Hello my fellow "EASTER WORSHIPPERS" [Obama and Hillary won't say "Christians".]

[Mac1958]

....why not just use the word 'Christians' instead of 'Easter Worshipers?'

Nope. The Regressive Left wouldn't like that.

In their worldview, Christians are the oppressors and Muslims are the oppressed. Oppressors can never be identified as victims.

So, they'll happily enable the worst behaviors of the most illiberal religion on the planet, if it means keeping their worldview intact.

I guess if Pavlovian partisan hacks are going to salivate just because some troll called "White MAGAman" drops the suggestion out of his own ass with zero evidence, they might as well pull more hallucinations of motivations with no evidence out of their own ass.

And once again, you post to me without addressing my point, and then try to put me on the defensive.

I realize that's the standard approach with Regressives, but it doesn't work on me.

Maybe try it with someone else, thanks.

Actually that was yesterday that I busted you from here to Sunday on that fallacy.

It's still sitting there. You're afraid of it. And you're afraid of it because it's something you didn't think of.

And we can't have THAT.

The fact REMAINS, nobody but a troll OP brought up "Christians" at all. He pulled that idea out of his ass, and y'all Pavlovians just salivate while he runs away, it never occurring to you that he presented no evidence whatsoever.

Yet here you are running with a hackneyed leap from a troll OP as if it's anywhere near a valid position. Y'all took his bait hook line and sinker.

Critical thinking is a lost art.

You're a coward. You play games to change the subject.

I have you people nailed and you're flailing.

Good. Tough crap.
.

 

[Pogo]

....why not just use the word 'Christians' instead of 'Easter Worshipers?'

Nope. The Regressive Left wouldn't like that.

In their worldview, Christians are the oppressors and Muslims are the oppressed. Oppressors can never be identified as victims.

So, they'll happily enable the worst behaviors of the most illiberal religion on the planet, if it means keeping their worldview intact.

I guess if Pavlovian partisan hacks are going to salivate just because some troll called "White MAGAman" drops the suggestion out of his own ass with zero evidence, they might as well pull more hallucinations of motivations with no evidence out of their own ass.

And once again, you post to me without addressing my point, and then try to put me on the defensive.

I realize that's the standard approach with Regressives, but it doesn't work on me.

Maybe try it with someone else, thanks.

Actually that was yesterday that I busted you from here to Sunday on that fallacy.

It's still sitting there. You're afraid of it. And you're afraid of it because it's something you didn't think of.

And we can't have THAT.

The fact REMAINS, nobody but a troll OP brought up "Christians" at all. He pulled that idea out of his ass, and y'all Pavlovians just salivate while he runs away, it never occurring to you that he presented no evidence whatsoever.

Yet here you are running with a hackneyed leap from a troll OP as if it's anywhere near a valid position. Y'all took his bait hook line and sinker.

Critical thinking is a lost art.

You're a coward. You play games to change the subject.

I have you people nailed and you're flailing.

Good. Tough crap.

I just LAID OUT the subject, LITERALLY from post one. I just pointed out --- AGAIN --- that you're running with nothing. A troll post you fall down and worship as if it's actually made of something. And that's on YOU.

Truth hurts? Too fuckin' bad. Dishonesty like yours will always be called out for what it is. You can hide all you like, you can post Googly Image memes that think they make a point but you can't evade the truth.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[Pogo]

Poster please. Nobody watches videos. Especially ones off the topic.

Wassamatta? Can't back up the OP with anything at all?

I realize he ran away but there's literally nobody who can validate his idiocy with any evidence.
Based on TWITS I might add.

That's what we call a "gadfly".

Gullible's Travels.

 

[Mac1958]

Nope. The Regressive Left wouldn't like that.

In their worldview, Christians are the oppressors and Muslims are the oppressed. Oppressors can never be identified as victims.

So, they'll happily enable the worst behaviors of the most illiberal religion on the planet, if it means keeping their worldview intact.

I guess if Pavlovian partisan hacks are going to salivate just because some troll called "White MAGAman" drops the suggestion out of his own ass with zero evidence, they might as well pull more hallucinations of motivations with no evidence out of their own ass.

And once again, you post to me without addressing my point, and then try to put me on the defensive.

I realize that's the standard approach with Regressives, but it doesn't work on me.

Maybe try it with someone else, thanks.

Actually that was yesterday that I busted you from here to Sunday on that fallacy.

It's still sitting there. You're afraid of it. And you're afraid of it because it's something you didn't think of.

And we can't have THAT.

