Islam is not the peaceful religion we’re led to believe

Islam is not the peaceful religion the media portrays. To know the truth about what a religion teaches, study their sacred writings and traditions. David Woods has done much of the work for us. Here is his video and the PDF is a large-print version of the pamphlet he refers to at the end of his presentation.

Three Stages of Jihad video by David Wood

Link to Three Stages of Jihad large print version of the pamphlet he referred to:



Leave a Comment

Why do you ask?

Not everyone who asks questions wants answers.  In listening to coffee shop conversations, I’ve observed that questions are veiled attempts to start a discussion. When it comes to the topic of God, it seems questions are almost always motivated by a desire to ridicule belief in the supernatural.  I am increasingly convinced that the root of disbelief in God is a desire to not have to answer to a cosmic Someone for their moral choices.

Leave a Comment

What are you willing to do for God?

When I consider all that I have to be grateful for and how seldom I express that gratitude to God, I feel sad.  I want to love Him so much more than I do now, which is so much less than He deserves.  He sent His Son Jesus to suffer and die so that I could live forever with Him in heaven. Yet I am so quick to complain of little discomforts and balk at giving of my time or money, not to mention fasting or doing anything I don’t feel like doing.

If I love Jesus and He suffered so much out of love for me, why am I so unwilling to sacrifice my self-will in even the smallest thing? James said that “faith without works is dead” so live that is only words would be worth very little.

Heavenly Father, You commanded us to love You “with all our heart, soul and strength”. Help me to put You first, to give You more than words, to spend time with You in prayer. Help me to obey You in everything sine those who love You are those who follow Your commandments. For all the times and ways I fail, I trust in Your merciful love.

Leave a Comment

Will “tolerance” work both ways?

Society including Christians permit gay common-law unions (and now legal marriage throughout the United States) without interference? Some gay people are not satisfied to have their unions permitted. They insist that that everyone agree with them and persecute any who disagree for religious or conscience reasons. Where is the evidence of  “tolerance” on their part?
The verb “tolerate” is defined as “allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference”. According to J. Warner Wallace: “Tolerance is now the act of recognizing and embracing all views as equally valuable and true, even though they often make opposite truth claims. According to this redefinition of tolerance, anything other than acceptance and approval is narrow and bigoted.”
The dictionary definition and the cultural expectation of tolerance contradict one another. True tolerance does not demand agreement; that’s dogmatism.  Gays and atheists expect us to be tolerant of their beliefs and practices in the cultural sense of the word yet they are not even tolerant of the rest of us in the dictionary sense. This is not very “tolerant” behaviour.
The vote of the Supreme Court was 5 to 4, hardly an overwhelming majority. What might have been the result if this question had been addressed through a referendum? What about those who disagree? Will their freedom of speech and moral convictions be honoured? 
Genuinely “tolerant” gays will marry if they wish and have their unions validated by those willing to do so.  There is no shortage of clergymen and those of other professions willing to provide services to gay couples.  They would not demand to have their marriages celebrated by those whose consciences forbid it then persecute them for refusing.  That is NOT tolerance by either the dictionary or cultural definition.
Will the increase in “gay rights” result in a decrease in “rights” to freedom of religion and speech for the rest of us?  

Leave a Comment

A Square Can Be So Much More

This inspires me to knit and crochet even though my skills are really basic.

Andrea Squared

Have you ever wondered about the secret language we use on the Knit-a-square forum? Over time, we’ve evolved squares into warm garments to help combat a distinct lack of warm clothing. Thanks to KAS, little bodies can be warm, dry and protected.Go-Over

The Go-Over does just that – it is a sweater that is meant to “go over” other layers of clothes for extra warmth. They are typically heavy duty and feature a wide neck and ample armholes. Think: acrylic worsted weight.

The Go-Over uses 16 squares, four for the front, back and each sleeve. You can also make it in one piece from the neck down or from the bottom up. I’ve tried both ways, individual squares and in one piece. While it goes faster when you’re making it with squares, it does take longer to put together. I make the sleeves the way you would with a traditional sweater, less wide at the wrist, increasing as you go up the sleeve.

Slip-OverA Slip-Over

View original post 185 more words

Leave a Comment

If you knew, what would you change?

Imagine that a visionary told you and that you were utterly convinced that Jesus’ Second Coming would happen sometime within the next few weeks (though not exactly when since “no one knows the day or the hour”).  Consider the following questions:

1.  How would you feel?

2.  What would you start doing regularly or do more often than you do it now?

3.  What would you do that you know you need to do but have been procrastinating about?

4.   What would you do less often or stop doing altogether?

5.   What would move to the top of your list of priorities?

When I shared with my husband my answers to questions 2 and 4, he asked me what stops me from doing or refraining from those things?  My answer to this could be summarized in these three things: gluttony, sloth and self-will.

Leave a Comment

How important is it to show your face online?

I just finished reading Twitter for Dummies which was published in 2009. I don’t know if there’s a newer edition or if the authors have changed their opinion about this.

They strongly recommend putting a picture of yourself on your Twitter profile. I currently have the same fractal image on all the platforms I use and prefer to keep it that way.

One thing I like about communicating online is that it’s the only place where I’m judged on what I write and not at all based on how I look. Maybe I’m a bit odd but I don’t like my picture taken or shown and only use mirrors when necessary.

How do you perceive Twitterers, Facebook users or bloggers who have a picture of something or perhaps no picture at all on their profile? Do you mistrust them or does it not make any difference?

Is there a compelling reason for me to replace my fractal with a photo of myself on Twitter and Facebook?

If you are not showing a picture of yourself on your Twitter, Facebook or blog page, what is your most compelling reason for this decision.  If one of these platforms suddenly made this mandatory, what would you do?

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »