The US is not an exclusively English speaking country.
I did not state such. However, it is not incorrect to state that the U.S. is an English speaking country. English is the de facto national language and is spoken by the vast majority of people here. The majority even claim it as the mother tongue. So yes, the U.S. is an English speaking country (there are very few, if any countries that only one language is used exclusively, so I don't see why you are making such a point).
Secondly, England is not a country. The United Kingdom is a country, and it includes Scotland, Wales, and Norther Irland/Ulters (depending on your brand of Christianity there).
England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is a country by it's own right; however, is composed of four other countries. For ease:
England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you mean that Spanish speaking people and Portuguese speaking people that name their children Jesus do not respect Jesus?
You need to take what I said in context, because I do mention this. No, I don't think Spanish or Portuguese speaking people do not respect Jesus because they name their kids such. A lot of that has to do with their culture. And I wasn't speaking about them. I was speaking about English speaking countries (the United States, and England), and their particular culture which influences why they don't name their kids Jesus. As it is out of respect (again, for this specific group of people).
You appear to have no difficulty make assertions that fit your argument, no matter how baseless.
What do you mean there is only one Jesus? There are millions all over the Americas, Spain, the Phillipines, and Africa.
You seem to be unable to read what I say in context. If you read what I was saying in context, you would see that the sentence you quoted was part of a larger statement. This statement being about English speaking countries, specifically the United States and England. For these people there is only one Jesus. That is Jesus Christ. And this has to do with what their culture defines as respectful.
I shouldn't have to break it down so much.
No, you have mentioned the US, and it has many people with the name Jesus, and you have mentioned England which is not a country, but part of the United Kingdom.
England is a country. I linked to a wiki article above that shows that it is a country. The United Kingdom is a country compromised of four other countries. So yes, it is a country.
As for the U.S., those people who are named Jesus here are not from English speaking countries. They are immigrants, who come from other non-English speaking countries (that is not to say that people in those countries do not speak English; however, that those people come from countries where the primary language is something besides English).
Thus, your point is moot.
kids are the offsprings of goats. Do you mean children?
Seriously? Kids:
informal a child or young person. Kids was used properly. It can refer to children, and I used it to mean exactly what I wanted. There is no reason for you to assume that it has anything to do with goats.
You asserted, and you are probably correct that Jesus real name was Yeshua, which in English is Joshua. Do you mean that English speaking people that name their children Joshua do not respect their Lord?
This is simply a ridiculous statement. Jesus is the English, accepted term, for Yeshua. Joshua is not. Thus, your statement has no real meaning.
Nope, I mean kids. Kids is the correct term I was looking for. Context should have clearly shown that I was talking about humans, the offspring of parents.
Another subjective statement. Do you mean it means nothing to you because it contradicts your beliefs, or do you mean that no one is allowed to give it any meaning?
Again, context is key. And in this case, you didn't even take the whole sentence. You cut the sentence apart to make it say something that it did not. That simply is a ridiculous tactic on your part, and really isn't ethical.
This is what I said:
Also, whether or not English speaking people name their kids Jesus really means nothing. I did not say what you are implying what I said. By taking me out of context, you were being dishonest. And I still stand by what I say.
Actually, you have proved my point.
What point? That you don't have a leg to stand on? The term Jesus did not come from the Hebrew. Yes, Yeshua was Hebrew (or Aramaic), and was translated into the Greek, where Jesus fits just fine, as A_E has explained to you.
All you've proven is that you can take a statement out of context, as well as make a big issue over nothing.