Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Thursday, May 31, 2012


Damn. I’ve been busy this month. But I’ve yet to fall more that two months behind on my Hall of Fame awards, so here are April’s, and I’m going to follow up with May’s on this, the last day of May.

The Year is 1974 - Two BWAA inductees and two from the Veteran’s committee.

The MICKEY MANTLE Gold Star #49: Armchair Subversive

OMG! I'm so psyched! They’re back! This fine collection was originally in my inaugural HoF class, but I bumped them out in favor of Cracked.com when their website went defunct. Now they’re back, and hopefully will show Williams once and for all what the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles: Homosexuals tend to be Democrats, whilst Pedophiles tend to be Republican!

The WHITEY FORD Gold Star #50: A Blog of Dorain

Although infrequently updated, and from Canada, this crazy cannuck has a better understanding of U.S. policy than most Americans. It’s also a great collection of political cartoons, including critiques of some coming from the opposition. He posts in fits and spurts, being quiet for awhile and then posting a lot for a couple of weeks.  Very insightful when he does though, and his blog makes for a fun read.

The JIM BOTTOMLEY Silver Star #46: The Princess and Eve’s Apple

Two web-comics by Christine Smith. Both feature transgendered protagonists, portraying both in a positive light, while at the same time addressing the social hardships they face. Eve’s Apple (which seems to have gone on hiatus) is drawn in a noir style and deals with the complex relationships between the Transgendered and Homosexual communities. The Princess is drawn in a more cutesy, cartoonish style, and deals with transgendered youth though it’s protagonist Sarah; who made her first appearance in Eve’s Apple, and whose mother is Lucy’s sister. (One of the reasons I’m combining these is that both take place in the same universe, so I consider them two parts of the same thing.) Superficially, The Princess appears more light hearted, but in truth is considerably darker, considering that the events are happening to, and being dealt with by, a child. I recommend reading both from the beginning, and the beginning.

The SAM THOMPSON Silver Star #47: Power Nap

“The sleep of reason brings forth monsters.”

A newer web-comic with an infrequent update schedule, Power Nap presents a dystopian world in which people no longer have to sleep, thanks to Z-Tabs, and the struggles of one man to survive in this world who’s allergic to them, and thus… still needs to sleep. It’s still in its infancy, but I see a lot of promise with it, and can’t wait to see where it goes. It’s been a real trip so far. Read it from the beginning.


  1. "Now they’re back, and hopefully will show Williams once and for all what the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles: "

    The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia? There is none. They both are sins against nature. Never has any of you been able to prove that homosexuality is a natural act except in animals that show no ability to distinguish the difference between want and need. Where are the animals that are born gay? Where is the proof they are born that way? Where is the proof homosexuals are born that way? You have NO proof of that. The only thing you have is isolated instances where animals get horny and hump whatever is handy. THAT, my liberal friend, is NOT being born gay. I'd like to see some proof ... scientific proof not opinionated proof or supposed proof ... how about some real proof. Got any?

    Then you have the problem of 'if they are born that way, then pedophiles are born that way too'. Harm has NOTHING to do with RIGHTS earned by being born that way. It simply makes one more disgusting than the other. But, both are still disgusting.

  2. You're certainly entitled to opinion of disgust. You know what: I pretty much agree with you. The thought of being with another man? Of having sex with him? Oral / Anal / whatever? Yeah: Turns my way the fuck off as well.

    Looks like I was born strait.

    The difference between you and me? Is that I don't give a flying fuck what consenting adults do on their own time. And when it comes to letting people live their lives as they see fit, I'd rather let a million people makes what I or someone else might consider a mistake then to stand in the way even one person's pursuit of happines.

    As for your whole harm vs. rights argument? Utter nonsense. The law usually steps in and curtails our rigths PRECISELY when they will do harm to others. I have free speech, but I can't make threats or call false alarms. I have freedom of religion, but I can't perfom human sacrifice in it's name. Rights are almost ALWAYS granted up unto the point where the do harm. Yes, often laws go fartehr than they need to. And hey: When it comes to INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, I'm right there with the Libertarians wing of YOUR PARTY. Unfortunately your party is dominated by the EVANGELICAL WING (which I'm sure you're familiar with) which seems to think laws should be based more on one person opinion about morality and then bind everyone's behavior to that, regardless of whether or not any harm is done.

    Whatever. I'm not here to cure your bigotry or mental illness. This isn't therapy, it's "my humble opinion," which is "You're just a biggoted jackss." Not for FEELING the way you do, mind you, but for failing to recognize the irrationality of it, and in feeling that is sufficient to justify the leggaly protected discimination against others.

    1. "The difference between you and me? Is that I don't give a flying fuck what consenting adults do on their own time. "

      Fully understandable and acknowledged. You know WHY you don't care what consenting adults do on their own time? Because it is there CHOICE to do whatever they want ... as long as no one gets harmed, right(?), including giving each other AIDS/HIV? No, I guess you don't mean THAT kind of harm. You just mean 'other' kinds of harm, not the deadly and un-curable kind of harm. You mean psychological harm, not physical harm, right?

      And there shouldn't be anything to stop them, right? (except, as you say, as long as no one gets harmed) Let them make the choices they want. That's all good. However, making that CHOICE does in no way get them guaranteed civil rights.

      "pursuit of happines."

      Will Smith would be mad at you.

  3. "I have freedom of religion, but I can't perfom human sacrifice in it's name."

    Bull-crap! You have freedom of religion but you failed to mention that you cannot lead a prayer in school. What part of that is harmful to ANYONE? You take your fake and misleading statements and tell your liberal friends whatever you want. It is obvious you have NO desire to be honest or factual. As evident by your lies that you told about TARP and the Tennessee abstinence program.

    "Rights are almost ALWAYS granted up unto the point where the do harm."

    Really? Well, then GIVE those rights and THEN restrict them. But, you don't even desire to achieve that, do you? You simply want to give un-earned rights to a group of people based on their CHOICES. They choose to be gay. That CHOICE should not and does not give you rights because you made that CHOICE !!! What part of that do you NOT understand?

    "This isn't therapy, it's "my humble opinion," which is "You're just a biggoted jackss." "

    At least I don't lie and misinform in order to propagate hypocritical/hateful ideals like you do.

  4. "The thought of being with another man? Of having sex with him? Oral / Anal / whatever? Yeah: Turns my way the fuck off as well.
    Looks like I was born strait."

    Interesting statement. You say it turns you off, but cannot back up that statement with anything other than "the THOUGHT of being with another man". So, you admit you have to think about it before you act? If you were truly born straight there would be no thought process involved. However, you need to think about it before you make (made) your decision. How does that fit into your proclamations that people are born gay or straight? This isn't rocket science, you know. If you are truly born straight (or gay) then you would not have to think about who you want as a partner. But, since you DO have to think about it, that shows your stance that you are born gay or straight is based on nothing factual ... again. So, you have no proof you are born gay/straight and you have no belief that you are born gay/straight, yet you seek to garner civil rights for the choice of being gay. REALLY ?!?

    I see why you stopped posting at this site. I would too if all my statements and ideals turned out to be based on lies and misinformation. It must be very embarrassing to have those lies and misinformation brought to light at your own blog-site and then you stop posting and refuse to defend your own ideals. I only wish I could post at that extreme left-wing bastion for lies and misinformation called Mediamatters. I've read several of your posts, there, where you defend gay rights. I'm assuming those defenses are based on the same ideals you express here? Like the fact that you have to make a conscious "thought" as you consider homosexual acts. You can't even make a case for gay rights without exposing the hypocrisy of your own beliefs. Why is that?

    I'm sure you would love to continue your 'bubble-gum' blog site filling it with happy, happy, joy, joy, messages and find ways to please everyone who posts, but you lost that chance when you advertise your site on the most extreme left-wing misinforming web site out there. Do you think only the extreme left-winger will read your stuff? People like chonchobhar and classiclibral and steeve and brabantio are good supporters of your lies and misinformation and think you are posting with honesty and integrity, but the facts (and your posts) show differently. I find it amazing that you say you are proud to be a member of the extreme left-wing site that claims to expose right-wing lies and misinformation but you fail to defend even the simplest of lies and/or misinformation that you, yourself, make. (EIGHTY PERCENT, Tennessee abstinence failures).

    Some of the many Mediamatters lies exposed (do they ever end?) :

    Don't worry, Eddie, I already know what your defense of these lies and misinformation brought by Mediamatters will be: "they're not as bad as the ones conservatives make". Is that the correct defense you'll make of Mediamatters? That would be normal from someone who claims they do NOT lie at all and never would.

    BTW, notice how I changed the subject so many times? Well, it's because I get to without anyone interrupting me, since you have abandoned your own blog site. Maybe you'll come out with a series of "jokes" so that all these lies that you've made will get off the main site easily visible to everyone. Like you did the last time I called you on your lies and misinformation.

  5. Hey, William... Shut the hell up.

  6. Just because you can't answer the tough questions, doesn't mean someone smarter cannot. I think your liberal morals are getting the best of you. You feel you can lie and get away with it, but when someone points those lies out, you scream: "shut the hell up". Good for you, liberal.

    1. In order to adequately inform you, oh foolish conservative, backwater, ignoramus; it would appear that I must begin with a more fluent form of my English that far surpasses yours, I might add.

      Who are you to determine what is right and what is wrong? You stand upon your moralistic high ground and enforce judgement on those of whom you haven't the slightest of what their lives contain. You display an utter idiocy that is all too common among the conservative Christian background. Your arguments are fallacies (Homosexuality cannot be directly attributed to pedophilia, which runs fairly common among HETEROSEXUALS as well, your 'scientific refutations' are pathetic at best, and you continue among the path of ad hominem as the basis of your arguements.) and thus are rendered entirely null and void. If you are confused as to what a rhetorical fallacy is, I do recommend at least a basic Google search, for even a simpleton like you could not possibly mess THAT up, yes?

      I'm not a liberal, illogical assumptions grant you no ground in a true debate. I am rather Libertarian. While I do share in liberal view on human rights (For that is a necessity in this day in age) I maintain a conservative policy on economic issues that the nation must deal with. And ones political views DO NOT determine their intelligence (Once again with your fallacies), but rather are the extension of what they believe in. Trust me, there is PLENTY of stupidity within all parties. Conservative Republicans are no exception to this.

      Now, to finish my rant... I'm a lesbian who happened to run into this blog from a favorite Webcomic of mine. I find it highly outrageous and narcissistic that you come in here, demand attention while trolling your pants off, and genuinely DISRESPECT this persons blog with your vile comments. Frankly it's rude, uncalled for, and on so many levels of unnecessary that if I were to make a demand, it wouldn't be to take back your hateful, spiteful, anger driven words to the LGBT community (Which is UNCHRISTLIKE, by the way. Jesus NEVER said to hate people for different lifestyle, nor did he berate anyone who had done so short of thieves in the church), but rather A HEARTFELT APOLOGY TO THE WRITER OF THIS BLOG. You have wasted his time, and made a fool and a mockery of yourself.

      By the way, your questions aren't tough. Gays are freakin' gay 'cuase we were born this way. If you can somehow even manage with your vastly inferior vessel of a brain, google NATURE vs NURTURE. Nature wins.

      So either get the hell over it, shut the hell up, or get the hell out. Those are your three options.

      Good day to you sir.

    2. "In order to adequately inform you, oh foolish conservative, backwater, ignoramus;"

      And you wonder where we get the disgust (for liberals) that we have.

      "Who are you to determine what is right and what is wrong?"

      I don't. I let Jesus tell me that. He says often that homosexuality is not right. If you have a complaint about what drives my morals, take it up with Him.

      "Jesus NEVER said to hate people for different lifestyle,"

      I don't say I hate the homosexual. I say I hate the lifestyle. There is nothing UNCHRISTLIKE in that. He says it too.

      "Gays are freakin' gay 'cuase we were born this way."

      Yeah, right. Got any evidence of that? Eddie already described what made him be heterosexual ... and it wasn't a description of being born that way.

  7. "Jesus NEVER said to hate people for different lifestyle,"
    Where in the Bible does Jesus Christ say he hates the homosexual lifestyle? WHERE AT?

    Last time I check, Jesus said words like this:

    34"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

    35By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." St. John Chapter 13, verses 34-35

    "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."
    -St. John Chapter 15, verse 12

    "These things I command you, that ye love one another."
    -St. John Chapter 15, verse 17

    "Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye." -St. Luke Chapter 6, verse 42 (On JUDGING OTHERS LIFESTYLES)

    "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." -St. John Chapter 8, verse 7


    And, as the Book of James has iterated so well:
    "Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door." James Chapter 5, verse 9.

    There is NOTHING you can place here to justify your hate-filled rant against those of the homosexual lifestyle. Jesus himself, never judged. This whole "Hate the sin, not the sinner" is a CHURCH INVENTION.

    Anyways, it's been established that-
    1. I am NOT a liberal, but a balance in liberal AND conservative. Or does the concept of Libertarian still escape you with the advent of Google and the digital era?

    2. YOU IN SPECIFIC: Are a foolish, backwater, ignoramus. Not all conservatives suffer from this crippling stupidity; but you, however, seem to. You're using the word LIBERAL as a SLUR, XD, You think that -Jesus- actually said something against homos (Clearly you never cracked open your own Bible, eh? XD It's your official BOOK for your religion, and you don't even read it!!! So lulzy). I told you once and i'm only gonna tell ya ONE MORE TIME ONLY. The ONLY time you'll find Jesus pissed is when they turned his Father's House into a Den of Thieves. Check out Matthew 21:13... or Mark 11:17... or even Luke 19:46, k? If Googleing it is a struggle for you (I know your ignorance is a registered handicap) Then just pop open your Bible. I'm sure it'll be there. :P

    3. Niceguy Eddie was being nice about it. He said, basically, that he was born straight. Even the thought of gay 'anything' is entirely unappealing. You merely twisted his words with your ignorance.

    4. As per your proof... A BASIC Google search came up with a Wikipedia entry. The wording is so basic, even you can read it, no? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behaviour

    Then, for more reliable evidence, found with a slightly more advanced Google search- A Boolean with the command site:.edu (These are a tad harder to read. If it gets bad, get a dictionary)...


    And you know what, a link for your added benefit:

    There. Disproving your entire current stance. And I still demand an apology to the owner of this blog. You have wasted his time, AND mine.

  8. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 : Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    1 Timothy 1:8-10 : Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine ...

    You want me to find more? I will if you want. But, do you really want me to?

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Whoopsie, made grammatical errors. Had to re-do my post.

      But you said JESUS said that. But Jesus did not say that. At all. Moot point. Read your Bible. Unless, of course, you're worshiping the Apostle Paul as Jesus. Then you'd have a whole 'nether set of issues.

      Besides, Old King James says not the word Homosexuailty in the New Testament. Those are all later translations of the text with pastors' interpretation on what it means. Doesn't make it correct.

      1 Corinthians 6:9-11
      9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

      10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

      11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

      Effeminate does not clearly point out homosexuality, and even if it did, I think it would point towards a male-male thing more, no? By that reasoning, Lesbianism is a-ok! ^_^

      1 Timothy 1:8-10
      8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

      9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

      10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

      Once again, no direct mention of gay people. Sorry to disappoint. Look at me, getting all preachy. XD Read your book, and I'm still waiting for that apology to Niceguy Eddie.

    3. "9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,"

      I don't see murderers of daughters in those passages. Does that mean I can murder daughters and God will approve of it? I also don't see womanslayer in there. Would that be ok too?

      I fully believe that the Bible is written by man and inspired by God. Jesus IS God. I don't think Jesus actually wrote any of the Bible, and if you're not going to believe the other words within the Bible, are you really going to believe the words where Jesus was "quoted" by the same persons you refuse to believe now concerning other immoralities?
      If you're just going to believe the 5 or 6 books where Jesus was actually quoted (assuming He was quoted correctly) you're going to have a hard time explaining why pedophilia is immoral. In fact, using your theory of using the actual word ... does the Bible actually mention "pedophilia" as a sin or as immoral? Does Jesus say pedophilia is a sin or immoral? Use your KJV if you want. Are you saying that pedophilia is ok and all these catholic priests should be exonerated because they have committed no sin? Is that your stance on sin "actually" being mentioned in the Bible (or Jesus says it) before it is considered immoral? Are you saying that people can murder daughters because that isn't mentioned in the 'no murder' clauses?

      Look, I have no problem with you or anyone else. I pray that all make it into Heaven. However I know that facts are facts and most will not go to Heaven. I hate the sin of murder and the sin of thievery and the sin of lying. There are many sins that make it very difficult to get into Heaven. I do not hate every person who commits those sins, I do hate the actual sin. Just as in homosexuality. I do not hate you, I hate the sin.
      I have problems staying completely sinless. Do you know of anyone who is blameless? Anyone? That's why Jesus died on the Cross and shed His blood and was raised from the dead ... so that my sins (and yours) would be paid for with His sacrifice. If you don't believe that, then you will have a harder time making it into Heaven. All He asks is that you believe in Him. Murderers can make it into Heaven, so can pedophiles, so can liars/cheats and thieves ... as long as you repent of those sins before the end of your time. Do you know when the end of your time is? I don't know when I'll die (could be today, could be tomorrow, could be 2055) so I commit as few sins as possible and stay grounded in sound Biblical theory. That does not mean I commit no sins. The sins I commit are no better or worse than the ones you commit. I am still a dirty rotten sinner in need of a way into Heaven. Jesus provides for me that way. I will accept it and not purposely throw His words back into His face in defense of the sins I commit.
      You can have your own plan to make it into Heaven. But I will NOT stop hating the sins that I am told ARE sins. Proverbs 6:16-19 lists the seven things God hates (no direct quotes, though). I'm sure I've committed some of them, but that does NOT mean I will not go to Heaven.

      BTW, there will be no apology to Eddie for anything I've said. Are you saying the things he has called me are better than what I have called him? Perhaps you haven't been reading very much of his writing style.

    4. It's HIS BLOG, lol. I just found it a tad rude the way you handled it. And you have a very broad misinterpretation. Murdering fathers and mothers means that you can't murder their kids either; for they can become fathers and mothers. I just hate how most people throw The Book around and have no idea what they are talking about. Period. Sure, you can claim inspiration of God on scriptures, but still doesn't take away the fact that gays are not mentioned in the New Testament. Even if you took "effeminate" as gay; that would only apply to gay men, not gay women, for women, according to that Book at least, are supposed to be feminine.

      And as for the pedophilia thing, it's not mentioned as exactly Pedophilia. But this comes darn close:
      "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" Matthew 18:10. So that pretty much covers anything that can potentially defile a child, including, well, pedophilia. It's more straight-forward and less ambiguous than "effeminate" or "without natural affliction" that people generally associate with homosexuality. Personally, I think "Without Natural Affliction" actually points more towards the increasing number of sociopaths; because they lack that "Natural Affliction". But i'm not going to make up some false definition for something I don't know.

      Point is, Christian Churches are being used as a political agenda for those who wish to justify their hatred of something. Happens with the Muslims (Who do the same thing against you guys), happens with us gays (They don't understand it, so they want no one to tolerate it), the Jews (irony; cause Jews are God's Chosen people and whatnot), and whatever else the leaders find adequate as a target to gain influence and power. It's become quite hate-filled as of late, although Christian is supposed to mean "Christ-Like" and Jesus loved like nobody's tomorrow.

      In any words, I can't stop your bigotry against gays. It's ingrained from every sermon you've heard against them. I'd only hope that you read your Bible and figure out what it means to you, not what was shoved into your system to the point where someone is doing the talking for you.

      And yes, John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have ever lasting life." And then verse 17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

      Now that the waters have calmed down a bit on this little convo, all I've to say is this; God didn't send His Son to condemn, and, to be Christ-Like, you shouldn't either. And i'd only advise you to not compare homosexuality to pedophilia; that comparison is a tad outdated and a lot incorrect, k? But please, for the love of sake, don't be a blind Christian. Take the Bible and learn. Discover it for yourself. Get a smaller gathering of people to read with you, you only need two or three; "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20. It'd make it so you're less of a political agenda, and more of a group who really wants to seriously understand Christianity. If you did at least that, and held on to your "gays are bad m'kay" conclusion, I wouldn't mind because you broke free of the commonplace for at least that long of a time.

    5. "Murdering fathers and mothers means that you can't murder their kids either; for they can become fathers and mothers. I just hate how most people throw The Book around and have no idea what they are talking about. Period. Sure, you can claim inspiration of God on scriptures, but still doesn't take away the fact that gays are not mentioned in the New Testament. Even if you took "effeminate" as gay; that would only apply to gay men, not gay women, for women, according to that Book at least, are supposed to be feminine.
      And as for the pedophilia thing, it's not mentioned as exactly Pedophilia."

      No, pedophilia isn't mentioned "exactly" as pedophilia, but homosexuality isn't mentioned "exactly" as homosexuality, either. So, I am to understand that because homosexuality isn't mentioned exactly as that word then homosexuality is ok. But, when murdering daughters or being a pedophile isn't mentioned exactly I'm supposed to use the general intent of the wording. Maybe I'm missing something here, help me out. What part of that am I misunderstanding? Do I get to pick and choose which "exact" sins are OK and not OK?

      "God didn't send His Son to condemn, and, to be Christ-Like, you shouldn't either."

      God also did not send His Son to let me say some sin is ok because the person who is enjoying that sin says so. I'll bet there are a lot of murderers out there who would tell me their lifestyle choice isn't a sin too. But that doesn't mean I'm going to fall for it. I'll bet there are a lot of thieves who would tell me their lifestyle choice isn't a sin, but I won't believe them either. Because I am told differently by God. What those people do with their choices is their own business, I'm not the one who decides on their salvation. However, I AM taught to distinguish and judge between good and evil, and just because someone tells me they are fine with their choices doesn't mean that choice isn't the one we are taught not to do. And it doesn't mean I'm supposed to shut up about that sin when I'm with others or talking on someone else's blog.

      You can interpret the Bible any ole way you want. If you want the wording to be "specific" concerning your lifestyle choice but generalized towards others so be it. It isn't me you have to answer to.

      I find it odd that you think Eddie calling me vial, hurtful names is just fine because "it's his blog", but I am a rude bigot because I choose to believe what Jesus tells me. Do you think that is odd, also?

  9. It's just the way you come off... You rush in and start trolling in his blog and doing silly things like compare homosexuals to pedophiles. That's... not a nice comparison in the least. And that's putting it as nice as I can. And as for picking and choosing what sins are ok, that is NOT what I said. I said the Bible is much more straight-foward when it comes to kids being harmed in any way, and less-so with what two consenting adults do in their spare time. If conservatives would just let up on trying to stop gay marriage, we wouldn't be "fornicating" anymore. If the Christian church would stop condemning and hating gay people for whatever political reason, we wouldn't have to deal with the bigotry. If a lot of you would just let up for a second on the "gay is sin" thing, then you just might maintain more of us in Christianity. The whole point is, it is not sin. You guys have been picking and choosing your sins ANYWWAYS. You condemn gay people with that one verse in Leviticus, and Ccrossdressers with the one in Deuteronomy, but then fail to mention the next verses with rules that you should be following if we are to adhere to ALL RULES from the Old Testament. You know, the ones Jesus declared null and void? Congrats, if your clothes are polyester, or mixed between two material, you are officially sinning. As well as the myriad of other rules that seem to have been ignored, but oh noes, not teh gays! Srsly, no gheys.

    Besides, not one verse in the Old Testament even says one single word about lesbianism. And Ruth and Naomi had a very sapphic relationship; although that is open to interpretation, it's interesting that stuff like that flies under the radar entirely.

    The only verse that can directly refute homosexuailty comes from the Apostle Paul... but with his writings, women's rights movements would be set back a couple thousand years, and African-Americans would still be slaves. A had a women pastor once, when I was still Christian, and she literally stated that that section of verses are not applicable with this day in age. So if she can pick and choose, I choose as well. Times are a'changin' Don't use Christianity as a shield for your bigotry. Study it better or just admit that you just are not comfortable around gays. The concept is kinda scary for you straight ppl, innit? Someone of your same gender potentially flirting with you? It's weird, kinda scary... but it won't happen as often as some religious leaders will claim it will. And, believe it or not, gays are not people who sleep around with 10,000 different people, have orgies every 10 seconds, and have 3,000,000 people in one polygamist relationship. Many of us function like the majority of our straight counter-parts; monogamy, conservative with sex partners, and many of us stay away from the orgy thing. And whatever you think the worst thing is that a gay can do sexually, I can guarantee you that there are straight people doing it as well. So don't generalize. It's a rhetorical fallacy. And we're not murderers, we're not thieves, we're not doing physical harm to anyone. We aren't sinners because it really isn't a sin. Only a spectrum that religious leaders couldn't accept, so they attacked.

    Anyways, that's enough of a rant for now. It's ok to be conservative, but just don't be a jerk with it, k? I took you as a troll earlier and was very mean about it, so to not come off as a troll, don't do trolly things. And, seriously, stop the hate, man. Gays aren't walking sins, they are people with everyday problems just like you. Some of them are even Christian in the most devout sense.

    1. "That's... not a nice comparison in the least."

      No, it isn't a nice comparison. What should I compare homosexuality to? Lying? (no physical harm to anyone).

      "I said the Bible is much more straight-foward when it comes to kids being harmed in any way, and less-so with what two consenting adults do in their spare time."

      The Bible actually is quite straight-forward when it comes to consenting adults and their spare time. There are many sins directly related to consenting adults and their spare time together. Homosexuality is one of them. So is fornication (even for heterosexuals). Physical harm has NOTHING to do with it being a sin or not. NO physical harm occurs when a robber steals your TV. NO physical harm occurs when that thief lies about his crime in court. Yet, two sins have occurred.
      Your decision as to what Bible to follow must have been a tough one considering most call it homosexuality in the Corinthians verse used earlier (new Testament, isn't it?)

      Like I say, I don't judge you. I judge the actions. If you were a murderer, I'd feel the same way: murdering is wrong, but you can still seek forgiveness from who makes the decision of salvation to all. There is only ONE sin that is unforgivable. That is non-belief. Every other sin is forgivable, but that doesn't make it less of a sin. All sins are still sin no matter how you try to justify it. I'm guilty of sins and you are too. I don't try to make excuses for the sins I commit. I go to the source and apologize and ask forgiveness.

    2. Oi vay, it's a pain explaining things to you. I put it as concise as possible, and you still are way bigoted.

      I usually don't take all this effort out on a lost cause, but for some reason, I find myself coming back here and continuing to attempt to somehow get you to change at least one thing in your mindset. Look, for the love of sake, this is all i'm asking. I'll reduce my request down to one thing. Just quit it with the Homosexuality = Pedophilia. Don't compare it to lying either. Being gay is also not a lie. You can insert some randomly distorted verse to try and say otherwise, but it really is not.

      Most other translations outside of King James (And hell, even that one is off sometimes) are null and void. Reason being? It's been marred and utterly destroyed by some pastor's interpretations. So I don't give two craps about any of those versions. Never have. Even when I was Christian. It's like this. Something doesn't say something in the way you want it. You revise it until it does. I'm not being picky and choosy with what Bibles I use either. If you go back to every single reference I have made, it has been through King James version. Heck, when I was put on the pulpit for a kid's preach day way back when, that's the version I have always used. I find the other ones much more fallible than that copy. And even King James has a TON of mistranslations. (Illiterate monks made most of the English versions of the Bible back in the day. Errors. Some words don't translate well from Greek/Latin/Hebrew. More errors.) But I still find it the most reliable for pulling anything out of the Christian hat. Don't accuse me of dodging, because I have not. But screw your NKJV, Living Bible, AMP, and whatever acronym that is not KJV. And in that version 1 Corinthians 6:9 (hee hee) Doesn't say anything directly about gays. Sorry to disappoint.

      Other words, make a copy of a printed page. Any page. Now copy that copy. Now copy the second copy. Now copy the third copy. It'll start loosing quality the further down you go. And for me, copies of copies ain't cuttin' it.

      And, take in mind, I said less-so. Not "not-at-all". And you know what, we wouldn't even be fornicating if you guys just let us get married already. (yes I went there.) >:(

      There are tons else i'd add here, but imma cut it short. if you bother to reply, I may respond, I may not. I 'm growing weary of this conversation. Besides, my pagan self is getting irritated having to dig this far into a Bible. Eww. Anyways good luck.

      -Signed Pagan Witch
      Who knows more about the Bible than you do. How sad. XD

  10. 'Niceguy' Eddie Liberal Blogger and regular MediaMatters poster. Come on in, let's argue!

    Have you ever read that at the top of his blog? Right under the picture? Does it say: 'behave'? or 'don't talk bad about me'? I don't see either of those phrases either. So, no apology owed to Eddie and I'm sure he expects none.

    " And in that version 1 Corinthians 6:9 (hee hee) Doesn't say anything directly about gays. Sorry to disappoint."

    Actually it does. You see, you misread it and claimed that "effeminate" was describing the homosexual. I think 'effeminate' is talking about transexuals ... but they are not mentioned by exact wording either, so that must be another non-sin because it isn't actually mentioned in the KJV Bible. Of course you being the expert Bible teacher that you are, you've probably already noticed that and just don't want to say it again. But, the part where the KJV talks about homosexuality is the "abusers of themselves with mankind". I'm sure if you can call pedophilia a sin even though there is NO mention of it in the KJV of the Bible, you can interpret homosexuality into the KJV of the Bible verse you have an issue with. How DO you call pedophilia a sin if it is not even mentioned in the Bible ... any Bible? Is there some special interpretation you use that no one else gets to? Because by your "selective" interpretational process that allows certain sins to be non-sins, pedophilia is a direct comparison to homosexuality and transexuality. There is NO mention of either being sinful in YOUR Bible. All are sexual deviances from the natural.

    And, if you're going to claim homosexuality is not a sin simply because the word isn't used, then you cannot call pedophilia a sin because that word is not used either. That's pretty basic, even for non-believers, like yourself. So, I think you are right to avoid any further comments since you have no expertise in this field and just opening a Bible makes you cringe, I highly doubt any interpretation from your side is going to be anywhere near accurate.

    But, I did want to mention the Eddie thing before you left. Because you seemed so concerned over how I comment to him on his blog. If you notice he INVITED me to act this way. So, don't worry, he is expectedly thick-skinned and 'me being me' doesn't bother him. After all, he calls his own parents "jackasses". How could I cause any more harm to him with what I say?

    1. No. Effeminate is not referring to transsexuals. Read this article:

      tl;dr- "Effeminate" is a mistranslation of the original word 'malakos' in Greek. It's been abused for ages in stupidity, as most people really have no clue how to properly translate Greek. -.-

      And claiming things are a sin --even if they are not CLEARLY written down-- is foolish. THEN I CAN EASILY CLAIM THAT ANYTHING IS A SIN by using the murky language that most Bibles use. And no. It's not sexual deviation. Homosexuality and even transsexuality have been spotted in animals consistently, so that's pretty natural considering, you know... it's nature and all. I had links earlier if you wanted to investigate. And all animals are pretty darn pure according to Christianity. Except snakes. Snakes are bad, m'kay?

      So, no. Pedophilia and homosexuality are not hand in hand. Pedophilia is a disgusting and horrific action that legitimately scars, destroys, and ruins the lives of children. Homosexuality is just two people of the same sex entering a relationship. Nothing else to it really. They don't intend to harm anyone -any more than their straight counterparts, at least-, do nothing horrific if left alone, and are not sinning, but rather are living their lives out according to how their genetics dictated. Them being straight is like you being gay. It doesn't work. There are variations to this, but I don't think that you're quite ready for that. Way too close-minded.

      Anyways, once again, learn your darn Bible better. A pagan schooling you is bad business, eh?

    2. "Effeminate is not referring to transsexuals. "

      You Bible scholar friend seems to indicate that when paired with "arsenokoites" then Paul is referring to male on male sex, which was considered normal for that pagan culture at that time. So, I think that would be classified as homosexuality AND possibly pedophilia at the same time (another correlation). It's cute how you decide to go back to the original language when your own interpretation is questioned. I like that idea, though. And while you're at it, why don't you continue using the original language so that we have NO "incorrect interpretation" concerns.

      BTW, do you really want us to go back to the culture Paul was warning us about? Pedophilia was a normal occurrence and acceptable (sometimes expected) by the leaders of that area.

      "Homosexuality and even transsexuality have been spotted in animals consistently, so that's pretty natural considering, you know... it's nature and all. "

      So has pedophilia, been spotted in animals consistently. If it's "natural" why do you consider it a sin? ... It's nature and all ... after all.

      " A pagan schooling you is bad business, eh?"

      When that happens, I would agree with you.

    3. You're impossible, lol. I put things in a clear concise manner and you still manage to butcher it. You have not shown any proof of your claims. I have at least presented you with links. In a debate, your arguments won't fly because you have no evidence or facts to back yourself up.

      I only had posted the last link to let you know that you had gotten it wrong. And no, pedophilia was not ok, but people did get married a lot younger. Too young = pedo/wrong. 13-15, adult. A-Ok. Different times, I never even mentioned wanting to go back to Paul's time, but merely presented how the interpretation of the word effeminate was incorrect. Think of how many other words might have been mistranslated from Greek... Or Hebrew... You can't read those languages, right? So you wouldn't even know the difference if it was wrong or not.

      1. It does NOT pertain to Transsexuals. I see you had backed off from that point.
      2. It does not refer to adult male homosexuals, but rather boys being forced into gay prostitution. Young. Boys. Under 13. Thus, pedophilia. I cannot attest to the accuracy of the link. I was merely using it for the definition of the word 'Malakos'. I picked from a neutral/leaning-toward-your-side source, because if it was too gay-friendly, you'd whine about it.

      Personally, even if I was Christian, I wouldn't give Paul's writings a grain of salt in weight. They are horrifically misogynist, pathetic in accuracy, and generally foolhardy. Many scholars are realizing this more and more as of late and are generally dropping many of his points.

      The language shifts you see coming out of me depends on how tired I am. XD. The more tired, the more concise I tend to present my vocabulary; late night essays will condition you like that. The more awake, the more playful my words get. And last night I was sleep deprived. And today, I woke up too darn early. -.-

      Your shifts are you drop points. Entirely. And pretend like they were perfectly defended even after being refuted.

      And, sorry, but case in point is I do know much, much more of the Bible than you do. When I was Christian I studied the Book thoroughly, impartially. Whatever the pastor gave a sermon, I would not believe 100% until I understood it for myself. There were years where I fell into the brainwashed masses, but as I got older, I grew wisdom and figured out what it meant for myself. You probably don't really read yours too well outside of condemning verses and the really, really encouraging ones, i'd figure. Not that i'm assuming from you in specific, but it seems a crutch of many 'Christians' these days. They don't care to read their Bibles, they only do right because they'd go to hell if they didn't, and they are easily swayed to hate, and refuse to love. Even Jesus ever came down, frankly I think he'd be way disappointed.

      I left Christianity for two reasons
      1. The general ignorance, malice, close-minded, hatred that comes out of Christian peoples and churches in this day and age
      2. When introduced to Wicca, it seemed like a definitive alternative. One that pisses me off a lot less than Christians these days.

