User Profile: Walking in the Light

Walking in the Light

Member Since: September 27, 2011

Comments

  • [10] June 20, 2014 at 1:09am

    Apparently, you missed the memo. Vulgar derogatory words are always acceptable when applying them to conservatives or anyone who disagrees with a liberal position. By expressing any idea that is not accepted liberal PC orthodoxy, the speaker has publicly exposed themselves as being either subhuman or a troglodyte. As such, any verbal abuse directed toward said subhuman/troglodyte and or any violence directed at the subhuman/troglodyte is considered worthy of the Presidential Medal of Honor. This decree was, of course made via Presidential Executive Order by his highness.

  • [17] May 29, 2014 at 9:15pm

    Very funny, Monk. I’m sure he’s had his black card revoked by the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and others like them. You know, once someone like Ben leaves the liberal ideological plantation they’re told they’re not black anymore. That must come as quite a shock to him every time he looks in the mirror. Don’t forget the other nice things that the “tolerant” left calls black conservatives, i.e. Uncle Tom, Oreo etc.

  • February 7, 2014 at 7:55am

    “But scientists are working on it. There’s a lot that we do know that’s related to that question, but the big one — how we went from non-life to life in the Universe — is still an open one. I hope I live long enough to be there when we figure this puzzle out; don’t you?”

    Embedded in his response is the assumption that one day science will figure it out. He has no scientific basis for his assumption. Science can prove what it can prove and nothing more. It cannot, with scientific certainty, prove that it will discover an answer to any question for which it currently has no answer. The correct term for Ethan Siegel’s assumption is “faith.” He has faith that science will eventually discover answers it does not currently have. Christians and scientists have one thing in common. They are both people of faith. They only differ in what they put their faith in.

    Responses (1) +
  • November 20, 2013 at 12:22pm

    “I feel that women have the right to choose what to do to their body,” Cottrell said.

    The problem is not what the women chooses to do with her body, it is what she chooses to do to the pre-born baby’s body!

    Fun Facts: 1. Though, not fully developed, a babies heart starts beating at just 6 weeks. 2. Through the medical technique called embrioscopy, the baby can be watched sleeping, waking-up, yawning, turning, and stretching; just like kids all around the world! 3. “At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG).”
    — Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto

    Responses (1) +
  • October 18, 2013 at 12:15pm

    Yes, send them to San Quentin immediately. Those who would dare carry out such a ruthless attack against Mother Earth should be locked up for life!

  • September 10, 2013 at 7:01pm

    Well said. If a fetus is not a baby/human being, then he can’t be guilty of murder. Instead he should be on trial for forging a prescription. That being said, you know liberals/progressives live by the credo that the ends justify the means. Just take Obamacare for instance. When the dems were passing it they argued against the Republicans’ charge that they were raising taxes and insisted that it was a “penalty.” When they went before SCOTUS, they argued that it was a tax and, therefore, constitutional under congresses taxing authority. In other words, let a liberal call a coin toss and he’ll yell “heads AND tails.” They are shameless, which is why they usually win.

  • September 10, 2013 at 6:26pm

    If the father takes the life of the baby, it’s called murder. If the mother takes the life of the baby it’s called “choice.” Same act. Same result. It’s murder either way. Unfortunately, we live in a sick society that has legalized one of those acts of murder. And, before someone spews the absurd argument that a woman can do what she wants with her body, nobody is telling her what she can do with her body. We’re saying what she can’t do to the baby’s body i.e. have it chopped up, sucked out, bagged and incinerated.

  • July 18, 2013 at 12:46pm

    As certain as I was that George Zimmerman was innocent and should never have been dragged through the criminal justice system, I am just as certain that this evil man should spend the rest of his pathetic life in jail.

  • June 26, 2013 at 1:04pm

    I have to disagree with Mil-Dot. Men and women ARE equal in value, but they are not the same.

  • June 20, 2013 at 11:55am

    I’m a Republican, but I’m a conservative first and foremost. What Jim Allen said does not in any way shape or form resemble Republican or conservative principles. Nor, do any of my conservative or Republican friends think like this or approve of such racist garbage. So, I don’t know how punks like Jim Allen ever get to the top of the party heap. Abe Lincoln must be rolling over in his grave. Aargh!

  • June 20, 2013 at 11:31am

    First, you have a typo. I know you meant Rom 12:2, not Tom 12:2. Although, if you have a book of Tom please let me know. :)

    Second, well said.

