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. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, September 15, 2014

An Interview with Christian Beranek


 Right up front, I've got to get something out of the way, what is your gender identity? I ask because when I googled you I found, shall we say, two very distinct types of pictures come up – with you presenting as both male and female. And, of course, there’s the whole transgender web comic thing.  (And for my own reference, just to be 100% clear, your preferred pronouns?)

I identify as female so “she” and “her” are my preferred pronouns. There are loads of pics from the past online as I was very visible in the comic book and film worlds. I am not ashamed of any of those images. I lived that life and it's a part of who I am today.

Do you present that way full time, then?

I live 24/7 female.

How long since you started to transition?

I started taking it seriously in 2010 but really, I've always felt this way.

How did family and friends react?

I am fortunate to have great friends and a supportive family. It did take my parents a little while to accept me for who I am. Thankfully they realized I was still going to be me just way happier.

Has it affected you professionally?

I am sure some people have decided to communicate with me less. I still get some work for hire assignments and consulting gigs. I could be more active in seeking out jobs, I think. For the most part the comic book and film industries have been very accepting of me and I feel extremely fortunate.

Hardest part of it all?

Being considered a curiosity... Sometimes almost subhuman. That and the fact some people feel they have a right to know about your physical status, such as your genitals, just because I’m trans. Imagine if someone asked you “So are you keeping your penis?" or "Are you getting a boob job?" as if it was a legitimate matter of fact conversational question.

So, perhaps a dumb question, but what inspired you to do Validation?  Can I assume that the work is at least semi-autobiographical?

I had the title kicking around for a few years before I took a crack at the story. My inspiration does draw from real life but none of the characters represent anyone in particular. I've dated and been around trans people and knew their was a tale to tell, something way beyond my own. The key was to identify the tone and make sure it wasn't something that capitalized on sensationalism. It had to feel genuine.

What other projects have you worked on?

I co-wrote the graphic novels Dracula vs. King Arthur and Post Apocalyptic Nick and wrote some prequel and background material for the films Se7en, Max Payne and Babylon A.D. A few years back I signed a deal to produce comics for Disney with the intention of translating them into their own film universe. We were rolling along and then one day I woke up and saw the announcement they had just bought Marvel. They didn't need us anymore. I packed my bags soon after and decided to live the freelancer life in New Mexico. I must say I am much happier and productive now.

I do have a couple of long overdue Kickstarter projects I have to deliver on. Once I can get those out there I'll feel even happier.

Beyond that, I am always creating and have various projects at different stages of progress. I never stop.

Who or what are some of your artistic influences, either specifically for Validation, or in general?

I grew up on a steady diet of Kurt Vonnegut, Alan Moore, fantasy and science fiction and loads of philosophy books. I tend to be very selective with the content I consume. I have a wide variety of interests but I want to check stuff out that takes great care in terms of execution. And it doesn't have to be high-brow. I like different things from films such as The Lives of Others to shows such as Trailer Park Boys. You just have to prove to me you have something genuine to say. I know when people are faking it. Dollar grabs are very transparent.

Now… You write it, Kelci Crawford draws it (I love her art, BTW!) and [your brother] Nick handles the web-side of things. And I see from your site that you all are in different parts of the country, how did this whole team come together?

Kelci is amazing! I met her on Deviant Art after I placed a post looking for an artist for the project. She drew up an initial design of Ally and I immediately said "Yes, that's her." From there we hit the ground running. We actually didn't meet in person until Phoenix Comicon this past May.

Wow.

My brother Nick has done loads of website and production work for me over the years. I always try to include him when I can.

Early on, (#6, IIRC) you make it a point for the character to say that character plans to “keep [her male components],” meaning that she is, and plans to remain, non-op.  I know that the issue of having SRS, and whether that is needed to be a “real woman” (or a “reel womyn” as parodied by Evelyn Poor in Trans Girl Diaries) can be kind of a touchy subject in internal trans-politics.  Were you making a personal statement about this, or was this just for benefit of the character?


I know internal trans-politics exist and am aware of various stances.

To me there is no such thing as a "true trans" person. There is no one correct course because everyone has their own true path for themselves. Ally is pretty confident in her decision to be non-op and we’ll explore the reasons behind that more in the future.

You don't need a vagina to be a woman. If you do choose to get SRS it should be for personal reasons and not because of outside pressure. Be true to yourself.

One of the things that stood out to me about Validation was the fact that it DOESN’T feature the big “Cast full of gay.” (Unlike, say, Venus Envy, The Princess or Rain that seem to suggest that in coming out, one will immediately find themselves surrounded by LBGT’s that they never knew were there!) Do you plan to add (or reveal? NO SPOILERS!) any more LGBT characters in the future?

Beyond Roxie?

Oh, shit! How could I have forgotten about Roxie?!

How indeed!

Yes, beyond Roxie.

Yes. There will be several more LGBT characters debuting in the future. There also might be some past love interests who pop up.

Was keeping Ally more alone in all this more reflective of your own experience?

Well, Ally is reaching out beyond online interactions. She wants to live in the real world. She wants experience. And I wouldn't say she is alone but she is definitely independent.

As for my own experience... I am incredibly independent myself but value a good support structure. We'll explore the idea of this support structures down the road.

I may be forgetting something, but it appears that (like many TG comics) the parents are basically out of the picture.  Is there a reason for that? Will there be a flashback / coming out arc in the future?

We will be meeting Ally’s parents very soon during the Holidays storyline.

It appears that Ally is far more “out” than “stealth,” to all of her friends and potentially love interests anyway. Again, the whole “out vs. stealth” thing is another touchy point within the trans community, was there any statement being made there, or is it just easier to write the story that way, free from the complications that would otherwise come up?

Well, Ally doesn't advertise the fact she is trans...

Well, there was this one time…

...but she is well aware of the implications if someone finds out. I don't know if that character trait could be considered a statement or not. People have reasons for living stealth and I respect that. Ally is a bit younger than the pioneers who blazed the trail in the 80's and 90's so she might not know the entire history of the trans movement. Perhaps we'll explore that more in the future. I do think many trans people today tend to forget how much those before them sacrificed to make things better today. And there is still a long way to go.

I love that Ally’s a bit of a comic and rpg geek, a girl after my own heart, so I have to ask:  DC, Marvel, Image or Indy? (You, I mean.)

Whatever is good! I don’t have any loyalty towards any one company. One of my goals is to get hugely successful and buy loads of comics I can't afford right now to catch up on things.

And your favorite RPG?

Growing up it was Dungeons & Dragons. 

Me too!

I'd still play it if I had time and found a good group. I do play games on my iPad, my current favorites beings Clash of Clans and The Simpsons: Tapped Out. I’ve always wanted to get into Traveller and if I had even more time I’m sure I’d be massively into EVE Online. It just looks so insane.


And let's not forget Tiny Unicorn

Where do your fall politically?  I’m particularly interested to know how LGBT issues fit in with and rank amongst your feelings on other issues – do you end up being a one-issue voter, a log-cabin Republican, or are you down with the whole Liberal / Progressive agenda as a whole?

I am an independent human being and I hold no allegiance to any one party. I back the people I feel are right for the job. Last election I voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. He seemed to the one who was most on the level. Ally mentions in a recent comic that she voted for him as well!

I have grown tired and bored of the two party system. I wish people would vote with their minds rather than by party line. I sadly don't see that changing anytime soon due to the control the media has on popular opinion. But I'll vote for whoever the hell I want and sleep well at night :-)

How have the repeal of DOMA and the apparent juggernaut of marriage equality cases current sweeping the country affected you?

Not personally. I do think it’s inevitable that on a Federal level gay marriage will eventually be made legal. I get why some states are fighting tooth and nail against it to appease evangelical bases but I just want to remind them of one thing: Jesus was all about love. So vote love. You’ll be less stressed and live longer.

Does Religion play much of a role in your life?

No. And I am not going to say I'm a spiritual person. I live in the moment but am aware of the past and the future. It feels good to do good things and be kind and decent to other people. There has to be something to that but you shouldn't expect a reward for doing so.

Do you ever have difficulty reconciling some of the homo-phobis and/or trans-phobic aspects of it with your own beliefs?

I think some of the various churches of the world are evolving in their views. Pope Francis, for example, is an exciting figure and I think is living life in an awesome way and inspiring good in others. 

As for the hate some sects spew out: That poison comes from within and will eventually eat you from the inside. It's just not healthy.

Now, along with the “LBG” stuff, there have been a rather a few landmark cases for the “T’s” lately as well: schools in several states now officially recognizing students by the chosen gender (for facilities and activities purposes, etc…) for example. There’s a long way to go, to be sure, but what are your thoughts on that?

I think it’s fantastic. You’re also seeing more trans role models such as Laura Jane Grace and Lavern Cox get more attention. If we can couple great ideas with leadership and show patience then nothing will stop us from moving forward.

Any concerns that comics such as Validation might start to seem dated, socially and politically speaking, before too long?

Hopefully things continue to change for the better and Validation can be considered an artifact from a more volatile time in terms of the issues discussed. I do hope the story itself resonates beyond its time because it really is about treating each other with respect and love. Those themes, I feel, are eternal.

Let’s hope.

I’ve heard some very harsh criticisms of the Human Rights Campaign from other transgendered people and their friends and families… How do you feel about them? Do you think the “they throw trans people under the bus every time!” critique is fair?

It all goes back to Stonewall, doesn’t it? I firmly believe trans people, many of whom had stood side by side with LBG brothers and sisters during those tumultuous times, were thrown under the bus to make the movement seem more “mainstream” to the masses. I think it’s slowly getting better, but the hurt of being tossed aside to further the causes of others is still pretty acute.

What about Dan Savage, who seems to have a lot of LGB-positive stuff to say, but no so much on the –T side?

I don’t think Savage, RuPaul, Roseanne Barr and others take the time out to truly understand the plight of trans people and why certain things they say are harmful to the cause. And when called out they take a very defensive stance rather than trying to comprehend why trans people are angry with them. On the flip side, being over-reactionary and ultra-offended about what they say doesn’t help either. What needs to happen is a dialogue. Hopefully people will get to talking soon.

If there was one thing you’d like cisgendered people to know or understand about being trans or about transfolk, what would that be?

It isn’t about your genitalia. It would be grand if people stopped fixating on trans peoples’ boobs, penises and vaginas. You don’t need any of them to feel that you are a man or woman inside. We classify and identify people in ways we were taught socially to accept from the get go. But when you don’t fit into clearly marked boxes people immediately begin the questioning of physical status. It’s something we should all learn to move beyond.

How can I explain to a particularly thick-headed, Right-Wing reader of mine that being LBG and/or T is not a CHOICE? (PLEASE tell me the magic words! I’ve argued this one 1000 different ways and they just don’t get it!)

Sadly you can’t. It’s not worth the effort to try and change their minds. Focus on battles you can win, instead.

Yeah, but where would be the fun in THAT?

If you love drama go for it! Lol I prefer to lead a drama free life.

Thanks a ton for taking the time to speak with me!  Before we wrap up, are there any upcoming projects that you’d like to plug?

I am always working on projects and looking to work on interesting projects. Check my website for updates http://www.christianberanek.com

Thanks a bunch!  I really appreciate you taking your time to talk with me!

Thank you for having me! :-)

Christian Beranek is the author of Validation, which can be found at www.validationcomic.com and is drawn by Kelci Crawford.  You should also check out her previous webcomic, Post Apocalptic Nick.

44 comments:

  1. From your "particularly thick-headed, Right-Wing reader", I read your interview. I'll bet it's more than any of your left-winger readers will do. I do have a small comment on what was said. Christian said: " but I just want to remind them of one thing: Jesus was all about love.". That isn't true. Jesus was about belief. Belief in Him. When you get the wrong message that Jesus is sending it is more understandable why people choose to do as they please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And in your world I suppose there is only a single Christian Religion, with a single interpretation of a single message? Should that be the case, I will stand by my original characterization.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, Eddie. It is NOT a "single message". As much as you want to think so, it is not true. Read ANY religious interpretations of what Jesus expects of His followers and it will show "belief" is what HE wants. You got something that shows differently, then bring it. Otherwise, I'll expect the usual absence of any further replies from you once you've been shown to be wrong.

      Delete
    3. *sigh*

      1) A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

      2) If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.

      3) As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you.

      4) For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

      5) All the commandments: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and so on, are summed up in this single command: You must love your neighbor as yourself.

      6) The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

      7) Do to others as you would have them do to you.

      8) But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

      9) Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

      10) Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

      11) And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

      12) Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.

      13) Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

      14) There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because he first loved us.

      15) Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

      16) However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

      17) And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

      18) Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs.

      19) Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

      Satisfied?

      Delete
    4. See, William, the problem here is that I'm not the one saying that there is only one message, nor is Christian. Love is what Jesus means to her. And it is hardly an unreasonable interpretation. Then you come in, say, "No: He's about BELIEF." And then say that you're saying that's NOT a single message. Except that's EXACTLY what it is!

      And I'm fully expecting you to counter me by producing many quotes about him talking about belief. But that doesn't matter! I never said he WASN'T about belief. I said he was about MANY things, and that his teachings can be, and have been, interpreted many ways by many people. YOU say, "It is NOT a single message" but then go on to say that "ANY religious interpretations of what Jesus expects […] will show belief is what HE wants." So Jesus is now both DOES NOT have a single message and HAS but a single message?!

      And you needn't bother yourself producing a dozen quotes about belief. Because being about Love does not preclude him being about Belief or indeed any number of other things! To prove YOUR point (that he is about belief ALONE) you would need a Bible that contains NONE of the passages I've included above. And they exist, so... You're wrong.

      Or, were you misinterpreting what I meant by "single message?" I didn't mean that there was only a single example of him saying this, you dolt. Supposed I say it this way, "a SINGULAR message." Go back ane reread it with that word instead. Does that work better for you? Well, you're still wrong.

      The problem here (as usual) is that we aren't arguing about two different interpretations. The argument here is that I'm saying that there are many ways to interpret religious texts and you are saying there isn’t. If you believe that, then you are wrong from the start regardless of what YOUR interpretation IS: Because you don't even acknowledge that there is in fact a debate going on at all. Well, centuries of bloody conflict would seem to suggest otherwise. (And also miss all of those messages about love.)

      Got anything else? (Without going wildly off topic, that is.)

      Delete
    5. Oh I get it. You get to pick and choose which verses you want to follow in order to excuse your behavior? That isn't unexpected. The FACT remains, that if you want to be included in those who are going to Heaven to spend eternity with Jesus, then you must believe Him. If you want to excuse your immoral behavior then you can pick and choose whatever verses you want to make yourself feel better.
      You see, your problem isn't that Jesus came to Earth in order to make all people feel good about themselves. He came here to pay for our sins and give us a door to enter Heaven knowing that all sin and all are sinners. If you want to just feel good about the lifestyle choices you make then you can ignore the "believe in Me" passages and live as you please. BTW, He also mentions "brood of vipers" a couple times and is very violent during a trip to the market. That doesn't sound like a "love" statement. Get your facts straight before you try to argue who is right about the messages that God (Jesus) is bringing.

      "Got anything else? (Without going wildly off topic, that is.)"

      You're a punk for even suggesting that I'd go off topic. Jesus was mentioned in your interview and I commented on it. If you want to take it off-topic then you go right ahead and do it. Don't blame me for it though. Which is a common tactic of yours.

      Delete
    6. FYI, Dr. J Vernon McGee discusses this very subject in today's version of "Questions and Answers" program. You can listen on-line at http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/thru-the-bible-questions-and-answers/custom-player/ If you choose to wait, then the archive date you want is Sept 20 2014.

      Delete
    7. Q: How have the repeal of DOMA and the apparent juggernaut of marriage equality cases current sweeping the country affected you?

      A: Not personally. I do think it’s inevitable that on a Federal level gay marriage will eventually be made legal. I get why some states are fighting tooth and nail against it to appease evangelical bases but I just want to remind them of one thing: Jesus was all about love. So vote love. You’ll be less stressed and live longer.

      Context helps. The comment isn't about the tenets of Christianity, it's about the philosophy of Jesus. "Belief" isn't part of his philosophy, it's religious instruction. "Love", in contrast, is quite clearly part of Jesus's philosophy.

      So, no, in the context in question, the comment is entirely fair. "Love" is a very prominent theme in the teachings of Jesus, and is relevant to the topic that was being discussed. it may hurt your feelings, but other people are allowed to interpret the Bible on their own. The power of your personal opinions ends at your fingertips, and you have no authority to declare that her statement "isn't true" simply because "love" isn't the first thing that your dogma instructs you to think about.

      By the way, if you really want to argue that "God (Jesus)" wasn't all about love, there are surely better examples than "brood of vipers". Flooding the world springs to mind. Not that your comment was relevant to the post, because the quote specified "Jesus", not "God/Jesus" or anything of the sort.

      Delete
    8. "Oh I get it. You get to pick and choose which verses you want to follow in order to excuse your behavior?"

      Why not? Every "Christian" I've ever come across does exactly the same.

      William, you are free to believe and practice as you will, just as I am just as free to believe and practice as I do. (And free NOT to.) We have different takes on Christianity and Jesus, and that's hardly surprising. The word "savior?" It's never had any meaning for me. It simply not a theological paradigm that I relate to. I recognize the school of thought you're coming from here. It's not new to me. It's prominent (largely protestant and fundamentalist) and is not, nor has even been, a school of thought that I have subscribed to. If that means you think I'm "wrong?" Well, so be it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over us disagreeing on something. And if as many people are going to hell as you suggest, well, I suppose I'll be in right good company. Besides, if heaven we filled with no one but RW, Funny-Mentalist Whackos, it could never be heaven for me anyway. So I have no doubt that from our respective places, each would see the other as being in Hell.

      Delete
    9. Brabantio: "Context helps."

      Yes, it certainly helps. Obviously (like usual) you paid no attention to my comment. Christian said "Jesus was all about love". Try to notice the CONTEXT of that. Christian said ALL. That is what I commented on. True to your typical form, you reply to my comments using something I'm not even talking about. Good for you. I'm glad you haven't lost your touch.

      Eddie, that is the most honest statement you've made to me in years. I appreciate that and will accept that we agree to disagree.

      Delete
    10. "Obviously (like usual) you paid no attention to my comment. Christian said "Jesus was all about love". Try to notice the CONTEXT of that. Christian said ALL."

      Regarding his philosophy, which has nothing to do with "belief." Obviously, you didn't read my comment.

      As to focusing on "ALL", you're being too literal. It doesn't mean that it's the only thing that Jesus ever mentioned. Also, look up the word "context". Pointing to "all" doesn't show "context", while providing her entire quote does. More importantly, notice your response:

      "That isn't true. Jesus was about belief. Belief in Him. When you get the wrong message that Jesus is sending it is more understandable why people choose to do as they please."

      If your point was that Christian shouldn't have said that Jesus was "all" about love, then your response suggests that he's "all" about belief. Specifically, your phrase "the wrong message" would mean that "all about love" should be replaced with "all about belief". That assertion would be clearly insane, given the number of quotes regarding love that Eddie provided you. You didn't say that Jesus was "also" about belief, which would have made your current comment more consistent. Of course, you have a severe issue with consistency already here:

      "Sorry, Eddie. It is NOT a "single message". As much as you want to think so, it is not true. Read ANY religious interpretations of what Jesus expects of His followers and it will show "belief" is what HE wants. You got something that shows differently, then bring it."

      As Eddie pointed out, it can't be a single message and more than a single message at the same time. You act as if Jesus's teachings must be summarized into a single word ("Read ANY religious interpretations of what Jesus expects of His followers and it will show "belief" is what HE wants."). Notice that you didn't use "mostly", "mainly", or any other qualifier. If you want to hold others to a highly literal standard, then you have to live up to the same standard.

      "True to your typical form, you reply to my comments using something I'm not even talking about."

      You failed to conceive a distinction between religious instruction and personal philosophy. When you don't realize something, I'm allowed to introduce the new concept to you. I'm sorry that you find that inconvenient to your argument, but you'll just have to deal with it.

      Delete
    11. brabantio,
      Clearly, you're wrong on your assertion that Jesus was all about love. If that was true then more liberals would love Him and follow His teachings. We have 3 liberals involved in this discussion at this moment. First one: Christian, claims Jesus is all about love, yet does not believe in Him. Second one: Eddie, brings all kinds of messages of love from Jesus, yet does not believe in Him. Third one: Brabantio, who claims Jesus is all about love, yet does not believe in Him.
      IF Jesus is all about love and has so many beautiful messages about love, why do so few of the LBGT sect believe in Him?

      BTW, brabantio, I did not say Jesus was "all" about belief. You see your problem is that when I don't say something you complain about it. When I say something you ignore it and reply to something I didn't say.



      Here's something for Eddie:
      John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

      There's a verse that has both "love" and "believes" in it. I guess, Eddie, the end result of our lives is what makes the difference as to how much you're going to follow the teachings of Jesus. If you want to have eternal life in Heaven, then you believe what Jesus says is true and follow his commands. If you just want to make excuses for your behavior then you pull out a couple "love" verses and say Jesus authorizes your behavior. So you do whatever you need to do to make yourself feel good in the present and I'll do whatever I need to do to secure my future.

      Delete
    12. "IF Jesus is all about love and has so many beautiful messages about love, why do so few of the LBGT sect believe in Him?"

      Two of your three examples don't belong to the "LBGT sect", so it's not clear how your quote follows your examples. Three people don't indicate anything about a larger population, either. There are many liberals who believe in Jesus. Even better, you don't have to believe in Jesus as a savior in order to value his teachings on love.

      And, of course, it's not much of a mystery why more homosexuals and transsexuals don't go to Christian churches, when so many of those churches view them as sinners.

      "BTW, brabantio, I did not say Jesus was "all" about belief."

      I didn't say that you did. You obviously didn't read what I wrote.

      "When I say something you ignore it and reply to something I didn't say."

      I didn't ignore anything, and I didn't "reply" to something that you didn't say.

      Delete
    13. Two of your three examples don't belong to the "LBGT sect", so it's not clear how your quote follows your examples.

      I don't think you're right. But, either way, I didn't say they were, I said they were liberals. Didn't you read what I wrote?


      Even better, you don't have to believe in Jesus as a savior in order to value his teachings on love.

      Well, I think you do need to believe in Jesus as the savior if you plan a future beyond the small number of years you'll live here on earth. Obviously, if you have no plans for the future you will live your life as you please and the way that pleases you the most. If you have plans on a future, then you'll live your life to please Jesus. Most liberals live their lives to please themselves. Which is why most liberals don't believe in Jesus. Self gratification is so much easier than self accountability. Most liberals prefer gratification over accountability. IMHO. Which is why we use acronyms such as LGBT and AIDS/HIV and GSD.

      Delete
    14. "I don't think you're right."

      Why is that?

      "But, either way, I didn't say they were, I said they were liberals."

      I know. That's why it wasn't clear why you then asked a question regarding homosexuals. Where else did you demonstrate that "so few" LGBT people believe in Jesus?

      "Well, I think you do need to believe in Jesus as the savior if you plan a future beyond the small number of years you'll live here on earth."

      I'm aware of what you believe, and that has nothing to do with my point. You linked the idea of understanding messages about love with being a Christian. That was an invalid argument, because I don't have to believe in anything to say that Jesus's philosophy was all about love.

      "Most liberals live their lives to please themselves. Which is why most liberals don't believe in Jesus."

      Your baseless views on liberals aren't new, either. Naturally, you have no substantiation, just blind hatred. Try to emulate Jesus.

      "Which is why we use acronyms such as LGBT and AIDS/HIV and GSD."

      That's a non sequitur. Using acronyms has nothing to do with "gratification" or anything else you were blathering about.

      Delete
    15. Where else did you demonstrate that "so few" LGBT people believe in Jesus?

      I didn't demonstrate it. I asked a question about it. And, you weren't able to answer that question. So why are you mentioning a demonstration on LGBT people?


      You linked the idea of understanding messages about love with being a Christian.

      I did not. I linked "belief" with Jesus.
      True to form, brabantio, you have no clue as to what is being discussed. I'll leave you alone, now, so you can play with your self, since you don't have the ability to play with others.
      Try listening to the "Questions and Answers" program I linked, earlier. It could help you understand what is being discussed. Perhaps then you will find the intelligence needed to advance beyond your childish ways. Personally, I think you'll continue to comment on things that have not been said. At least you'll be consistent, good for you.

      Delete
    16. "I didn't demonstrate it. I asked a question about it."

      Again: "That's why it wasn't clear why you then asked a question regarding homosexuals." I know that you asked a question about it, obviously.

      "And, you weren't able to answer that question."

      Again: "And, of course, it's not much of a mystery why more homosexuals and transsexuals don't go to Christian churches, when so many of those churches view them as sinners."

      "So why are you mentioning a demonstration on LGBT people?"

      Because your question relied on an assertion that you didn't substantiate.

      "I did not. I linked "belief" with Jesus."

      Wrong, as usual.
      You: "Clearly, you're wrong on your assertion that Jesus was all about love. If that was true then more liberals would love Him and follow His teachings."
      There's no connection between a commentary on Jesus's philosophy and believing in Jesus as the savior. Your reasoning insists that there is.

      This would be a pleasantly early end to your whining about a perfectly reasonable comment, if you're actually true to your word.

      Delete
    17. I still can't believe that amongst everything that was said, somehow, "Jesus was all about love" ended up be the most controversial! LOL

      Delete
    18. There's no connection between a commentary on Jesus's philosophy and believing in Jesus as the savior.

      There also is no connection between what you said I said and what I actually said. I never made this link: "You linked the idea of understanding messages about love with being a Christian.". So, provide proof of what you say or stop lying. You have started lying from your first post, why would I continue discussing with a liar? Now you know why mine will be an early exit: arguing with liars is like wrestling with pigs in the mud ... sooner or later you figure out they like it. Sorry, I don't need either. You may like it, but I do not.


      Eddie, I never said it was the most controversial. I simply made a "small comment" on that part of the interview.

      Delete
    19. "There also is no connection between what you said I said and what I actually said."

      Thanks for admitting that your argument was invalid.

      "I never made this link: "You linked the idea of understanding messages about love with being a Christian.". So, provide proof of what you say or stop lying."

      You: "If that was true then more liberals would love Him and follow His teachings."
      You're linking two concepts that have no connection. The first is understanding messages about love ("if that was true", since "that" refers to Jesus's philosophy being all about love), and the other is being a Christian ("love Him and follow His teachings). i accept your apology in advance, just so you don't feel obligated to post any more.

      Delete
    20. You said I linked understanding messages with being a Christian. I'm sorry, but you have failed to show how "His teachings" equates to "being a Christian". Obviously, His teachings could refer to His messages of love. Also, obviously, liberals seem to think those are His messages. Since you also say Jesus is all about love, and you deny being a Christian, then you failed to provide the link you say I made. You are a liar. Of course, that has been well established from previous articles you comment on.
      I will not discuss further with a known, unrepentant and continual liar. You lose in your attempts to drag this discussion on and on while lying and off taking the discussion off topic.

      BTW, have you even read the interview, yet? I didn't think so.

      Delete
    21. "I'm sorry, but you have failed to show how "His teachings" equates to "being a Christian"."

      Context helps: "If that was true then more liberals would love Him and follow His teachings. We have 3 liberals involved in this discussion at this moment. First one: Christian, claims Jesus is all about love, yet does not believe in Him. Second one: Eddie, brings all kinds of messages of love from Jesus, yet does not believe in Him. Third one: Brabantio, who claims Jesus is all about love, yet does not believe in Him.
      The phrase "believe in Him" proves that you're talking about being a Christian. Your own examples made your meaning clear, so you cut off any chance for wriggling out of it. You should have read your own words before trying that ruse.

      "Also, obviously, liberals seem to think those are His messages. Since you also say Jesus is all about love, and you deny being a Christian, then you failed to provide the link you say I made."

      Your entire point was that Jesus is not all about love, though. If I was a Christian, by your warped logic, that would disprove your stated claim. But at the same time, you think that I have to be a Christian in order to show that you made the argument. Fascinating. Even beyond that, I already pointed out that I don't have to be a Christian to appreciate Jesus's message of love, so there's no way for you to say that I have to be a Christian to make my point.

      Further, what does the reality of me not being a Christian have to do with your assertion? Do you believe that your words magically alter reality? As if you say that more liberals would be Christian if Jesus's message is about love, and that means that I have to be a Christian in order to prove that you said it? You might want to think about how your argument was supposed to make any sense at all.

      "I will not discuss further with a known, unrepentant and continual liar. You lose in your attempts to drag this discussion on and on while lying and off taking the discussion off topic."

      You haven't shown any lies, only your hilarious level of confusion. And "off topic"? What are you even claiming for that? I suspect that's going to fall into the same trash can that your "I don't think you're right." comment got thrown into.

      "BTW, have you even read the interview, yet? I didn't think so."

      Are you asking me, or are you telling me? If you're telling me, then you'll have to explain what your conclusion is based on. If you're asking, then it looks rather stupid for you to answer on my behalf.

      I look forward to your next post, in which you'll surely also say that you won't make any more posts.

      Delete
    22. "The phrase "believe in Him" proves that you're talking about being a Christian."

      The devil believes in Him, yet is not a Christian. Failure on your part to prove that link. Try harder next time. Try without lying next time, too.

      Off topic: talking about Christianity when no one else is, trying to make some kind of connection for statements you can't (or don't) understand.

      And, yes, I showed you lied by trying to say I'm linking Christianity to my statements. Which I never have done in this article. Failure on your part to show you have not lied.

      Delete
    23. "The devil believes in Him, yet is not a Christian."

      The devil is off-topic, by your own words. I also don't believe in the devil, so your example is unacceptable. We're discussing people. You cited three people who did not "believe in Him". If you want to claim that you weren't talking about whether people were Christian or not, feel free to explain what the hell you think you were saying.

      "Off topic: talking about Christianity when no one else is, trying to make some kind of connection for statements you can't (or don't) understand."

      Your first comment: "Christian said: " but I just want to remind them of one thing: Jesus was all about love.". That isn't true. Jesus was about belief. Belief in Him. When you get the wrong message that Jesus is sending it is more understandable why people choose to do as they please."
      Also, you: "The FACT remains, that if you want to be included in those who are going to Heaven to spend eternity with Jesus, then you must believe Him."

      It's going to be pretty hard for you to claim that talking about "Heaven" and spending "eternity with Jesus" isn't a reference to Christianity. As for "trying to make some kind of connection", that was you. I simply pointed it out, and I'm always allowed to comment on what you post.

      "And, yes, I showed you lied by trying to say I'm linking Christianity to my statements."

      You: "Well, I think you do need to believe in Jesus as the savior if you plan a future beyond the small number of years you'll live here on earth."

      Even beyond that, you weren't talking about you "linking Christianity" to your statements before the post I'm replying to, so it wouldn't be possible to defend myself against charges of lying that you hadn't made.

      Try again?

      Delete
    24. " I also don't believe in the devil, so your example is unacceptable. We're discussing people."

      Jesus was a person whether you believe in Him or not. How idiotic can your arguments get? Never mind, look who I'm asking. ROTFLMAO

      "It's going to be pretty hard for you to claim that talking about "Heaven" and spending "eternity with Jesus" isn't a reference to Christianity."

      No. It's going to be pretty hard for you to prove that link. It's all on you. You're the one to claim it, not me. Now prove it. Or, accept that you're lying .... again.

      Delete
    25. Jesus Tap-dancing Fucking Christ, William! A triangle half as obtuse as you are being would have an infinite hypotenuse! I'm not sure even sure YOU understand what you've written at this point! Holy fucking shit, dude! And all this over a single word, "all," which despite being a common colloquialism (when used in "all about") you took literally and then ran to the ends of the earth with! Whatever man, I'll let you love-birds keep going at it, but at this point I'm not sure what either of you was ever even trying to say! But I do have at least some vague suspicion that Brabantio is actually READING these posts! Holy shit. All over ONE. DAMNED. WORD.

      And you say this ISN'T what you found to be the most controversial? (Because I never said YOU said that! That was MY own judgement.) If you have seriously taken that ONE statement THIS FAR, maybe you ought to move on to what ever you think the REAL controversy actually is!

      JHTFC!

      Delete
    26. "Jesus was a person whether you believe in Him or not."

      I didn't say that Jesus wasn't a person. The quote you were referring to had "the devil" specified in it. Do you get easily confused between "Jesus" and "the devil"?

      "No. It's going to be pretty hard for you to prove that link."

      Which link? The one where you associated people understanding Jesus's messages about love and being Christians, or this new one where you supposedly aren't linking Christianity to your statements? And, by the way, you refusing to engage in dialogue and saying "lying" over and over doesn't even suggest that I'm "lying" about anything. If you weren't talking about people being Christian when you said "believe in Him", what did you mean? My conclusion is ironclad, until you propose a reasonable alternative.

      You can't even admit that you're talking about Christianity when you're telling others that they need to believe in Jesus in order to spend eternity with him. Spend a couple of minutes thinking about how insane you appear to be, in all seriousness. I'm half-inclined to email your "Dr. J Vernon McGee" and have him explain to you what spending eternity in Heaven with Jesus has to do with Christianity. Then you can call him a liar.

      Delete
    27. Out of curiosity, I checked to see what your Dr. McGee had to say about Jesus and salvation: "Thus it becomes a question, not of our ability to hold onto Him, but of His ability to have secure hold on us. My friend, He said with the infinite wisdom and full authority of the Godhead that He can hold us and that they who trust in Him shall never perish." http://www.cobblestoneroadministry.org/2007/AssuranceOfSalvation_JVernonMcGee.html

      Is that somehow different from "Well, I think you do need to believe in Jesus as the savior if you plan a future beyond the small number of years you'll live here on earth."? Apparently I can't email him, because you've been listening to a man who's been dead for over a quarter of a century, but I'm pretty sure that the link itself shows that your quote inextricably involves Christianity.

      You: "Off topic: talking about Christianity when no one else is..."
      That gets funnier every single time I read it.

      Delete
  2. "Jesus Tap-dancing Fucking Christ, William! "

    What are YOU crying about, Eddie? Considering you're the one who wants people to come in and argue, you sure get all defensive when someone does and makes you liberals look like complete idiots. One cries about being talked to, the other cries about lies he makes. I think it is you two love-birds that need to get a room. Hell, this is the perfect article for it. Should I go find a preacher for you two? There's plenty, out here in the Bay Area, that would be glad to help you out. After all, you got the DOMA to protect your "rights".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Should I go find a preacher for you two? There's plenty, out here in the Bay Area, that would be glad to help you out. After all, you got the DOMA to protect your "rights"."

      DOMA was an act against gay marriage. It didn't protect anyone's rights: "Prior to a June 2013 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) singled out lawfully married same-sex couples for unequal treatment under federal law. This law discriminated in two important ways. First, Section 2 of DOMA purports to allow states to refuse to recognize valid civil marriages of same-sex couples. Second, Section 3 of the law carves all same-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, out of all federal statutes, regulations and rulings applicable to all other married people—thereby denying them over 1,100 federal benefits and protections."
      http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/respect-for-marriage-act
      http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/doma-get-the-facts

      Delete
    2. William - You are the only person on earth who can read this exchange and think you've accomplished ANYTHING here. It's assinine. If you wanted to argue about something substantive, go right ahead. But it's been a dozen posts in a row about how believing in Jesus to get into Heaven has nothing to do with Christianity! The only person who looks like an idiot at this point is YOU, and it's truly sad that you can't see that.

      And even though he's 100% right, yet again, I'm beggining to wonder if Brabantio doens't own stock in a company that makes Troll Food.

      Delete
    3. Eddie, what I don't understand is that you can stand there and say Jesus is all about love and feel offended when corrected. Tell me, what does troll food taste like?

      Delete
    4. Eddie, I don't own any stock. This is just fun. Allow me to demonstrate what I mean.

      William, you argue that your comments about believing in Jesus as a savior and spending eternity in Heaven aren't about Christianity. The Christian preacher that you yourself recommended on this thread obviously disagrees with you, as I proved above.

      One of you has to be wrong. If it's you, then you were clearly lying. It's not as if you've spent however many years as a Christian and honestly didn't know that "I think you do need to believe in Jesus as the savior if you plan a future beyond the small number of years you'll live here on earth" was a comment about your own faith. If your beloved Dr. McGee is wrong, then why do you tout him so much? You've listened to multiple broadcasts of his sermons and lessons and you didn't know how far off the mark he was until just now? That seems difficult to believe.

      Of course, you'll probably leap to take the gutless option, which is to make the absurd claim that neither one of you is wrong. To say that Christianity isn't about believing in Jesus Christ as your savior in order to get into Heaven, and also that it is about believing in Jesus Christ as your savior in order to get into Heaven.

      And that's where this will get even more fun, because if those clear opposites can be simultaneously true, then it's impossible for you to "correct" anyone. If two contradictory concepts can both be true, then you can't claim that an interpretation contrary to your own is false.

      In which case, you owe Eddie an apology. Good luck!

      Delete
    5. And, Wiliam, you might want to consider this before replying:
      James 2:24 (NIV): "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."

      Delete
    6. I know, Brabantio. And even as it's most absurd (I'm a troll on my own blog? He doesn't know what words mean, does he?) I will admit that this is my [scik and twisted] idea of fun as well. After 37 turns on the tilter-whirl though, I have to admit that I still need to get off and go throw up. Maybe that comes with the onset of middle-age. LOL. But the carney's will be here all week, so by all means, enjoy yourself. You too William. I'm out. ;)

      Delete
    7. Eddie, I'm curious if you're going to have any articles on how Pres Obama is bombing sovereign nations (without their approval) and steadily increasing ground forces in Iraq after you steadfastly denounced Bush for doing the same thing. Do I think I'll see any of those kind of articles? Nah, don't think so. That damned 'hate those conservative policies' keeps getting in your way, huh? And you would sure hate that 'hypocrite' implication on your support of Pres Obama's policies, too, wouldn't ya.
      I would expect you to be "out" after that crazed support of "Jesus is ALL about love" mantra in order to excuse your liberal behaviors then being called on it.