    4. You guys are sooooo bad that I don't even want to associate in any means to the name of your church. Jesus' teachings are LOST on the majority of you. You shouldn't do right for the penalty that is hell, but because God loves you. Not saying this attitude will have you all condemned, but it simply is the wrong approach. It's horrible! And all this hatred, malice, and anger out of a group that is supposed to be one of the most loving (If you followed Jesus' teachings) is downright insane! Sad, even...

      But anyways, if we conversed right now and merely recited all the scriptures we knew, background and theory behind them, and historical contexts, I think i'd be more knowledgeable than you in it. So, like i've said in the last 3 or so messages, read your darned Book. Learn it for yourself, and learn it well. And I did cease the request for the apology on Niceguy Eddie's page. I just don't care at this point. The whole comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia is riling me up a whole lot more.

      And did my own research on the pedophillic animals thing. Not nearly as common as homosexuality, and some species have no choice but to reproduce that way. The only one on the wow, really? list is Hyenas. That's it really. But looking at this from a societal perspective, it would make more sense for an organized society to put a ban on pedophilia, and a lot less sense to put a ban on gays. Pedophile = kid who is not ready to fully make their own decisions; not consensual in reality. Wrong. Homosexual = two adults reaching a consensual decision to enter a relationship, emotionally, sexually, or both. Not Wrong.

      Anyway, pagan schooling Christian at Christianity and Bible time is over. I grow weary of you, sir. It's always the same thing with you guys. Just stop it with the hate and everyone else'd like you guys a lot more. Blessed Be. )O(

    5. "1. It does NOT pertain to Transsexuals. I see you had backed off from that point.
      2. It does not refer to adult male homosexuals, but rather boys being forced into gay prostitution. Young. Boys. Under 13. Thus, pedophilia. I cannot attest to the accuracy of the link. I was merely using it for the definition of the word 'Malakos'. I picked from a neutral/leaning-toward-your-side source, because if it was too gay-friendly, you'd whine about it."

      I backed off of it because I said "I think" it could mean that. After YOU brought your link that had an actual clarification of the actual translation from the actual language, it was pretty obvious it wasn't that. However, YOUR link does in fact say it could be either pedophilia or homosexuality that is meant. BECAUSE your link presents the word (that you have a concern about) as part of a sentence, not just one word thrown out by itself.
      Why don't you go ahead a pick a "gay-freindly" link that shows the language interpretation you want to use so that you can defend the position you're taking. Instead of using one that actually shows you are wrong in your interpretation of that verse.

    6. "But looking at this from a societal perspective, ..."

      Yes, you need to look at it from a "societal" perspective. Because, from a "religious" perspective, it is still sin. No matter how you try to justify your behavior, it is still a sin in the eyes of Jesus. I'm fully confident He will forgive you when you ask Him to, but that doesn't mean I'm suppposed to excuse that behavior.

      "And did my own research on the pedophillic animals thing. Not nearly as common as homosexuality, and some species have no choice but to reproduce that way."

      Well, I'm glad to see you found that behavior in "nature". That, according to you, makes pedophilia a natural behavior (after all) and only your bigoted opinion makes it wrong (by your expressed standards). I still believe it is a sin, and believe it will always be a sin. And those who participate in it are sinners. They can ask Jesus for forgiveness, but I am not supposed to excuse that behavior as acceptable. According to Jesus.

      BTW, I'm still waiting for you to "school" me.

    7. No need, for the fools are forever foolish. You have been schooled, but refuse to learn. As Socrates had exemplified; if you take a man who has lived in darkness and take him into the light, it is too much for him to handle. He won't be able to see.

      You, sir, are in the dark.

      I don't wish to bother anymore with lectures to you. You shall merely pervert them and degrade them because of your close-mindedness. And you are not learning. So this has lost purpose. A lost cause is a lost cause.

      When Christianity ceases to be a pathetic farce of what Jesus had intended, maybe the ignorance held within it will crumble. Maybe then you'll be more accepting and understanding, and less foolish. Let's face it, you guys are the furthest from Christ-like (With only VERY FEW exceptions). So... Yeah. Good life to you sir. Like I said before, blessed be and merry met. )O(

      -Signed the pagan who knows more of the Bible than you, for she read it with an open mind, and a loving heart.

    8. P.S. Your religious perspective isn't the only one that exist. Many religions openly embrace the ideal of homosexuality. You're far lost in your brainwashed ideologies to see that Christianity is one of them. Oh well.

    9. "When Christianity ceases to be a pathetic farce of what Jesus had intended,..."

      What about what Jesus says? Does that carry no weight? Besides, you have to believe in Jesus in order to understand what He says and intended. Without such belief there is no understanding.

    10. "Many religions openly embrace the ideal of homosexuality."

      Sure there are many religions that do that. Why don't you join one, if that's what you feel you need to do to get justification for sins committed. Personally, I like having the knowledge that stealing, lying, cheating are sins. It gives me a perspective on what is good and moral. If you want to choose something that lets you 'get away' with things, then you go for it. I'll bet if you look hard enough there is a religion that lets you lie, cheat and steal too. But, I'll pass on having that kind of immorality justified in some obscure way. If that's what you need to feel good about your choices, so be it.