe those rights exist.

          To achieve peace, we cannot demand that religious leaders change the tenets of their beliefs. What would give us the right to do such a thing? we can only use the use to insist that they forebear with the beliefs of others.

          Please check out In particular, I think you will find an article I have linked to, THE MYTH OF TOLERANCE, worthy of your consideration.

          Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I truly enjoy the give and take of a thoughtful and friendly discussion.


  6. Tom,
    Thank you for the hat tip. I appreciate it.

    After 9/11, I did a massive amount of reading. The book that brought me to an understanding of the history of Islam: Sword of the Prophet by Serge Trifkovic.

    The Hope of the World is our Lord Jesus Christ. And many in the Islamic world are secret converts to Christianity. I know one such convert who finally escaped with his family to South America, and now he can declare his discipleship of Christ openly with the fear of retribution toward his family. The issue of retribution toward family keeps many former Moslems silent. They’re not particularly fearful of their own deaths, but they do fear the rape and torture of their wives and children.


    1. Thanks for your post.

      One of the things that amazes me is that even though the governments of Muslim nations cannot hide the fact they suppress religious freedom (It is too blatantly obvious.), many Americans still accept the notion Islam is a peaceful religion (or at least as peaceful as any other religion including Christianity). Even though we don’t believe what the Muslims have to say about themselves, many Americans apparently believe our government’s multiculturalist propaganda. Unfortunately, multiculturalism is now part of the drivel that now passes for a public education.

      What is ironic is these same Americans call Conservatives brainwashed or brain-dead robots. Sadly, it is quite difficult to debate the facts of the matter with the people who have accepted the basic tenets of multiculturalism as the Truth. Such people too often think name-calling is an appropriate debating technique.


Comments are closed.

Blog at

Up ↑

Because The Bible Wasn't Written In English

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Fr. Pietraszko's Corner

Discovering Truth and Love

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Through Ink & Image

...Pursuing a God Inspired Life

The Wesleyan Tribe

A lifelong United Methodist Speaking Into The Chaos Of Today

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Healthy Mind Ministry

A Ministry Devoted To Mental Wellness Through Jesus Christ

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

John Branyan

something funny is occurring

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

Christians in Motion

Why be stagnant?


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren


"Behold, I have come to do your will, O God." Heb. 10:7

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life



PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.


The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. Wisdom to help us find the path to true love, peace, and joy in our lives, and our world.

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture." ColorStorm

%d bloggers like this: