Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

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, March 30, 2015

What's wrong with Indiana?

With regards to the following piece from Daily Kos, all I can say is...


Bravo. Probably the best post I've ever read from them, and I read them every single day.


Equal rights for all: Women, Minorities, all Religions, Atheists, LGBT folks, etc... Nothing short of this is acceptable. And yet states like Indiana and Arkansas and Georgia and Nevada and too many others are doing their damnedest to go in the wrong direction.


These laws have long since ceased to be about protecting religious freedom, because nobody's "religious practices" are threatened by doing business with a gay person. (Or a black person, or a Jewish person, etc...)  If you are in the business of selling bread for $2 that costs you $1 to make, you are not HARMED if a gay person buys some: You are $1 ahead. End of story. It's THAT SIMPLE. It is not a burden to anyone to expect them to do business, in the very business that they went into business to do! It benefits them. Tangibly.  Expecting someone to drive farther, pay more or go without IS doing harm.  It imposes a burden on that person, a tangible, economic burden that is the precise, legal  DEFINITION of harm.

Arguably the stupidest defense I hear of these laws was the following:


Governor Pence? That's ALL JESUS DID. His ENTIRE LIFE was about WELCOMING SINNERS! That's pretty much ALL HE DID!  Also?  (you ignorant fuck) WE ARE ALL SINNERS.  And should anyone say otherwise they are automatically committing the sin of PRIDE.  For you to claim that this law is what Jesus wants is to take the Lord's name in vain, to the highest degree.  

MARK 2 13-17 JESUS IS A FRIEND OF SINNERS!

And you, sir, are no friend to mankind, or to civilized society.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Does that sound familiar Governor? It should: You put your right hand on the Bible and swore to uphold it (not the other way around!) when you were sworn into office.  How about:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, 
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Pretty "American" sounding, no? What part of that suggests that we discriminate?  What part of that says that people should be limited in their choice of who they love? Or marry?  What part of ANY of this allows one person to use their "deeply held religious beliefs" to harm another?

YOUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ENDS AT THE TIP OF MY NOSE.

And your law is a disgrace.

It is NOT like so many others - established to protect ACTUAL religious practices, particularly those of minority religions and Native Americans. It is a perversion of those laws, twisted to amount to no more that a political backlash against the progress that's been made against the bigotry that holds us back from bringing TRUE equality under the law to all people.

In closing couldn't say it any better that Steven D. did in the Kos article that I linked to:

I don't want my country back.  I want a better country.  One that truly provides liberty and justice for all people.  And I certainly don't want a country where anyone can discriminate against anyone else of whom they do disapprove and escape liability for that immoral and otherwise unlawful act under any pretext, be it freedom of religionracial superiority or traditional values
I never want to go back to the country that existed when I was born. The one that exists now needs far too much improvement as it is.

Bravo, Steven. Bravo.


69 comments:

  1. If I was to post a sign at my business that said: "we will not serve people with varicella or AIDS/HIV", would that be considered acceptable? After all, I wouldn't want to be a part of furthering any possible genocide of any kind.
    Or, to keep with your "Jesus" theme, would Jesus approve of a sign that said: "we will not serve people with Leprosy"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re HIV/AIDS, no it would not be, seeing as how neither is transmissible through casual contact. Re varicella? Well... If we had a robust vaccine program that wouldn't be an issue, would it? ;)

      Re Jesus? Good lord, William. What bible are you reading anyway? Try Matthew 8:2-4 or Mark 1:40-45. It always amazes me how little you Christians know your Christ.

      Btw... Are you seriously comparing LGBT's to LEPERS? Really?

      Delete
    2. No, I'm comparing deadly communicable diseases. And, sex is not the only way to get AIDS/HIV. Otherwise they would let sport players continue to play while bleeding. So, "casual contact" IS all that's needed.
      Maybe what you're saying is that people with communicable diseases should be allowed anywhere they want to go? Even those with varicella?

      Delete
    3. Totally illogical. *I* said nothing of the sort. "LGBT" (and Black, Jewish, Liberal, etc...) is NOT a "communicable disease." Those people (etc...) were what *I* was talking about. If you want to derail the discussion using inappropriate parallels that's your problem. If you have a more appropriate parallel or metaphor that you can use to make your "point" then have at it, and I'll respond in kind.

      As far as "my opinion" regarding people with "communicable diseases" going "anywhere they want?" We already have laws regarding that, and as far as I am concerned they are adequate, relative to the actual "problem." Please refer to:

      http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html

      I've not heard to many people suggest anything about making them any tighter. But if that IS how *YOU* feel, you are welcome to go write a blog post about it. (Somewhere else.) But unless you can show me that there has been a communicable outbreak of "teh gay," your argument is completely irrelevant and off-topic.

      Delete
    4. BTW, William... Since your so concerned about spreading communicable diseases, can I take it then that you support mandatory paid sick leave for all employees, contrary to the Republican platform?

      Delete
  2. Technically, I could open up a business here and post a sign that alerts conservatives that they're not allowed, since all I have to do is to claim that my religious principles don't allow it. Religion doesn't have to be justified or validated in any way, because it's not objective in the slightest. They also aren't particularly verifiable, since religious principles exist only in the mind.

    As damaging as this might be to our economy, though, I'm still getting a good laugh at these clowns as they try to save face by "clarifying" the bill. They shot down the amendment which specified that it couldn't be used to justify discrimination, and now they're tap-dancing furiously trying to assure people that they didn't intend the bill to be able to justify discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Georgia one Republican (with the support of Democrats) added that very clause to their bill, which was otherwise the same as Indiana's. It immediately lost ALL Republican support, with one -R commenting, "That's defeats the whole purpose of the bill!" This was IMMEDIATELY after arguing that the bill WASN'T about discrimination! Yeah... He got called out for that stupidity hard.

      Delete
    2. "Technically, I could open up a business here and post a sign that alerts conservatives that they're not allowed, since all I have to do is to claim that my religious principles don't allow it."

      No, you wouldn't be "technically" able to do that. You claim atheism isn't a religion, so you couldn't use that as a reason. Unless, you are admitting that atheism is a religion, then you could.

      Delete
    3. "You claim atheism isn't a religion, so you couldn't use that as a reason."

      You do claim that atheism is a religion, so you have to believe that I could do exactly what I said. Besides that, I didn't say I would do it as an atheist. I can make up a new religion on the spot, and it's just as legitimate as anyone else's. Nobody can prove that I didn't suddenly adopt religious views and choose to defend them in my business practices, obviously.

      You might have already picked up on all of that if you had read this part: "Religion doesn't have to be justified or validated in any way, because it's not objective in the slightest. They also aren't particularly verifiable, since religious principles exist only in the mind."
      I should have written it as "it also isn't particularly verifiable", but the point is clear either way.

      Delete
    4. "You do claim that atheism is a religion, so you have to believe that I could do exactly what I said. "

      Are you running around in that circle again? You didn't mention ME in your statement, you mentioned YOURSELF and YOUR religion.

      Delete
    5. "Are you running around in that circle again? You didn't mention ME in your statement, you mentioned YOURSELF and YOUR religion."

      I didn't have to mention you then, because that was before you made your inane remark. Since you insist that atheism is a religion, you would have to agree with my original comment instead of contradicting it. Of course, I didn't specify atheism in my hypothetical, so you couldn't possibly assume that the religious principles were something other than hypothetical as well.

      The fact that I am an atheist is part of my point; there's no way to verify what I actually believe from day to day, which is what makes the law so absurd. Are you caught up now, or do you need more help?

      Delete
    6. I'll add on to that, because you'll intentionally misunderstand otherwise; the point is that nobody's personal views are verifiable, not that atheists change their views daily. There should be plenty of context to make that clear to normal people, but I'm willing to accommodate those with special needs.

      Delete
    7. " Since you insist that atheism is a religion, you would have to agree with my original comment instead of contradicting it."

      I am agreeing that you said you would use your religion to avoid doing business with conservatives.

      "The fact that I am an atheist is part of my point; there's no way to verify what I actually believe from day to day, which is what makes the law so absurd."

      Yes, I think I've said that to you before also ... that you change your beliefs from day to day. ROTFLMAO@U

      "I'll add on to that, because you'll intentionally misunderstand otherwise; the point is that nobody's personal views are verifiable, not that atheists change their views daily."

      Oh, so you're saying that gays can change their personal views on their sexuality from day to day? Hmmm, I've never doubted that for a minute. That's why it is called a CHOICE.

      But none of your statements change the fact that I could just as easily forbid people with deadly diseases from entering my business premises using the context that other people have a right to be safe while I provide services for them. There is no right for some to expose others to deadly communicable diseases. I don't care how much you love gays. If you want to let people with AIDS/HIV play with your kids that is fine with me, but I wouldn't let mine. And I will fight anyone who forces me to do that.

      Delete
    8. "I am agreeing that you said you would use your religion to avoid doing business with conservatives."

      No, I was speaking hypothetically. I didn't specify any actual religion.

      "Yes, I think I've said that to you before also ... that you change your beliefs from day to day."

      What's funny is that you forgot to delete that after you saw the clarification. That only made you look stupid.

      "Oh, so you're saying that gays can change their personal views on their sexuality from day to day?"

      That didn't follow what I said at all, obviously.

      "But none of your statements change the fact that I could just as easily forbid people with deadly diseases from entering my business premises using the context that other people have a right to be safe while I provide services for them."

      Did you forget that you responded to my comment, and not the other way around?

      "There is no right for some to expose others to deadly communicable diseases. I don't care how much you love gays."

      Straight people have "deadly communicable diseases" as well, so that's no basis for discrimination against gay people.

      Delete
    9. "No, I was speaking hypothetically."

      You said you were speaking "technically". I didn't know "hypothetically" and "technically" meant the same things. Hmm, you learn something new every day. Thanks for that bit of information.

      "What's funny is that you forgot to delete that after you saw the clarification."

      I left it there on purpose after your lame attempt of an excuse.

      "Did you forget that you responded to my comment, and not the other way around?."

      I started this conversation.
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/03/whats-wrong-with-indiana.html?showComment=1427813142553#c2278757478425355271

      "Straight people have "deadly communicable diseases" as well, so that's no basis for discrimination against gay people."

      That's why I used 2 diseases as comparison. Although I meant to use small pox not chicken pox. Of course, I can use all three if it helps you. Please try to follow along.

      Delete
    10. "You said you were speaking "technically"."

      No, the word "could" is what would indicate a hypothetical to literate people. The word "technically" doesn't preclude "hypothetically" in any way.

      "I left it there on purpose after your lame attempt of an excuse."

      Except that the supposed "excuse" is completely consistent with what I said in my original comment, which is highly inconvenient for you. All you did was to confirm my prediction regarding your lack of moral character.

      "I started this conversation."

      No, I wasn't responding to you. I created my own comment independently, which you then replied to. Your commentary about disease is irrelevant to that.

      "That's why I used 2 diseases as comparison."

      That doesn't help you, as far as you've shown. You associated AIDS with homosexuality, when straight people also have AIDS. If you think that's a basis for discriminating against gay people, then you would logically have to disallow straight people from your establishment as well.

      Delete
    11. "Your commentary about disease is irrelevant to that."

      Then why did you reply to it? Did you get tired of being shot down during your own misguided attempt at humor?

      "You associated AIDS with homosexuality, when straight people also have AIDS."

      Yes, I know straight people have and get AIDS/HIV, that's basically what I said in my very first post. Unless you think I referred to ALL sports players as gay. You DO seem to be having trouble following along, so maybe that's it.

      Delete
    12. "Then why did you reply to it?"

      Why not? I can point out that it's irrelevant and invalid at the same time.

      "Yes, I know straight people have and get AIDS/HIV, that's basically what I said in my very first post."

      Then you have no rationale to discriminate against gay people. Now what?

      Delete
    13. "Then you have no rationale to discriminate against gay people. Now what?"

      Of course I would never discriminate. But, it would be legal to deny service to anyone that I think may have a deadly disease, such as AIDS/HIV. Unless they can provide current legal government issued documents clearly stating that they do not have the disease. Then, of course, I could not do that.

      Delete
    14. "Of course I would never discriminate. But, it would be legal to deny service to anyone that I think may have a deadly disease, such as AIDS/HIV."

      So you would discriminate against young, single people, while allowing gay couples, since monogamy would suggest a lower risk of having AIDS. Or did you not think of that?

      Delete
    15. "Or did you not think of that?"

      You really have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you? My statement covered them as well.

      I take it you're done now. Thanks for playing

      Delete
    16. "You really have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you? My statement covered them as well."

      You can say that sort of thing all day long, but it only further proves that you have no relevant comment on discrimination against homosexuals. The most obvious way for you to know that someone is actually gay would be if there was a couple, and monogamy reduces the risk of AIDS. So this little fantasy of picking out people that you think are gay and demanding medical reports would not hold water in court.

      "I take it you're done now."

      I would obviously say the same to you, since you've abandoned everything that you said in your original response to me, and are now harping on some nonsense that I ignored when you posted it previously.

      Delete
    17. " The most obvious way for you to know that someone is actually gay would be if there was a couple, and monogamy reduces the risk of AIDS."

      See, the problem is that you assume everyone who isn't a liberal is either a racist or homophobe or both. I wouldn't do that, I would base it on the disease potential that would endanger other customers.

      "So this little fantasy of picking out people that you think are gay and demanding medical reports would not hold water in court."

      Um, I don't thing there's a court in the land that would force me to endanger other customers for the benefit of one's lifestyle choice.

      "I would obviously say the same to you, since you've abandoned everything that you said in your original response to me, and are now harping on some nonsense that I ignored when you posted it previously."

      You mean the one where you stated you follow a religion then backed off that claim after I pointed out how you insistently claim to be an atheist? I don't think it was me who abandon that one.
      Or the one where you said you could "technically" discriminate based on your own ideals and soon backed off that one too?
      You Jerseyites sure are a funny breed. Consistent, but funny.

      Delete
    18. "I wouldn't do that, I would base it on the disease potential that would endanger other customers."

      You would discriminate against gay people. I get it.

      "Um, I don't thing there's a court in the land that would force me to endanger other customers for the benefit of one's lifestyle choice."

      Yet again, straight people have diseases, too. Your assumptions that certain people are some sort of danger is just a cowardly form of bigotry.

      "You mean the one where you stated you follow a religion then backed off that claim after I pointed out how you insistently claim to be an atheist?"

      I never claimed to follow a religion. You just got caught lying, yet again.

      "I don't think it was me who abandon that one."

      Really? What did you say that I didn't address?

      "Or the one where you said you could "technically" discriminate based on your own ideals and soon backed off that one too?"

      You're describing one statement with two different questions. And technically, I could do that. You haven't demonstrated otherwise.

      "You Jerseyites sure are a funny breed."

      If you were able to read, you'd see that I said where I live. And it's not in New Jersey, inconveniently to you.

      Delete
    19. "You would discriminate against gay people. I get it."

      No, I said I would discriminate against diseased people. Reading comp 101. Please take a refresher (or beginner in your case) class.

      " Your assumptions that certain people are some sort of danger is just a cowardly form of bigotry."

      Look at the stats. Which group of people are more likely to have that deadly disease? I have not denied that anyone can have it. Why are you so consistently misinterpreting what I say?

      "I never claimed to follow a religion."

      Oh? What did you mean by this: "Technically, I could open up a business here and post a sign that alerts conservatives that they're not allowed, since all I have to do is to claim that my religious principles don't allow it."? Because I still don't see "hypothetically" in that statement. Sorry, you still haven't proved me to be a liar.

      "And technically, I could do that."

      I still don't see "hypothetically" in your statement.

      "If you were able to read, you'd see that I said where I live."

      I've read what you said. You lie so much who could believe you? You ever read the story about the kid who cried wolf too often? You're him.

      Delete
    20. "No, I said I would discriminate against diseased people."

      You would really have no way of making that determination, and that still makes your comments completely irrelevant. Of course, your standard is intended to target gay people, as you admit in the same post.

      "Look at the stats. Which group of people are more likely to have that deadly disease?"

      It doesn't matter, since "more likely" doesn't support discrimination against a group all by itself. Besides that, risky behavior is caused by a lack of acceptance by society, so it's people like you that create that disparity.

      "Oh? What did you mean by this:"

      It obviously meant that I could claim to have religious principles.

      "Because I still don't see "hypothetically" in that statement."

      Hypothetical statements don't always require the word "hypothetically". Note the context: "Religion doesn't have to be justified or validated in any way, because it's not objective in the slightest. They also aren't particularly verifiable, since religious principles exist only in the mind."
      As anyone over the age of six should be able to understand, that means that there would be no way of proving that I don't have those religious principles, not that I actually have any. Since this has been explained to you already, you're lying.

      "I've read what you said. You lie so much who could believe you?"

      You've never proven a lie on my part. Besides that, I've mentioned my home state before you started making your claim. That would be pretty hard for you to explain.

      Delete
    21. " Of course, your standard is intended to target gay people, as you admit in the same post."

      My "standard" (as you call it) would be to avoid people with deadly diseases that may infect others against their will.

      "As anyone over the age of six should be able to understand, that means that there would be no way of proving that I don't have those religious principles, not that I actually have any."

      Ad hominem attacks only reduce your credibility in this discussion.


      "Besides that, risky behavior is caused by a lack of acceptance by society, so it's people like you that create that disparity."

      Of course, your opinion has no weight. Got any proof of that?

      Delete
    22. "My "standard" (as you call it) would be to avoid people with deadly diseases that may infect others against their will."

      Which you're using as code for "gay people".

      "Ad hominem attacks only reduce your credibility in this discussion."

      There was no ad hominem, because I explained my point in full. Besides that, I'm not assuming that you don't actually understand; I accept the possibility that you're being intellectually dishonest.

      "Got any proof of that?"

      What's the alternative? And if homosexuals weren't interested in monogamous relationships, there wouldn't be such a large movement for gay marriage. I'm guessing that this isn't actually based on any sense of reason on your part, but instead a desire to bury your head in the sand in order to avoid accepting an idea that runs counter to your religious beliefs.

      No more comments on where I live? It's good that you know when you're beaten, for once.

      Delete
    23. "Which you're using as code for "gay people"."

      Oooo, secret code words. Wow, you really have run out of logical arguments, huh?

      "There was no ad hominem,"

      What's this: "As anyone over the age of six should be able to understand ..."?
      Or is that a personal admittance of your age?

      "What's the alternative?"

      That they choose to be morally contempt. Unless you're now saying that people who are into child pornography are born that way? And, if so, then why aren't you crying about the "rights" they don't get for their CHOICE?

      " And if homosexuals weren't interested in monogamous relationships, there wouldn't be such a large movement for gay marriage."

      If they WERE interested in monogamous relationships there wouldn't be such a spread of that deadly disease among people who aren't gay. Face the facts ... people have a fetish for sex and it is all choice.

      "
      No more comments on where I live?"

      Personally, I don't care where you live. It is just so much fun making you jump through hoops crying about it.

      Anything else?



      Delete
    24. "Wow, you really have run out of logical arguments, huh?"

      Pointing out your behavior is completely logical.

      "What's this: "As anyone over the age of six should be able to understand ..."?"

