Dear Christians

[Guest Ed in Midwest]

Dear Christains,

I read alot of the posts on this site by folks claiming to be Christians and it is frightening to say the least. I'm not talking about an individuals view of a certain topic but rather how they interact with others. I would almost bet that a few here, not all, would advocate using violence to further thier religious views. Maybe not today ot tommorrow but who knows where we'll be in 10 or 20 yrs.

[Guest Guest]

Dear Christains,

    I read alot of the posts on this site by folks claiming to be Christians and it is frightening to say the least. I'm not talking about an individuals view of a certain topic but rather how they interact with others. I would almost bet that a few here, not all, would advocate using violence to further thier religious views. Maybe not today ot tommorrow but who knows where we'll be in 10 or 20 yrs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't doubt there's more than a few zealots who would advocate another Crusade.

It may be 2007 but in some areas mankind hasn't progressed too much

[God Save Us From Christians]

Dear Christains,

    I read alot of the posts on this site by folks claiming to be Christians and it is frightening to say the least. I'm not talking about an individuals view of a certain topic but rather how they interact with others. I would almost bet that a few here, not all, would advocate using violence to further thier religious views. Maybe not today ot tommorrow but who knows where we'll be in 10 or 20 yrs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Ed, you don't have to wait 10 or 20 years. It's happening today all over the country, with Christians bombing abortion clinics and resorting to violent acts whenever it suits them.

Not to paint all Christians with the same brush, Leigh from Austin is definitely one of the more tolerant Christians I've seen.

But people that claim to be Christian certainly have a political agenda, and that agenda has no room for anyone who doesn't believe what they believe.

It's a scary scenario for sure.

[Guest A Christian]

Dear Christains,

    I read alot of the posts on this site by folks claiming to be Christians and it is frightening to say the least. I'm not talking about an individuals view of a certain topic but rather how they interact with others. I would almost bet that a few here, not all, would advocate using violence to further thier religious views. Maybe not today ot tommorrow but who knows where we'll be in 10 or 20 yrs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not a violent person, but for strife I could make an exception.

[Guest DingoDave]

Christianity was originally established by violence and compulsion, and maintained by violence and compulsion throughout most of it's history.

Modern Christians like to boast that Christianity is such a 'tolerant' religion compared to others such as Islam. But in doing so they simply choose to ignore most of their own religious history. For most of it's existance, Christianity has been equally, if not more persecuting than modern Islam.

As soon as Christianity was made the state religion of the Roman empire, the Christians proceeded to destroy the Pagan temples and to persecute anyone who didn't profess themselves to be Christian.

This included confiscating the estates of non-Christians at the time of their deaths so that they could not will their property to their Pagan children.

It is still a criminal offence to speak out against Christianity in some countries.

In fact there are blasphemy laws still on the books in the UK, Australia, and some states of America.

These blasphemy laws carry hefty fine or a jail sentence for anyone convicted, and it has been as recently as only a hundred years or so since the last person was jailed for blasphemy.

The last person charged and convicted of blasphemy in England was as recent as the 1970's.

The idea of Christianity being a peaceful and tolerant religion is a myth (read lie) that the clergy and modern enthusiasts wish to perpetuate for promotional reasons.

Give Christians political power again, and you won't have to wait long before we see a modern form of the inquisition.

E. O. Wilson once said, "Every major religion today is a winner in the Darwinian struggle waged among cultures, and none ever flourished by tolerating its rivals."

Christianity throughout it's entire history has provided ample evidence that this is indeed the case.

[Guest Guest]

Dear Christains,

    I read alot of the posts on this site by folks claiming to be Christians and it is frightening to say the least. I'm not talking about an individuals view of a certain topic but rather how they interact with others. I would almost bet that a few here, not all, would advocate using violence to further thier religious views. Maybe not today ot tommorrow but who knows where we'll be in 10 or 20 yrs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, some of these threads have revealed the epitome of Christian hypocrisy.

[Strife767]

I'm not a violent person, but for strife I could make an exception.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then you're a violent person. Just another thing to add to the laundry list of reasons you should be seeking psychological counseling.

Either that, of you're actually a sniveling coward who would never get away with saying something like that except on the Internet, hiding behind his anonymity.

Both possibilities are equally pathetic. *shrugs*

[Guest Guest]

Christianity was originally established by violence and compulsion, and maintained by violence and compulsion throughout most of it's history.

Modern Christians like to boast that Christianity is such a 'tolerant' religion compared to others such as Islam. But in doing so they simply choose to ignore most of their own religious history. For most of it's existance, Christianity has been equally, if not more persecuting than modern Islam.

As soon as Christianity was made the state religion of the Roman empire, the Christians proceeded to destroy the Pagan temples and to persecute anyone who didn't profess themselves to be Christian.

This included confiscating the estates of non-Christians at the time of their deaths so that they could not will their property to their Pagan children.

It is still a criminal offence to speak out against Christianity in some countries.

In fact there are blasphemy laws still on the books in the UK, Australia, and some states of America.

These blasphemy laws carry hefty fine or a jail sentence for anyone convicted, and it has been as recently as only a hundred years or so since the last person was jailed for blasphemy.

The last person charged and convicted of blasphemy in England was as recent as the 1970's.

The idea of Christianity being a peaceful and tolerant religion is a myth (read lie) that the clergy and modern enthusiasts wish to perpetuate for promotional reasons.

Give Christians political power again, and you won't have to wait long before we see a modern form of the inquisition.

E. O. Wilson once said, "Every major religion today is a winner in the Darwinian struggle waged among cultures, and none ever flourished by tolerating its rivals."

Christianity throughout it's entire history has provided ample evidence that this is indeed the case.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DingoDave ?? That's a dumb name.

[Strife767]

DingoDave ??  That's a dumb name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol, what is that, like three people who have totally ignored the post just to take a stupid little stab at DingoDave's username?

How pathetic--and very ironic considering you don't even have the guts to give yourself any identity on this forum, "Guest."

[Guest DingoDave]

Guest wrote: "DingoDave ?? That's a dumb name."

Is that all you've got to say for yourself?

What do you know about dingos anyway?

Have you ever travelled further than the city limits of your home town?

What do you know about the history of the Christian church?

Have you ever read a history book since you left high school?

How about responding to some of the issues I wrote about oh anonymous one?

And how about doing the rest of us the courtesy of using a screen name like most polite people do? Or are you going to claim that your real name is 'Guest' like someone else who had nothing better to contribute than taking anonymous pot shots at my screen name?

[God Save Us From Christians]

DingoDave ??  That's a dumb name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so is Jesus

[Guest DingoDave]

Guest wrote: "DingoDave ?? That's a dumb name."

GSUFC wrote: "so is Jesus"

I wonder how many of the Christians who have been posting on these boards are aware that if Jesus ever existed at all, his name would not have been 'Jesus', but 'Yehoshua', or 'Yeshua' or 'Yeshu'. The name Jesus is the German translation of these Hebrew names.

If it were possible for a modern Christian to go back to 1st century Palestine and they asked to speak to someone named Jesus, nobody would have known who they were talking about.

"As a newborn, Jesus was probably given the Hebrew name Yehoshua, which means "God Salvation," or "Yahweh delivers." Yehoshua is normally translated Joshua in English. "...in post-exilic times of the Biblical era, the names Yeshua and Yehoshua were regarded as equivalent." 1 Theologians generally believe that Jesus would have been referred to by the shorter name Yeshua ("Salvation"), at least in Jerusalem and the rest of Judea. In the "rough regional dialect of Galilee." his friends, family and disciples would have probably called him Yeshu. 2 "Yeshua" was translated by the early Pauline Christians as Iesous in Greek, probably in order to make his name more acceptable to Greek Pagans of the time. This became Iesus in Latin, and Jesus in German. The English name Jesus came from the German spelling and pronunciation....It is worth remembering that his family, friends, disciples and followers never called him Jesus." http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_je.htm

This means that when Chritians pray to 'Jesus of Nazareth', they should actually be praying to 'Yeshua the Nazarene'. I wonder how comfortable they would feel doing this?