The fact REMAINS, nobody but a troll OP brought up "Christians" at all. He pulled that idea out of his ass, and y'all Pavlovians just salivate while he runs away, it never occurring to you that he presented no evidence whatsoever.

Yet here you are running with a hackneyed leap from a troll OP as if it's anywhere near a valid position. Y'all took his bait hook line and sinker.

Critical thinking is a lost art.

You're a coward. You play games to change the subject.

I have you people nailed and you're flailing.

Good. Tough crap.

I just LAID OUT the subject, LITERALLY from post one. I just pointed out --- AGAIN --- that you're running with nothing. A troll post you fall down and worship as if it's actually made of something. And that's on YOU.

Truth hurts? Too fuckin' bad. Dishonesty like yours will always be called out for what it is. You can hide all you like, you can post Googly Image memes that think they make a point but you can't evade the truth.

What dishonesty?

Go ahead. Get specific.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Nobody triggers the Regressives like ol' Mac triggers the Regressives.

 

[Pogo]

I guess if Pavlovian partisan hacks are going to salivate just because some troll called "White MAGAman" drops the suggestion out of his own ass with zero evidence, they might as well pull more hallucinations of motivations with no evidence out of their own ass.

And once again, you post to me without addressing my point, and then try to put me on the defensive.

I realize that's the standard approach with Regressives, but it doesn't work on me.

Maybe try it with someone else, thanks.

Actually that was yesterday that I busted you from here to Sunday on that fallacy.

It's still sitting there. You're afraid of it. And you're afraid of it because it's something you didn't think of.

And we can't have THAT.

The fact REMAINS, nobody but a troll OP brought up "Christians" at all. He pulled that idea out of his ass, and y'all Pavlovians just salivate while he runs away, it never occurring to you that he presented no evidence whatsoever.

Yet here you are running with a hackneyed leap from a troll OP as if it's anywhere near a valid position. Y'all took his bait hook line and sinker.

Critical thinking is a lost art.

You're a coward. You play games to change the subject.

I have you people nailed and you're flailing.

Good. Tough crap.

I just LAID OUT the subject, LITERALLY from post one. I just pointed out --- AGAIN --- that you're running with nothing. A troll post you fall down and worship as if it's actually made of something. And that's on YOU.

Truth hurts? Too fuckin' bad. Dishonesty like yours will always be called out for what it is. You can hide all you like, you can post Googly Image memes that think they make a point but you can't evade the truth.

What dishonesty?

Go ahead. Get specific.

Same thing I busted the OP for actually ----- attributing motivations to people with no evidence OF those motivations.

And when I say "people" in this case it means "vast conglomerates of imaginary groups that are only a group because you just put a label on them". Your favorite fallacy seems to be the Sweeping Generalization.

"The Regressive Left"
"The left"
"The right"
"Muslims"

etc etc etc, as if they're all some kind of Borg with no diverse individuals in them.

I busted you on that in post 103 as well.

But go ahead --- since the OP ran away, bravely ran away, why don't you show us any inkling of any shred of any shadow of any evidence that the OP's Twits were consciously "avoiding" the word "Christians". As opposed to a buttcrack idea he just pulled out of his butt as bait.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.

 

[Mac1958]

And once again, you post to me without addressing my point, and then try to put me on the defensive.

I realize that's the standard approach with Regressives, but it doesn't work on me.

Maybe try it with someone else, thanks.

Actually that was yesterday that I busted you from here to Sunday on that fallacy.

It's still sitting there. You're afraid of it. And you're afraid of it because it's something you didn't think of.

And we can't have THAT.

The fact REMAINS, nobody but a troll OP brought up "Christians" at all. He pulled that idea out of his ass, and y'all Pavlovians just salivate while he runs away, it never occurring to you that he presented no evidence whatsoever.

Yet here you are running with a hackneyed leap from a troll OP as if it's anywhere near a valid position. Y'all took his bait hook line and sinker.

Critical thinking is a lost art.

You're a coward. You play games to change the subject.

I have you people nailed and you're flailing.

Good. Tough crap.

I just LAID OUT the subject, LITERALLY from post one. I just pointed out --- AGAIN --- that you're running with nothing. A troll post you fall down and worship as if it's actually made of something. And that's on YOU.

Truth hurts? Too fuckin' bad. Dishonesty like yours will always be called out for what it is. You can hide all you like, you can post Googly Image memes that think they make a point but you can't evade the truth.

What dishonesty?

Go ahead. Get specific.

Same thing I busted the OP for actually ----- attributing motivations to people with no evidence OF those motivations.