      It's a commentary on the straightforward nature of my statement. You should be able to understand it, no matter why you claim not to.

      "That they choose to be morally contempt."

      What does that have to do with risky behavior? Is there a Bible verse about condoms?

      "Unless you're now saying that people who are into child pornography are born that way?"

      They might be, but that's harmful behavior. Ergo, no rights.

      "If they WERE interested in monogamous relationships there wouldn't be such a spread of that deadly disease among people who aren't gay."

      When monogamous relationships aren't accepted, then it fosters risky behavior. Your comment didn't counter mine.

      "Personally, I don't care where you live."

      That's funny, considering how many times you've brought it up. But, when you've been beaten into the ground, you "don't care".

      "It is just so much fun making you jump through hoops crying about it."

      In other words, you're a troll. Thanks for admitting it.

      Delete
    25. Here's a fun link for you, William, considering your inclination to link homosexuality to murder, rape, theft and child pornography:
      http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/04/04/anti-gay-bigotry-is-backfiring-poll-finds-gay-people-more-popular-than-evangelicals/
      How does it feel to be less respected than those supposedly wicked and diseased homosexuals?

      Delete
    26. "How does it feel to be less respected than those supposedly wicked and diseased homosexuals?"

      I do what I can to please my God, not to please the world. So, I still feel fine. Even Jesus said that He was persecuted and we should expect to be also. Thanks for giving another example of prophecy.being fulfilled. Oops, you didn't think that one through, did you?

      Delete
    27. "Even Jesus said that He was persecuted and we should expect to be also. Thanks for giving another example of prophecy.being fulfilled."

      I don't believe in any prophecy. You can spin your ilk's looming extinction however you feel the need to.

      Anything else, troll?

      Delete
    28. "I don't believe in any prophecy."

      Doesn't matter what YOU believe, does it? As long as I believe it. The funny thing is that even your gay friends must believe it too (the ones who claim to be Christian) or they aren't Christian. Makes no difference to me if you want to live in a hate filled world. It isn't like we (Christians) don't expect this. So, bring all your hate-fullness on, we expect you to hate us.
      Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    29. "Makes no difference to me if you want to live in a hate filled world."

      Anyone who's read any thread you've been on will laugh their ass off at the projection involved in that comment.

      "It isn't like we (Christians) don't expect this. So, bring all your hate-fullness on, we expect you to hate us."

      You don't represent Christians. And I don't hate Christians, I simply don't accept your bigotry, dishonesty and hypocrisy. But, it does seem a fitting day for you to play the martyr, at least.

      Delete
    30. "But, it does seem a fitting day for you to play the martyr, at least."

      Why today more than any other day? The last I read, this is a day of life, not death. But, you aren't very keen on real religious meanings, huh? But, that's expected since your religion celebrates Ishtar.

      Delete
    31. "The last I read, this is a day of life, not death."

      It's still related to the crucifixion, obviously.

      "But, that's expected since your religion celebrates Ishtar."

      I don't have a religion. "Ishtar" is just a bad movie, as far as I'm concerned.

      Delete
    32. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    33. "It's still related to the crucifixion, obviously."

      Everything is related to the crucifixion. Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about.
      So, again, why today more than any other day?

      Delete
    34. "Everything is related to the crucifixion."

      Not even everything related to Easter is related to the crucifixion; the symbols of eggs and bunnies, for instance, stem from the Pagan holiday that Christianity hijacked. And, of course, you're trying to mix your viewpoint into my comment. I obviously don't believe that "everything" is related to the crucifixion, so my meaning was already made clear.

      How far off-topic do you plan on going with this?

      Delete
    35. "Not even everything related to Easter is related to the crucifixion; the symbols of eggs and bunnies, for instance, stem from the Pagan holiday that Christianity hijacked."

      I've already proven that Christianity did not "hijack" your favorite sexual holiday.

      "How far off-topic do you plan on going with this?"