[Guest Guest]

so is Jesus

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have a couple of friends in Jersey City named Jesus who would disagree with you.

[God Save Us From Christians]

This means that when Christians pray to 'Jesus of Nazareth', they should actually be praying to 'Yeshua the Nazarene'. I wonder how comfortable they would feel doing this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't concern them. Their religion is fraudulent anyway, so anything we show them they just ignore. It's how Christianity has survived through the ages - faith not reason, faith not questions, faith not knowledge.

[Bryan]

I wonder how many of the Christians who have been posting on these boards are aware that if Jesus ever existed at all, his name would not have been 'Jesus', but 'Yehoshua', or 'Yeshua' or 'Yeshu'. The name Jesus is the German translation of these Hebrew names.

Heh.

What's the point of wondering about it? Is it an important issue?

If it were possible for a modern Christian to go back to 1st century Palestine and they asked to speak to someone named Jesus, nobody would have known who they were talking about.

Apart from the fact that most modern languages were not spoken in 1st century Palestine? Heh.

They'd probably have an easier time with "Jesus" than any of the other words.

"As a newborn, Jesus was probably given the Hebrew name Yehoshua, which means "God Salvation," or "Yahweh delivers." Yehoshua is normally translated Joshua in English. "...in post-exilic times of the Biblical era, the names Yeshua and Yehoshua were regarded as equivalent."

It is not rare for a church congregation to study Bible languages and possess an awareness of such things, fwiw.

But for some reason you wonder how many. I wonder why you wonder.

1 Theologians generally believe that Jesus would have been referred to by the shorter name Yeshua ("Salvation"), at least in Jerusalem and the rest of Judea. In the "rough regional dialect of Galilee." his friends, family and disciples would have probably called him Yeshu. 2 "Yeshua" was translated by the early Pauline Christians as Iesous in Greek, probably in order to make his name more acceptable to Greek Pagans of the time. This became Iesus in Latin, and Jesus in German. The English name Jesus came from the German spelling and pronunciation....It is worth remembering that his family, friends, disciples and followers never called him Jesus." http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_je.htm

Uh, yeah, 'cause that will save us plenty of embarrassment if we find ourselves in 1st century Palestine and start asking about "Jesus."

This means that when Chritians pray to 'Jesus of Nazareth', they should actually be praying to 'Yeshua the Nazarene'. I wonder how comfortable they would feel doing this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if they're comfortable with the idea of Jesus hearing their prayers, then there's at least a plausible chance that they're expecting Jesus to be all-knowing, in which case Jesus would have little difficulty in figuring out who they mean by "Jesus."

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Heh.

What's the point of wondering about it?  Is it an important issue?

Apart from the fact that most modern languages were not spoken in 1st century Palestine?  Heh.

They'd probably have an easier time with "Jesus" than any of the other words. 

It is not rare for a church congregation to study Bible languages and possess an awareness of such things, fwiw.

But for some reason you wonder how many.  I wonder why you wonder.

Uh, yeah, 'cause that will save us plenty of embarrassment if we find ourselves in 1st century Palestine and start asking about "Jesus."

Well, if they're comfortable with the idea of Jesus hearing their prayers, then there's at least a plausible chance that they're expecting Jesus to be all-knowing, in which case Jesus would have little difficulty in figuring out who they mean by "Jesus."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wondered how many Christians would be comfortable praying to 'sweet baby Jehoshua', rather than 'sweet baby Jesus', because I got to thinking about the names of various dieties. It has been my experience that most of the Christians I have ever met, have been completely unaware that the god they worship has a proper name. 'Yahweh'.

It has also been my experience that most Christians get very uncomfortable when they hear their god being referred to by his proper name, rather than by one of his more popular aliases.

Hearing their gods being referred to by unfamiliar names can sometimes make people sit up and start to question some of their long held and deep seated assumptions.

That's all. It's no big deal Bryan. But thanks for your interest.

[Guest river]

Dear Christains,

    I read alot of the posts on this site by folks claiming to be Christians and it is frightening to say the least. I'm not talking about an individuals view of a certain topic but rather how they interact with others. I would almost bet that a few here, not all, would advocate using violence to further thier religious views. Maybe not today ot tommorrow but who knows where we'll be in 10 or 20 yrs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Worry about the Midwest !!!

just because you call you father Uncledaddy!!!!

Its a different world here

[Guest river]

Then you're a violent person. Just another thing to add to the laundry list of reasons you should be seeking psychological counseling.

Either that, of you're actually a sniveling coward who would never get away with saying something like that except on the Internet, hiding behind his anonymity.

Both possibilities are equally pathetic. *shrugs*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are a nipplehead cant you see Sarcasm!!! When its slapping you in the face!!

[Guest Ed-Midwest]

Worry about the Midwest !!!

just because you call you father Uncledaddy!!!!

Its a different world here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will not argue with a fool beacuse you will drag me down to your level then beat me with experience.

[Guest Onward]

Worry about the Midwest !!!

just because you call you father Uncledaddy!!!!

Its a different world here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously not a better world. Please don't post anymore you're really embarrassing.

[Guest river]

I will not argue with a fool beacuse you will drag me down to your level then beat me with experience.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It got your attention though!!!

You look like the fool posting on a here when you're not even from here posting

your liberal views.who cares what people from the midwest think.

Im not here to argue with you. Thank You...

[pbrown64]

=Dingo Dave,Feb 13 2007, 10:13 PM]

I wondered how many Christians would be comfortable praying to 'sweet baby Jehoshua', rather than 'sweet baby Jesus', because I got to thinking about the names of various dieties. It has been my experience that most of the Christians I have ever met, have been completely unaware that the god they worship has a proper name. 'Yahweh'.

My parents named me Patricia, yet everyone calls me Patty. Many of my great-aunts have addressed me using other variations of my name such as Tricia, and Patty Ann, yet I always knew they were talking to me, and I took no offense that my proper name wasn't being used.

It has made no difference nor did it cause me to suffer any confusion that I have been called by names meaning, gracious, lovable or amiable instead of by the my given name, meaning of noble decent.

As with most English speaking Christians, while in conversation with others I have referred to my Lord and Savior as Jesus. I am well aware that the name Jesus is an anglicized variation of Yahweh, that Yahweh is the English translation of the Tetragrammaton (the Hebrew letters יהוה) , which is the translation of yet another variation.

It matters not so much (at least to me) what name is used to call on the Lord. What is important (again, at least to me) is that He is called upon on at all.

It has also been my experience that most Christians get very uncomfortable when they hear their god being referred to by his proper name, rather than by one of his more popular aliases.

I suffer no discomfort at all when my Lord is referred to by the many translations of His name.

Hearing their gods being referred to by unfamiliar names can sometimes make people sit up and start to question some of their long held and deep seated assumptions.

I have no questions about my faith based on the name(s) my Lord is referred to or called upon with. Of only concern to me, is my own spiritual experience.

I'm curious, your assumptions about Christians, and the basis and foundation of the Christian faith are based on what exactly? Fact or opinion? Many posters on this board have asked to be provided proof of God's existence. Can you offer any concrete or compelling evidence disproving God's existence or the anticipated second coming of Christ?

Faith by partial definition, is a belief. It is having complete trust. Are we as individuals not permitted (in your view) to place our faith and trust wherever we would like? Are you suggesting with your arguments against the existence of God, that people of faith (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any other denomination) should be ostracized for holding their respective beliefs?

I find it interesting that that those who do not believe in the existence of God, work so hard to try disprove and discredit His word.

[Strife767]

You are a nipplehead

cant you see Sarcasm!!!

Yes, I can.

Go look at "A Christian"'s post history before you say something that ridiculous again.

[Guest Guest]

pbrown64 wrote:

My parents named me Patricia, yet everyone calls me Patty. Many of my great-aunts have addressed me using other variations of my name such as Tricia, and Patty Ann, yet I always knew they were talking to me, and I took no offense that my proper name wasn't being used.

It has made no difference nor did it cause me to suffer any confusion that I have been called by names meaning, gracious, lovable or amiable instead of by the my given name, meaning of noble decent.

If it makes no difference to Christians what name their god is called, then why do all the popular Bible versions purposely mis-translate the word Yahweh as 'the Lord'? Why aren't the Bible translators and publishers honest enough to translate it correctly?

As with most English speaking Christians, while in conversation with others I have referred to my Lord and Savior as Jesus. I am well aware that the name Jesus is an anglicized variation of Yahweh, that Yahweh is the English translation of the Tetragrammaton (the Hebrew letters יהוה) , which is the translation of yet another variation.

I believe that the name Jehoshua means something like 'Yahweh saves'.

It matters not so much (at least to me) what name is used to call on the Lord. What is important (again, at least to me) is that He is called upon on at all.

I suffer no discomfort at all when my Lord is referred to by the many translations of His name.

Are you aware that every time you refer to Yahweh as 'your Lord', what you are really doing is calling him 'your Baal'? The English translation of the word 'Baal' is 'Lord'.

Are you aware that the word 'Elohim' that we see translated as 'God' in the Bible, actually reads 'gods' in the original Hebrew? I assume that the translators imagine that if they did their job honestly, that it would disturb many Christian readers. Otherwise why the intentional mis-translations?

I'm curious, your assumptions about Christians, and the basis and foundation of the Christian faith are based on what exactly? Fact or opinion? Many posters on this board have asked to be provided proof of God's existence. Can you offer any concrete or compelling evidence disproving God's existence or the anticipated second coming of Christ?

I need not more offer any more disproof of the god Yahweh than I do of any of the other thousands of gods which people have worshipped throughout human history. Can you disprove the existance of Zeus, or Chemosh, or Aton, or Ahura Mazda, or Vishnu, or Shiva, or Athena? Why don't you believe in those gods as well? When you understand why you don't believe in any of those gods, then you will understand why I don't believe in your particular god either. In other words, we are both atheists with regard to most of the gods which people have ever believed in. It's just that I'm more consistant than you are, in that I simply go one god further than you do.

The second coming of Jesus 'the Christ' (it's a title, not a name), is shown to be false by the Bible itself.

The New Testament authors, and the gospel Jesus all predicted his return within the lifetime of his disciples or their immediate followers. Christian apologists have wrestled with these texts for the last two thousand years in an effort to convince people that they don't really mean what they so plainly say.

The contortions of the text and the mental gymnastics which apologists resort to in an attempt to salvage some credibility from the wreckage, are marvellous to behold.

If you're not aware of just how often the return of Jesus was predicted to happen 2000 years ago, then please go back and re-read your New Testament.

You can find a good summary of these false prophecies here.(just click on the link)

"False prophecies, broken promises and miquotes in the New Testament"

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/nt.html

Faith by partial definition, is a belief. It is having complete trust. Are we as individuals  not permitted (in your view) to place our faith and trust wherever we would like? Are you suggesting with your arguments against the existence of God, that people of faith (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any other denomination) should be ostracized for holding their respective beliefs?

I find it interesting that that those who do not believe in the existence of God, work so hard to try disprove and discredit His word.

The existence of which god or gods?

God believers throughout the world worship different gods. They can't even agree on which god it is that people are supposed to believe in, or what attributes their gods are supposed to possess. In other words, they can't even get their own story straight. Why should I take them seriously?

I don't think that god believers should be ostracised. Ridiculed perhaps, but not ostracised.