And when I say "people" in this case it means "vast conglomerates of imaginary groups that are only a group because you just put a label on them". Your favorite fallacy seems to be the Sweeping Generalization.

"The Regressive Left"
"The left"
"The right"
"Muslims"

etc etc etc, as if they're all some kind of Borg with no diverse individuals in them.

I busted you on that in post 103 as well.

But go ahead --- since the OP ran away, bravely ran away, why don't you show us any inkling of any shred of any shadow of any evidence that the OP's Twits were consciously "avoiding" the word "Christians". As opposed to a buttcrack idea he just pulled out of his butt as bait.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact.

I provided my opinion. I provided the opinion of Maajid Nawaz, a man with whom I agree.

My opinion has clearly upset and animated you, and that's not my problem.

If you want to conflate opinion and dishonesty, and then claim victory, please be my guest.

Fine with me. I know what I'm dealing with here.
.

 

[Pogo]

Actually that was yesterday that I busted you from here to Sunday on that fallacy.

It's still sitting there. You're afraid of it. And you're afraid of it because it's something you didn't think of.

And we can't have THAT.

The fact REMAINS, nobody but a troll OP brought up "Christians" at all. He pulled that idea out of his ass, and y'all Pavlovians just salivate while he runs away, it never occurring to you that he presented no evidence whatsoever.

Yet here you are running with a hackneyed leap from a troll OP as if it's anywhere near a valid position. Y'all took his bait hook line and sinker.

Critical thinking is a lost art.

You're a coward. You play games to change the subject.

I have you people nailed and you're flailing.

Good. Tough crap.

I just LAID OUT the subject, LITERALLY from post one. I just pointed out --- AGAIN --- that you're running with nothing. A troll post you fall down and worship as if it's actually made of something. And that's on YOU.

Truth hurts? Too fuckin' bad. Dishonesty like yours will always be called out for what it is. You can hide all you like, you can post Googly Image memes that think they make a point but you can't evade the truth.

What dishonesty?

Go ahead. Get specific.

Same thing I busted the OP for actually ----- attributing motivations to people with no evidence OF those motivations.

And when I say "people" in this case it means "vast conglomerates of imaginary groups that are only a group because you just put a label on them". Your favorite fallacy seems to be the Sweeping Generalization.

"The Regressive Left"
"The left"
"The right"
"Muslims"

etc etc etc, as if they're all some kind of Borg with no diverse individuals in them.

I busted you on that in post 103 as well.

But go ahead --- since the OP ran away, bravely ran away, why don't you show us any inkling of any shred of any shadow of any evidence that the OP's Twits were consciously "avoiding" the word "Christians". As opposed to a buttcrack idea he just pulled out of his butt as bait.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact.

I provided my opinion. I provided the opinion of Maajid Nawaz, a man with whom I agree.

My opinion has clearly upset and animated you, and that's not my problem.

If you want to conflate opinion and dishonesty, and then claim victory, please be my guest.

Fine with me. I know what I'm dealing with here.

A declarative statement is not an "opinion". It's an alleged "fact". Actual facts however have to be proven or they're not facts.

"Obama and Hillary won't say 'Christians'" is a declarative statement. One which serves as the entire basis of this thread. It's the title. And it serves as the launchpad for, among others, your mass blanket statements about motivations of mass Borgs for which you have no evidence.

Prove it to be a fact. Clearly the OP cannot. Yet here's you and your fellow travellers running around as if it's a "fact".

IT ISN'T.

 

[Mac1958]

You're a coward. You play games to change the subject.

I have you people nailed and you're flailing.

Good. Tough crap.

I just LAID OUT the subject, LITERALLY from post one. I just pointed out --- AGAIN --- that you're running with nothing. A troll post you fall down and worship as if it's actually made of something. And that's on YOU.

Truth hurts? Too fuckin' bad. Dishonesty like yours will always be called out for what it is. You can hide all you like, you can post Googly Image memes that think they make a point but you can't evade the truth.

What dishonesty?

Go ahead. Get specific.

Same thing I busted the OP for actually ----- attributing motivations to people with no evidence OF those motivations.

And when I say "people" in this case it means "vast conglomerates of imaginary groups that are only a group because you just put a label on them". Your favorite fallacy seems to be the Sweeping Generalization.

"The Regressive Left"
"The left"
"The right"
"Muslims"

etc etc etc, as if they're all some kind of Borg with no diverse individuals in them.

I busted you on that in post 103 as well.

But go ahead --- since the OP ran away, bravely ran away, why don't you show us any inkling of any shred of any shadow of any evidence that the OP's Twits were consciously "avoiding" the word "Christians". As opposed to a buttcrack idea he just pulled out of his butt as bait.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact.

I provided my opinion. I provided the opinion of Maajid Nawaz, a man with whom I agree.

My opinion has clearly upset and animated you, and that's not my problem.

If you want to conflate opinion and dishonesty, and then claim victory, please be my guest.

Fine with me. I know what I'm dealing with here.

A declarative statement is not an "opinion". It's an alleged "fact". Actual facts however have to be proven or they're not facts.

"Obama and Hillary won't say 'Christians'" is a declarative statement. One which serves as the entire basis of this thread. It's the title. And it serves as the launchpad for, among others, your mass blanket statements about motivations of mass Borgs for which you have no evidence.

Prove it to be a fact. Clearly the OP cannot. Yet here's you and your fellow travellers running around as if it's a "fact".

IT ISN'T.

Great, whatever you'd like.
.

 

[PK1]

Typical answer for those who are unable to rationally support their convictions.
Good luck to you; i mean it.

No, you don't mean it. This is just a typical response, a need to impose your beliefs on me.
It's why I don't feel a need to impose my beliefs on you. Wouldn't do any good.
You don't know me, whatsoever. Yet, you attack what I know....why? Because I'm not willing to share
so you can go on the attack just like you did with Death Angel. Sad
Have a good evening PK1.

You are inferring without real evidence.
I really do mean it; good luck to you because I wish EVERYONE well regardless if they’re rational or not.

I am NOT saying that YOU are irrational, because you are unwilling to share your evidence, so i do NOT know (i’m an ignostic scientist).
I am willing and interested in debating anyone on an intellectual level, but I noted that religious believers are not interested in debating realistic issues ... because they hide behind “it’s personal”.
Objective reality is not personal, but one’s subjective beliefs are, and i’m OK with that ... as long as others are not harmed, intellectually or otherwise.

Whatever floats your boat, dude.
Yes. "debating anyone on an intellectual level" involves,
"Sounds like a nice fantasy.
Have you taken LSD or another hallucinogen?
Or, unable to differentiate between dreams and reality?"
Yes...you are so intellectual....and sincere.
I'm not hiding behind anything....if I was, I would have never mentioned it
on this board.
Even though I don't know you, I do know you're very transparent with
your motives.

What are my motives ... other than challenging & debating people who claim they know something “supernatural”?

Intellectual discourse is healthy, don’t you think?

Apparently, you wouldn't know intellectual discourse if it slapped
you in the face, dude. You showed what YOU thought was "intellectual discourse".
sad

No substance to your claim? No specifics?
Is that the best you can do?

Deflection is a common response by folks who don’t have good explanations & look for the “easy button” excuse.
Good luck with that approach in any future intellectual debate.

 

[Hale]

Technique #1 - Cowardice
What part of the post is inaccurate?
And why did you delete the post it was amplifying? Can't handle it? Po' snowflakes...
Never come in here unarmed, son.

All of your posts are inaccurate, so you'll need to be more specific.

The most rudimentary check of your posting history shows your habit of editing quotes, is this the reason for your accusation? It also shows your intense fear of Christianity, so you might want to cover this in your next therapy session. Meanwhile, consider a better technique than your traditional post-bombing and attempted dilution, all you've done here is reinforce the OPs point and make yourself look like a clown. To recap, here's the points you need to work on:

Accuracy
Avoiding projection
Staying on-topic
Not looking like a fool

Glad I could help!

 

[Meister]

Arrogance cuts both ways, esp yours.
You PRETEND to know, but you know NOTHING about creation of life on Earth.

I am a realist, an agnostic.
Only real experience & common sense drive my beliefs, not sucking up to cultural icons & primitive dogma.

The problem is, you CAN know. You don't want to because knowing requires obedience. So you call yourself an "agnostic."

“You CAN know”?
Do you know what “know” means?
It involves some sort of realistic evidence.
Obedience is STUPID.
Blind sheep following blind “authoritarian” leaders ...

I've experienced, "realistic evidence."
I won't try and change what you believe, and you can't change what I experienced.

When I was a teenager, I dabbled in the occult. I SAW THINGS that left NO DOUBT there was a spirit world. When I realized Christ was calling me, I rejected those things, and those negative experiences left me. Like you, I've experienced things that could only come from God.

Anybody has that opportunity, but it requires an open mind, and a willing heart.

God is EXACTLY as close to each of us as we allow Him to be.

Open mind to “God”? Willing heart?
Sounds like a nice fantasy.
Have you taken LSD or another hallucinogen?
Or, unable to differentiate between dreams and reality?
Objective reality is shared by multiple people.

Yes, this is your intellectual debate P-1

 

[Pogo]

Technique #1 - Cowardice
What part of the post is inaccurate?
And why did you delete the post it was amplifying? Can't handle it? Po' snowflakes...
Never come in here unarmed, son.

All of your posts are inaccurate, so you'll need to be more specific.

The most rudimentary check of your posting history shows your habit of editing quotes, is this the reason for your accusation? It also shows your intense fear of Christianity, so you might want to cover this in your next therapy session. Meanwhile, consider a better technique than your traditional post-bombing and attempted dilution, all you've done here is reinforce the OPs point and make yourself look like a clown. To recap, here's the points you need to work on:

Accuracy
Avoiding projection
Staying on-topic
Not looking like a fool

Glad I could help!

So nothing is inaccurate. Just a case of Butthurt-R-Us.

I already knew that but I wanted to get you to admit to it.

And check the above ---- I edited NOTHING. ***YOU*** did that.

Here's what you're running away from. You'll note that not only is it accurate, it's not even posted to you in the first place. But you had to wet your pants because some point was made that's inconvenient and we can't have that. Yet --- there it is, innit.

You new to Engrish?

Obviously "Easter" here is a time reference. If it had been May Day they would have been "May Day worshipers". Wouldn't even involve a Maypole.

'Christians' worship/celebrate Jesus' resurrection on Easter. There is no such thing as 'Easter Worshipers.'

Sure there is, depending on how the adjective is used.

Just as there's such a thing as "Fourth of July picnickers". That tells you WHEN they were picnicking.
Just as "Tax Day mailers" tells us WHEN they were mailing.
Just as "Easter Island" tells us when it was 'discovered'.

As mentioned it is kind of clumsy in that --- if taken alone out of its context --- it seems to imply people worshiping Easter itself. But it did have context to focus it. And again, Easter Island isn't decorated with eggs and bunnies soooooooo......there ya go. Context is crucial.

As you correctly note, Easter is a specifically Catholic/Christian observance. Therefore those worshiping because the day is Easter, are obviously Christians. Who else could they be? Shintoists?

Poor Pogo, as I have shown "Easter" is a noun.

What does the word EASTER mean? ›› When is Easter? ›› Easter related words - MyEnglishTeacher.eu Blog

Easter is usually used as a noun to describe the holiday, but can also be used as an adjective. The adjective form of the word is the same (Easter)

Have you never been to an Easter buffet?

Or an Easter Sunrise Service?

Zackly. "Easter egg" and "Easter bunny" for two obvious examples. They have nothing to do historically or religiously with Easter, but due to the association with Eostre they appear AT Easter.

As does the Easter Parade.

And the Irish know the Easter Rising, a/k/a Easter Rebellion.

You'll also note that that post you desperately tried to swat away isn't even about Christianism or religion at all. It's about language. Specifically how an adjective works.

Must suck to be this butthurt.

 

[daveman]

To all these people who are claiming this is a self-explanatory term, you might note that it's never been used before this incident. Search the date range on Google.

Easter Rebellion (a/k/a Easter Rising) - uprising against colonial rule by Britain in Ireland named for the week it took place --- Easter Week in 1916. Easy time reference.

Easter Island - in the south Pacific (Spanish: Isla de Pascuca, which means the same thing), politically part of Chile, ethnically Polynesian, home of the Moai (see below), named by a Dutch navigator who discovered it on Easter Sunday in 1722. Again, easy time reference.

The Moai:

So yeah, it's been used as an adjective for centuries. And there's also a Christmas Island, named the same way.

Didn't need Da Googles for this. They're fairly well known.

Nice attempt, but no go. The term "Easter worshipper" is unprecedented, and doesn't appear in either of your references.

Or are you claiming the issue is the use of "Easter" as an adjective? If that's your "bail-out", then duh - "Easter Sunday", and no need for your inane deflection. Keep trying, it is funny!

I noted the grammatical function when the question was first asked. The above was a reprise.

Your premise was that that usage had not been done before. It has. Three hundred years ago.

Again, ever heard of for example Christmas cactus? Named for the season when it blossoms, and named the same way in French, German and Spanish for the same reason (and sometimes in the US called "Thanksgiving cactus" when horticulturalists vend it early), while in the southern hemisphere in Brazil it's called the "May flower". Plus it sounds nicer than ""Schlumbergera" to the non-Teutonic ear.

Again, a time marker. Adjective qualifying "when". Christmas cactus don't climb down no chimneys and Christmas Island is not where Santa goes for vacation.

Same with "Easter Sunday" for that matter. Which Sunday? Easter Sunday. Specific. You can denote anything to be scheduled to happen on "Easter Sunday" without it being worship.

At the same time "Easter worshiper" is a bit clumsy as its first implication is that somebody is worshiping Easter.

Easter Parade...
Fourth of July picnic....
Halowe'en candy....

One other aspect that hasn't been mentioned -- the images in the OP are of Twits, which limit their space to (I think) 140 characters. That means things have to be abbreviated. "Easter worshiper" denotes both the time and what the people were doing. It's more specific than "churchgoers" and shorter than "people who went to church for Easter". It sets both the time and the action, ergo developing sympathy. That such worshipers would be "Christian" is already a given; the phrase identifies what they were specifically doing -- meaning a high level of vulnerability.

"Easter worshiper" -- 16 characters.

"Christians" -- 10 characters.

You fail.

Once again for the illiterati:
The term "Christians" refers to well over two billion-with-a-B people. You put two billion people on the island of Sri Lanka, it sinks.

Specificity. 11 characters.

Any luck finding the first usage of the term "Easter worshippers"? I already gave you a hint.

 

[daveman]

Why should they say 'Christians'?

Christians - like all major, God Clud followers - are either weak and/or ignorant and/or desperate.

I mean...you have to be pretty, fucking stupid to base your life on some old book that espouses slavery, murder, rape, mass pedophelia and a whole bunch of other shit.

God is a piece of shit. I am not mad at him...I just think he is a piece of excrement. And if I am wrong...I dare the fucker to strike me dead in the next 10 seconds.

...

Nope...still here.

What a loser this fraud is.

Maybe because that's what they WERE, and refusing to say it just reveals a similar level of nasty bigoted hatred to what your post just did.

You have my pity. It must suck to be such a bitter, negative, miserable human being, and yet to be plagued with an outsized and utterly undeserved ego.

While you're suffering a shoulder separation from patting yourself on the back for self-infatuated unequalled snark-brilliance where as usual you get to put others down nine ways from Easter Sunday, consider this all-too-simple fact, maybe so simple lt flew over your hookah:

Everybody who is a Christian is a Christian. That's a given. ONLY those who were in Sri Lanka in houses of worship on Easter Sunday however qualify as "that's what they were", and of them, only those present where bombs went off. Hence the term is what we call "specific". Which means 99.99repeating% of the set called "Christians" cannot be applied here. In smaller words, they were not the body of "Christians" --- they were a very specific set of that body.

That'll be $758.55. Make the check out to "Captain Obvious". And get that shoulder looked at.

Maybe you can use that money to find the first use of the phrase "Easter worshippers".

Hint: It's been less than a week.

Maybe I could use it to get you reading lessons. Then you could actually read the post you quoted, which would have also answered the last one.

Tell me again why you're out here wasting my time with shit I've already covered.

No, it didn't answer my question -- unless my question was, "How is Pogo going to slavishly defend Obama and Hillary's refusal to say the word 'Christian' while pretending he's smarter than everyone else?"

You say a lot of shit. You seem to believe that since you say it, it's true. I have terrible news for you.

 

[daveman]

What a crazy thread. Obama and Hillary are real practicing Christians. Trump is the first atheist president in a long. long time.

I can't imagine what makes you think either Obama or Hillary are "real practicing Christians", other than blind, slavish devotion. Can't say what either of them thinks or believes in their own minds and hearts; I'm not God. But certainly nothing about their actions ever indicates such a thing. Perhaps you're one of those drones who thinks any word out of the mouths of your idols must automatically be true. If so, I pity you.

And there DEFINITELY is no reason to believe Trump is an atheist, other than similarly blind, mindless hatred. You might want to look into cult deprogramming, so that you can finally think for yourself like real people do.

So on one hand you admit you can't say what's in people's minds and hearts, and before you even take a breath you're declaring what's in people's minds and hearts.

This is why you have me on ignore. You know I'll bust your ass. Wid a quickness. And you can't handle it.

Good Gaea, you're so full of yourself, you pompous moron. LOL!

I busted her, White Knight. Be quicker on the trigger and you could have done it too.

It was a hanger. You hang 'em, I bang 'em. Tissue?

Will you ever understand that you're not entitled to people kissing your ass?

 

[daveman]

Ēostre - Wikipedia Another pagan holiday stolen by christians.

I've never understood this "argument".

So there was a pagan holiday in the what... 2nd century that was possibly the precursor to what we now have as Easter.

So what? Who cares? What is your point? And why should any Christian on the Earth today, give a crap about your point?

*sigh*.....

Well if that makes you feel better because you could win some money on Jeopardy with your tidbit of irrelevant history... knock yourself out.

Do you see any Christians caring about this? No.

Never ceases to amaze me at what lengths a hate filled Pagan will go to, to ignore Christians being murdered.

And don't tell me that isn't the purpose of your post, because the topic of the thread is Christians being murdered, and how pagans respond to it, and this was your post. So spare me your excuses that this wasn't your point.

So, that's where the name comes from. As well as all the fertility symbols. Rabbits, eggs and such. Nothing to do with Christianism and nothing to do with murders or "hate". Much like Christmas trees, lights, evergreens etc coming from ancient observations of the sun's seasonal movements.

It's not an "argument', it's simple history.

And no, the topic isn't about "how pagans responded to" anything. The OP quotes Hillary Clinton, Barack O'bama and Harry Khachatrian. Admittedly I don't know who the last one is.

Easter is a pagan, idolatrous celebration. Resurrection Day is associated with the resurrection of Jesus. Would you call a chocolate sundae a shit sandwich? Words matter stupid.

Would like to develop this a bit, since it's mostly been left out in the cold with the hidden "Easter eggs"....

>> Most major holidays have some connection to the changing of seasons. This is especially obvious in the case of Christmas. The New Testament gives no information about what time of year Jesus was born. Many scholars believe, however, that the main reason Jesus’ birth came to be celebrated on December 25 is because that was the date of the winter solstice according to the Roman calendar.

Since the days following the winter solstice gradually become longer and less dark, it was ideal symbolism for the birth of “the light of the world”as stated in the New Testament’s Gospel of John.

Similar was the case with Easter, which falls in close proximity to another key point in the solar year: the vernal equinox (around March 20), when there are equal periods of light and darkness. For those in northern latitudes, the coming of spring is often met with excitement, as it means an end to the cold days of winter.

Spring also means the coming back to life of plants and trees that have been dormant for winter, as well as the birth of new life in the animal world. Given the symbolism of new life and rebirth, it was only natural to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus at this time of the year.

The naming of the celebration as “Easter” seems to go back to the name of a pre-Christian goddess in England, Eostre, who was celebrated at beginning of spring. The only reference to this goddess comes from the writings of the Venerable Bede, a British monk who lived in the late seventh and early eighth century. As religious studies scholar Bruce Forbes summarizes:

“Bede wrote that the month in which English Christians were celebrating the resurrection of Jesus had been called Eosturmonath ("Eostre month") in Old English, referring to a goddess named Eostre. And even though Christians had begun affirming the Christian meaning of the celebration, they continued to use the name of the goddess to designate the season.”
​

Bede was so influential for later Christians that the name stuck, and hence Easter remains the name by which the English, Germans and Americans refer to the festival of Jesus’ resurrection. <<​

(but not the Romance languages or the other Germanic ones; see post 190)

Connection with Passover

>> In the Hebrew Bible, Passover is a festival that commemorates the liberation of the Jewish people from slavery in Egypt, as narrated in the Book of Exodus. It was and continues to be the most important Jewish seasonal festival, celebrated on the first full moon after the vernal equinox.

At the time of Jesus, Passover had special significance, as the Jewish people were again under the dominance of foreign powers (namely, the Romans). Jewish pilgrims streamed into Jerusalem every year in the hope that God’s chosen people (as they believed themselves to be) would soon be liberated once more.

On one Passover, Jesus traveled to Jerusalem with his disciples to celebrate the festival. He entered Jerusalem in a triumphal procession and created a disturbance in the Jerusalem Temple. It seems that both of these actions attracted the attention of the Romans, and that as a result Jesus was executed around the year A.D. 30.

Some of Jesus’ followers, however, believed that they saw him alive after his death, experiences that gave birth to the Christian religion. As Jesus died during the Passover festival and his followers believed he was resurrected from the dead three days later, it was logical to commemorate these events in close proximity.

.... By choosing this date, they put the focus on when Jesus died and also emphasized continuity with the Judaism out of which Christianity emerged. Some others instead preferred to hold the festival on a Sunday, since that was when Jesus’ tomb was believed to have been found.