      As far as you take it. I'm not worried about what you change the topic to, I'm doing a pretty good job of shooting down every argument you make.

      Delete
    36. "I've already proven that Christianity did not "hijack" your favorite sexual holiday."

      You haven't proven any such thing. Where did you get "sexual" from? Bizarre.

      "As far as you take it."

      You're the one who is focusing exclusively on a single comment. Take responsibility for your own behavior, for once.

      Delete
    37. "You haven't proven any such thing. "

      Sure I have. Eddie was even honest enough to admit his error. Perhaps you should do more research before you start taking this argument any further. But, that is up to you: do you want to make an informed argument or just fly with whatever you think is correct? Personally, I think you'll do the later.

      Delete
    38. "Eddie was even honest enough to admit his error."

      What error do you imagine that you are you talking about?

      Delete
    39. http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/04/happy-ishtar-everyone.html?showComment=1428251394245#c8596938829474670007

      You said Christians "hijacked" a pagan holiday (Ishtar). I showed that is an error. Try to follow along.

      Delete
    40. "You said Christians "hijacked" a pagan holiday (Ishtar)."

      I didn't say anything about "Ishtar". It's pagan whether it's based on Ishtar or not.
      http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/ancient-pagan-origins-easter-001571

      Delete
    41. Sorry, I've already disproven that myth. Do some research before you make false claims.

      Delete
    42. Your own links support what I said:
      "Scratch the surface of just about any Christian holiday, and you’ll find pagan elements, if not a downright pagan theme, underneath...Know what else? Most Christians know this. Or, at least, most of the Christians that I’m friends with (which is, admittedly, a fairly small sampling). They know that Jesus wasn’t really born on December 25th, and they know that there were never any actual snakes in Ireland, and they know that rabbits and eggs are fertility symbols. But they don’t care, because they realize that religions evolve and change and that that’s actually a good thing, not a bad thing. The fact that many Christian saints are just re-imagined pagan gods and goddesses doesn’t alter their faith one iota; because faith isn’t about reason or sense, it’s about belief."

      And: "Decorating eggs came about to honor their pagan gods and were often presented as gifts to other families to bring them fertility and sexual success during the coming year. And secondly, they were highly worshiped and celebrated during the winter solstice. As according to Jer. 10:1-5; Is. 40:19-20; 41:7 and 44:9-20, the pagans would go out into the forest and do one of two things. Either they chopped down a tree and carved a female deity out of it, or they would simply bring the tree into the house and decorate it with gold and silver ornaments symbolizing the sun and the moon while nailing a stand on the bottom so it would not totter or tip over...Out of this practice came many other variations of these pagan festivals until the Roman Catholic Church adopted the Asherah worship and named it EASTER around 155 A.D. According to the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, Easter was named after a pagan goddess of the Anglo-Saxons named Eostre, the goddess of the dawn."

      Delete
    43. As to Acts 12:4;
      http://biblehub.com/acts/12-4.htm
      "intending after Easter—rather, "after the Passover"; that is, after the whole festival was over. (The word in our King James Version is an ecclesiastical term of later date, and ought not to have been employed here)."

      And: "Verse 4. - Taken for apprehended, A.V.; guard for keep, A.V.; the Passover for Easter, A.V. Four quaternions; i.e. four bands of four soldiers each, which were on guard in succession through the four watches of the night - one quaternion for each watch. The Passover. This is a decided improve-merit, as the use of the word "Easter" implies that the Christian feast is here meant. But perhaps" Feast of the Passover" would have been better, as showing that the whole seven days are intended. This is, perhaps, the meaning of τὸ πάσχα in John 18:28, and certainly is its meaning here."

      Every other version uses "Passover", not "Easter". That verse proves nothing.

      Delete
    44. "Your own links support what I said:"

      No, my links disprove what you said. Spin it any way you want, you're still wrong. Even Eddie agreed with me.

      Delete
    45. "No, my links disprove what you said."

      You're lying. They are indisputably consistent with my comment.

      "Spin it any way you want, you're still wrong. Even Eddie agreed with me."

      Eddie's the one who posted about "Ishtar". He agreed that you were right about that aspect. He then maintained that it was pagan, as do your links.

      Delete
    46. Ishtar is pagan, Easter is not. What exactly are you whining about?

      Delete
    47. I said that Easter's origins are pagan, and your links agree. You're the one whining about that, not me.

      Delete
    48. Not according to the links that you provided.

      Delete
    49. Show me where the links I brought say that Easter is based on a pagan holiday.
      I think you're floundering and can't bring that proof. Because even the Bible used Easter and not Ishtar.Bring your proof or STFU.

      Personally, I think you'll demand that I prove you wrong when you are being asked to prove your case. You are wrong.

      Delete
    50. "Show me where the links I brought say that Easter is based on a pagan holiday."

      I already did: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/03/whats-wrong-with-indiana.html?showComment=1428274225250#c7565037101785447842

      "Because even the Bible used Easter and not Ishtar."

      I addressed that garbage as well: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/03/whats-wrong-with-indiana.html?showComment=1428274628907#c4418792042904118336
      Also note Acts 12:3, even in the KJV, refers to Passover.

      And again, I never made any assertion about Ishtar. You'll just have to let that one go.

      Delete
    51. Ah ha ha, you claim MY links prove Easter is a pagan holiday, yet all you can do is bring links to Eddie's blog.
      OK, if all you can do is be dishonest, I'm done with you. If you grow any little grey cells, perhaps you can rejoin a conversation. Until then you really aren't very smart. Liberal and atheist ... yes, but not very smart.

      Delete
    52. "Ah ha ha, you claim MY links prove Easter is a pagan holiday, yet all you can do is bring links to Eddie's blog."

      I provided quotes from your links in that post. What do you want me to do, just post the same links that you already did? That's insanely stupid of you.

      Delete
    53. Yes, you said my links describe Easter as a pagan holiday. Prove it. Not with my words but with words that you say prove what you say. Since you can't do that, then I can safely assume you are done, here. Because otherwise you'd have brought something a little more intelligent. But, I have to realize WHO I'm dealing with. Huh, barbie?

      Delete
    54. "Yes, you said my links describe Easter as a pagan holiday."

      No, I didn't say that. I said that they support my comment about its pagan origins. Quit whining about it.

      Delete
    55. And you still haven't brought that proof. As usual, you make lots of claims but prove none of them. Good job, barbie. You're such a cute little barbie doll, now run off and play with ken. The intelligence you show sure makes everyone think that is the only thing you're capable of. So run along.

      Delete
    56. "And you still haven't brought that proof."

      The quotes from your links cite Easter's pagan roots. Ergo, they support my comment. You're simply throwing a tantrum at this point.

      Delete
    57. You're simply lying by not proving what you say. So, run along barbie, ken is calling you

      Delete
    58. What do you need explained to you, how all of the mentions of pagan symbolism in your links are related to paganism? The quotes that I provided are very clear. You're behaving like a child.

      Delete
    59. I guess stooping to your level isn't very good, huh? If you ever decide to discuss honestly or perhaps like an adult, just bring the information that is being asked for.

      Delete
    60. "I guess stooping to your level isn't very good, huh?"

      What similar behavior on my part have you ever demonstrated?

      "If you ever decide to discuss honestly or perhaps like an adult, just bring the information that is being asked for."

      You'll have to explain how quoting from your links doesn't satisfy your demands, and what more you're supposedly asking for.

      Delete
    61. "You'll have to explain how quoting from your links doesn't satisfy your demands, and what more you're supposedly asking for."

      That IS what I'm asking for. Can you do that? After all, that's what you claim, but you've never proved it or brought it. Typical liberal ... brings nothing to the game and cries when no one wants him to play.

      Delete
    62. "That IS what I'm asking for."

      Then you got what you asked for. And I even linked you to that once already.

      Delete