However, on the flip side, there are many god believers who think that non-believers should be ostracised and persecuted; and unfortunately, history is chock full of examples where they have done that very thing.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

pbrown64 wrote:

My parents named me Patricia, yet everyone calls me Patty. Many of my great-aunts have addressed me using other variations of my name such as Tricia, and Patty Ann, yet I always knew they were talking to me, and I took no offense that my proper name wasn't being used.

It has made no difference nor did it cause me to suffer any confusion that I have been called by names meaning, gracious, lovable or amiable instead of by the my given name, meaning of noble decent.

If it makes no difference to Christians what name their god is called, then why do all the popular Bible versions purposely mis-translate the word Yahweh as 'the Lord'? Why aren't the Bible translators and publishers honest enough to translate it correctly?

As with most English speaking Christians, while in conversation with others I have referred to my Lord and Savior as Jesus. I am well aware that the name Jesus is an anglicized variation of Yahweh, that Yahweh is the English translation of the Tetragrammaton (the Hebrew letters יהוה) , which is the translation of yet another variation.

I believe that the name Jehoshua means something like 'Yahweh saves'.

It matters not so much (at least to me) what name is used to call on the Lord. What is important (again, at least to me) is that He is called upon on at all.

I suffer no discomfort at all when my Lord is referred to by the many translations of His name.

Are you aware that every time you refer to Yahweh as 'your Lord', what you are really doing is calling him 'your Baal'? The English translation of the word 'Baal' is 'Lord'.

Are you aware that the word 'Elohim' that we see translated as 'God' in the Bible, actually reads 'gods' in the original Hebrew? I assume that the translators imagine that if they did their job honestly, that it would disturb many Christian readers. Otherwise why the intentional mis-translations?

I'm curious, your assumptions about Christians, and the basis and foundation of the Christian faith are based on what exactly? Fact or opinion? Many posters on this board have asked to be provided proof of God's existence. Can you offer any concrete or compelling evidence disproving God's existence or the anticipated second coming of Christ?

I need not more offer any more disproof of the god Yahweh than I do of any of the other thousands of gods which people have worshipped throughout human history. Can you disprove the existance of Zeus, or Chemosh, or Aton, or Ahura Mazda, or Vishnu, or Shiva, or Athena? Why don't you believe in those gods as well? When you understand why you don't believe in any of those gods, then you will understand why I don't believe in your particular god either. In other words, we are both atheists with regard to most of the gods which people have ever believed in. It's just that I'm more consistant than you are, in that I simply go one god further than you do.

The second coming of Jesus 'the Christ' (it's a title, not a name), is shown to be false by the Bible itself.

The New Testament authors, and the gospel Jesus all predicted his return within the lifetime of his disciples or their immediate followers. Christian apologists have wrestled with these texts for the last two thousand years in an effort to convince people that they don't really mean what they so plainly say.

The contortions of the text and the mental gymnastics which apologists resort to in an attempt to salvage some credibility from the wreckage, are marvellous to behold.

If you're not aware of just how often the return of Jesus was predicted to happen 2000 years ago, then please go back and re-read your New Testament.

You can find a good summary of these false prophecies here.(just click on the link)

"False prophecies, broken promises and miquotes in the New Testament"

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/nt.html

Faith by partial definition, is a belief. It is having complete trust. Are we as individuals  not permitted (in your view) to place our faith and trust wherever we would like? Are you suggesting with your arguments against the existence of God, that people of faith (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any other denomination) should be ostracized for holding their respective beliefs?

I find it interesting that that those who do not believe in the existence of God, work so hard to try disprove and discredit His word.

The existence of which god or gods?

God believers throughout the world worship different gods. They can't even agree on which god it is that people are supposed to believe in, or what attributes their gods are supposed to possess. In other words, they can't even get their own story straight. Why should I take them seriously?

I don't think that god believers should be ostracised. Ridiculed perhaps, but not ostracised.

However, on the flip side, there are many god believers who think that non-believers should be ostracised and persecuted; and unfortunately, history is chock full of examples where they have done that very thing.