In A.D. 325, the Emperor Constantine, who favored Christianity, convened a meeting of Christian leaders to resolve important disputes at the Council of Nicaea. The most fateful of its decisions was about the status of Christ, whom the council recognized as “fully human and fully divine.” This council also resolved that Easter should be fixed on a Sunday, not on day 14 of Nisan. As a result, Easter is now celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon of the vernal equinox.
​

(Poster NB: this Council actually voted Jesus into divinity, and not unanimously, to settle regional differences on whether or not Jesus was the Son-o-God, whereupon all known previous bibles were destroyed)

... In early America, the Easter festival was far more popular among Catholics than Protestants. For instance, the New England Puritans regarded both Easter and Christmas as too tainted by non-Christian influences to be appropriate to celebrate. Such festivals also tended to be opportunities for heavy drinking and merrymaking.<<​

(Indeed celebrating Christmas was actually illegal in early Massachusetts)

>> From the 17th century onward, there was an increasing recognition of childhood as as time of life that should be joyous, not simply as preparatory for adulthood. This “discovery of childhood” and the doting upon children had profound effects on how Easter was celebrated.

It is at this point in the holiday’s development that Easter eggs and the Easter bunny become especially important. Decorated eggs had been part of the Easter festival at least since medieval times, given the obvious symbolism of new life. A vast amount of folklore surrounds Easter eggs,and in a number of Eastern European countries, the process of decorating them is extremely elaborate. Several Eastern European legends describe eggs turning red (a favorite color for Easter eggs) in connection with the events surrounding Jesus’ death and resurrection.

... Yet it was only in the 17th century that a German tradition of an “Easter hare” bringing eggs to good children came to be known. Hares and rabbits had a long association with spring seasonal rituals because of their amazing powers of fertility.

When German immigrants settled in Pennsylvania in the 18th and 19th centuries, they brought this tradition with them. << --- source link here​

So there it is, a celebration of Nature's fecundity.

Or as some wags would have it, "EEEEBIL!"

Aside from elaborately decorated eggs mentioned above here's another interesting custom:

>> The Czech Republic has a rather unusual tradition on Easter Monday. Boys get willow branches, braid them together into whips and decorate them with ribbons to whip girls with for luck and fertility. The word for this whip in Czech is pomlázka, which has also become the name of the tradition itself. To learn more about pomlázka I interviewed three Czechs. The first is a 17 year-old-girl with several brothers, the second is an active feminist and the third is an expert on Czech folklore. << ---- audio feature at the link

​

Odd. The phrase "Easter worshippers" is not in there anywhere.

That's because it's not a post about worship.

Duh?

And yet you're pathetically trying to use it to defend the weasel words "Easter worshipers". Odd indeed.

 

[daveman]

So the right here get all worked up about using a factually correct word...

But the President clearly doesn’t know the Bible and lies about it... sure that’s a pass...

This thread shows GOP is gone tribal... it is not about being right or wrong, loyalty to the tribe what matters

Nope, when Trump screws up religion, it gets mentioned. YOU may not notice or remember, but that's remarkably meaningless.

The right is worked up because they didn't just not mention it; they both deliberately used the same weird, awkward phrasing to try to mention it without actually mentioning it. Had they simply generically said "these attacks", as so many other people did, it wouldn't have been noticeable.

Once AGAIN ---- using the term "worshipers" denotes vulnerability. Which makes the crime more heinous.

So the non-Christians who were killed are less tragic?

Dood. You've dug yourself in a deep enough hole. You should probably stop now.

You could infer that from the Twits, yep.

The left does indeed hate Christians. I'll bet you didn't realize you acknowledged that fact.

 

[daveman]

Okay, look, dimwit. Let me see if I can put this in words you can understand.

Oklahoma became a state on November 16, 1907. I was born on the same day, decades later. Does that mean that every birthday celebration I have is ACTUALLY a celebration of Oklahoma becoming a state? No. A day of celebration is in celebration of whatever the fuck the people celebrating it are celebrating it for. It does not matter what OTHER occasions OTHER people are celebrating, and it sure as shit doesn't matter what other occasions other people USED to celebrate that day so many fucking centuries ago that your stupid ass had to look it up on the Internet in order to piss and moan and attack people over.

And if I like bunny rabbits and eggs filled with candy, then I will frigging HAVE bunny rabbits and candy-filled eggs, and unless you're my pastor or God, I don't answer to you about how I practice my religion.

Hope we've cleared that up.

You are confused. Please seek help.

I just heard, "I can't refute you, but I'm too big an asshole to admit you're right." Was that what you intended to say, or did it just come out accidentally?

Which sounds amazingly similar to "I see how you just smashed my argument into little pieces but I'm gonna put you on Ignore and go so that I don't see it".

You really suck at this.

NOTHER tissue? We only have so many trees yanno.

I'm not crying. That would be the guy who's been put into the impossible position of defending his leftist masters with absolutely nothing.