  • June 20, 2013 at 10:48am

    Scripture is clear that when we come to Christ we are to repent (*) of our sins. While we will fall short at times and sin, we are to desire to be like Him and adopt His ways. I cannot call Christ my savior on one hand and then continue an unrepentant life of adultery under the guise that God made me that way. Neither can a practicing homosexual.

    *The word in the New Testament usually translated “repent” is the Greek word “metanoeo”. It means “to change your mind; reconsider; or, to think differently.”

  • June 20, 2013 at 10:26am

    Truth: Scripture is very clear that homosexuality is a sin.

    Truth: Christians are to share the “Good News” of the bible that Christ came to die for our sins and set us free from our sins.

    Truth: Christians are to share the Good News in a loving way without hostility and anger toward the sinner. i.e. hate the sin, but love the sinner.

    Truth: Opposing homosexuality and gay marriage is NOT, by definition, hateful. How you oppose it CAN be if done in anger.

    If Mr. Chambers has sinned against homosexuals by mistreating them while trying to help them with their particular sin issue, he should confess his sin and ask for their forgiveness.

    However, opposing homosexuality and homosexual marriage in a Christ-like way is what Christians are called to do. Just because we are currently losing the battle in our culture and just because there are some Christians (I’m tempted to say “so-called”, but I’ll let the Lord decide) who wish to abandon the truth of the gospel, doesn’t mean we should throw in the towel. We once were losing the cultural battle on abortion and polls clearly show a cultural shift toward pro-life sentiments.

    Final Truth: Mr. Chambers may need to change how he shares the truth of the gospel without abandoning it. He is clearly confused as to how to do this.

    Responses (2) +
  • June 19, 2013 at 10:53pm

    Hey, JIM S

    Let me answer your question of “Why would you respond at all ? A lawyers letter requesting “Cease-and-Desist” has no standing in law.”

    The answer is very simple. The attorney for West Orange was using his authority as an agent of the government to intimidate and bully a private citizen who was lawfully exercising his right to engage in a legal activity. Little tyrants aspire to be big tyrants. It is important to let them know that when they exceed their authority they will be met with resistance!

    Responses (1) +
  • June 17, 2013 at 7:17pm

    Make that “by” an illegal voter.

  • June 17, 2013 at 6:56pm

    God bless Ted Cruz. The left always talks about disenfranchised voters who could legally vote, but are discouraged or prevented from voting. Yet, they NEVER show any concern that every legal voter becomes a disenfranchised voter when an illegal vote is cast be an illegal voter.

    Responses (2) +
  • April 25, 2013 at 6:55pm

    Why, because she was a democrat? What a moronic statement!

  • April 23, 2013 at 1:43pm

    “acquittals came after def atty Jack McMahon argued that DA could not prove babies were alive when abort doc severed necks.”

    The only purpose for severing these innocent babies’ heads is to terminate their lives. The act itself is evidence that they were alive. When did common sense die? Oh yeah, when liberal thought began to permeate our culture.

  • January 30, 2013 at 2:41am

    Hey JROOK,

    Don’t ever represent yourself in court. You’ll lose big time if what you offered below is representative of your legal expertise. The amendment process you cited is the process by which the founders of this nation intended the constitution to be modified — BY THE PEOPLE via their elected representatives, not by nine judicial elitists. The process to amend was designed to be difficult which is why only 27 amendments have been made since our nation’s founding.

    The liberal/progressive agenda to subvert and undermine the constitution i.e. “the living constitution” is antithetical to what the founders intended. The concept of the living constitution basically holds that the supreme court can change the meaning of the constitution as intended by the founders to conform to current social mores WITHOUT having to go through that, you know, that whole troublesome amendment thing. Get a clue!

    <>

  • December 18, 2012 at 4:40pm

    BAVA, your comment reveals that you have spent too much time reading the Huffington Post, New York Times et al. Rather than putting the “far right” (translation: conservatives) in their place, as I suspect you think you’ve done, you’ve only revealed your ignorance. Your statement reveals nothing more than the fact that you have embraced the caricature of what a conservative is rather than what we really are.

    Jesus did emphasize helping the least among us, children, the poor etc. As both a Christian and a conservative, I embrace His teaching. His call was to the heart of the individual, not the government. Nowhere in the Bible will you find Him calling for government programs to help the poor. The reason is simple; voting to take someone else’s money to help the poor doesn’t mean that you are loving or charitable because it has cost you nothing. But, voluntarily reaching into your own pocket (not through the coercion of taxation) is a reflection of a loving and generous heart. BTW, did you know that study after study has revealed that conservatives and people of faith give a much higher percentage of their wealth to charitable organizations than liberals and atheists? They probably don’t publish that on HuffPo, though.