      Delete
    8. Wait, so Eddie is supposed to be a hypocrite for criticizing Bush, because he hasn't yet commented on Obama's current operations in Iraq? More fun.

      You: "My concern is the NBA and liberals. You want to show hypocrisy by conservatives for the same issue, then you need to do it. I'm not going to prove your claims for you."

      And: "You admitted there was no national fuss over the previous incident. Which, in fact, does support my opinion that certain liberals are acting hypocritically over this most recent incident. My inclusion or exclusion of conservatives and independents does NOT make my statement about certain liberals untrue."

      "I only singled out certain ones, not all or every. If you want to have your own tangent against conservatives and independents, you go right ahead. Mine was on the NBA and certain liberals."

      And (on conservatives and independents): "They can be criticized, but I'm not the one to do it. If you feel they have a hypocrisy problem, you should bring it up during this discussion on hypocrisy."

      And, best of all;
      Me: "That's your selective outrage."
      You: "Yes. Does it really take this long for you to figure that out?"

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/04/sterling-silver.html

      If you have the right to engage in selective outrage, which you admitted to doing, then you give everyone else that right.

      And, by the way, you also said this on that thread: "When the matters are different, they should be evaluated differently." Are the circumstances today similar to those when Bush invaded Iraq? You should think about such things before you post, instead of making accusations based on blind hatred alone. That's even if you weren't such a flaming hypocrite while doing so.

      Fitting to this (as well as the entire cause of the thread), some verses for you:
      "1 Peter 1: 22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart. 23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. 24 For,
      'All people are like grass,
      and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
      the grass withers and the flowers fall,
      25 but the word of the Lord endures forever.'
      And this is the word that was preached to you.
      1 Peter 2: 1 Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind."

      It's obvious that you had conveniently forgotten those words, if you ever read them at all.

      Delete
    9. William. For the final time, you do not get to speak for me, or tell me what I think or believe. Ever. So STFU. If you genuinely want to know what I think about thinking, and DON'T suck at life, I suggest that next time you just fucking ASK, in a genuine and respectful manner and then wait for a fucking ANSWER. (Asshole.) As a matter of fact I had been fleshing out a bit that was to be titled "Foreign policy is hard." But the moment, it would end up over an hour long, and I don't even find myself interesting enough to stick with anything for that long. So I'm parring it down, and figuring out how I want to present it. And I have no intention of rushing it (or delaying it for that matter) on account of you. (Asshole.) So... In the meantime, you could... go fuck yourself? Or you could go troll someone else blog? Or you could argue with Brabantio soem more? Or you could give some money to the Tea Party? You know what? Honestly? I can't think of anything I give fewer shits about than what you do in the meantime. But you DO NOT get to SPEAK FOR me, or TELL ME what I think, feel, or believe. Ever. You got that? (Asshole?)

      Because it kind of pisses me off.

      Delete
    10. William: "You're a punk for even suggesting that I'd go off topic."

      Delete
  3. "Because it kind of pisses me off."

    So what?


    "If you genuinely want to know what I think about thinking, and DON'T suck at life, I suggest that next time you just fucking ASK, in a genuine and respectful manner and then wait for a fucking ANSWER. "

    Never told you to do anything.
    Eddie: "(Asshole.)", "(Asshole.)", "go fuck yourself", "(Asshole?)"

    I'll try to keep it as "respectful" as you do (asshole). You're a fucking hypocrite. You won't whine about Pres Obama attacking sovereign countries because it makes you a FUCKING HYPOCRITE. THAT'S why you are having such a hard problem with dealing with it.

    You want to comment towards me? I'm currently on mediamatters (under william) talking about just this subject and none of those whiney-ass liberals can counter any of my arguments. You want to try? Go for it. You're just sniveling now because I shot your "Jesus is ALL about love" argument all to hell. Get over it and START respecting others instead of calling them (asshole) as you demand respect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eddie: "As a matter of fact I had been fleshing out a bit that was to be titled "Foreign policy is hard." But the moment, it would end up over an hour long, and I don't even find myself interesting enough to stick with anything for that long. So I'm parring it down, and figuring out how I want to present it."

      William: "You won't whine about Pres Obama attacking sovereign countries because it makes you a FUCKING HYPOCRITE. THAT'S why you are having such a hard problem with dealing with it."

      Previously...

      William: "Your inaccurate assumptions and presentations of my views are wrong."

      And: "I didn't tell you to believe my beliefs, you assumed (for some crazy reason) I did based on the answer not fitting what you wanted to read."

      And: "And you base that on what? Your assumptions? Good planning there."

      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2014/03/government-welfare-or-private-charity.html

      Bonus from the same thread: "BTW, you still can't figure out how to work the "reply" button?"

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, William, did you say something?

      Delete
    3. I didn't think I'd see you there. Like all the other whiney-ass liberals, they cut and run when faced with truth and facts. Just like they do here.

      Delete
    4. Your assumptions aren't "truth and facts", William. They're just assumptions.

      You should also contemplate your use of "whiney-ass", considering that you've been moaning on about the owner of a website not posting articles that you want to comment on. Your lack of self-awareness is remarkable.

      Delete