When you meet someone and they're wearing a cross

Generally, their name will end in a vowel.

You don't know many Irish people R1?

I do R2, but they're less likely to be cross wearers around here.

Any religious symbol is an immediate turn off.

By and large, people who outwardly show their faith like that tend to be hypocrites. When I was in London, most of my friends were muslim girls who were uncovered. The stories they told me about what the covered girls got up to were crazy. As my friends said: "they try to show everyone how pious they are to cover up for the fact that they follow the values they claim".

I feel the same about people wearing things like crosses, etc. Or even talking about their church etc. It's not a big thing here in my country anyway. We've always viewed overt religion as being a suspicious thing.

It's a warning sign. Enter at your own risk.

Sorry, at R5 it was meant to be "that they don't follow the values they claim to". Sorry.

Don’t walk, run away.

I usually give a thumbs up and say "God hates fags!"

Unless they are wearing a hoodie or other gang clothing or paraphernalia, it makes me feel safer talking to them.

It was an ironic fashion trend in the latter part of the 1980s and early 90s. Now you should wear a rope of garlic around your neck before you approach anyone wearing crucifix.

R10, it makes me feel just the opposite.

If they're Latino, the cross doesn't mean they're religious zealots. But it still makes me feel that they're too dumb to know better.

I take note, as I have some Jewish jewelry.

If you're wearing a star of David I immediately start waiting for the whining to begin.

What is "Jewish jewelry", R14. I'm an atheist so my opinion isn't an informed one, but it strikes me as somewhat disrespectful to make religious symbols into jewelry that's worn for decorative purposes -- like wearing a rosary as a necklace?

I assume they’re religious, but I’ve known people of varying religious intensity to wear them. A lot of people get cross or Star of David necklaces as gifts from family when they’re younger and wear it more as a family heirloom.

The fundies (Christian) I knew didn’t wear crosses. Let alone a crucifix.

If I see it I will make a mental note and sometimes it explains a thing or two. It doesn’t make me think they’re crazy religious or anything.

I went to high school in California with a lot of Mexican immigrants and both sexes wore a cross on a chain around the neck. One of the girls told me that it was to protect them from sin, which reminded me of holding a cross up to ward off a vampire in "Dracula" movies. Since lots of the boys were gang members and many of the girls got pregnant as unwed teenagers, I figured the kids weren't taking virtue seriously despite wearing their protective charms. But none of them seemed to treat it as jewelry in the decorative sense. And of course they all went to confession weekly.

I think they're probably a hypocrite, hiding something.

Wearing one as I type this

[quote] A lot of people over the age of 60 get cross or Star of David necklaces as gifts from family when they’re younger and wear it more as a family heirloom.

I do not know any Jews my age (late 30s) who wear a chai or star. But I bet many of them have zaydes who do.

I remember an episode of Oprah, where Oprah went to Cher's house to interview her. Just inside the entrance, the foyer was decorated with several crosses of many different sizes and colors. Oprah asked Cher if she was very religious. Cher replied, "No, I just like the way they look."

I wear one, often. But, I wear it under my clothes because it for me and God, not for others to see.

I met a Hot NYC Italian years ago, took him back to my hotel room. While entertaining Frank, ankles behind my head, his Gold Cross was hitting my face. So I did what my East Falls white trash slut training commanded me to do. The cross was on my lips, I started licking& sucking on it, while staring right in his green eyes-daring him to say something. Great sex BTW. Called me a whore.

R16 I have a gold Star of David pendant and a silver Chai pendant and a silver Hamsa one. I also have a ruby Seal of Solomon ring.

Fuck R25. That's fucking hot.

R23, I bet that galled Oprah something rotten. I remember when she went to Denmark and was outraged that the women there dared to claim they were happy when they weren't religious.

I have one and a medal of a Jesuit saint as the Jesuits had a big influence on me and it was blessed by one who was a good person. Also they are the more progressive order on the gays .

When I lived in Seattle, I asked the young lady who ran the Korean restaurant about her cross. She explained that it was cultural from having been raised as a Korean Christian, but did not have any spiritual or personal theological significance.

I take them less seriously. They're asking me to.

I don't know, R29, if she was representative of Korean Christians. I was in the Los Angeles area, in a Korean restaurant with my brother. A Korean lady (another customer) approached our table with a religious pamphlet and started proselytizing. We weren't rude back, but not encouraging, either. So, she left the pamphlet with us and went back to her table.

I've always loved Scully's cross . . .

I saw a photo of Cindy Crawford in the DM yesterday and she was wearing one. I was surprised. Because she goes to a lot of events and presumably has a jewelry wardrobe. She isn’t just wearing it mindlessly. She chose to put it on. I think a lot of Catholics wear it partly as a piece of jewelry and as a conscious or unconscious message to other Catholics that they are in the same tribe, but don’t really think about it.

Adult film actress Jenna Jameson said, in her autobiography, that Cindy Crawford approached her and touched her neck, i.e., came on to Jenna. Cindy now seems like momager to her daughter (modeling career). The son of Cindy seems like he's troubled. If I had to guess, Cindy is a phony.

Both Melinda Gates and Chelsea Clinton are known for wearing upside-down crosses. Don't know what it means in their cases.

Upside-down crosses mean the devil. Satan’s symbol.

[quote]Is your first impression is that it's just a piece of jewelry? Or do you see it as a warning they're going to try to push religion on you or worse, that they're the sort of religious zealot who is anti-gay and you have to be on your guard around them?

I assume it's a piece of jewelry but it depends on where we are, the context of our meeting and what else they are wearing.

If an Italian, Latino or Irish guy wears a visible cross in Philadelphia it's usually either decorative or has sentimental value. If they're Catholic and under a certain age I know they aren't going to push religion on anyone.

For all other Christians:

Someone modestly dressed with perfect hair and sensible shoes wearing a visible cross is often religious, their body language usually confirms it. When I meet people like this I'm usually on my best behavior, so to speak. No sarcasm, no off color language, no funny stuff.

A guy with a thick gold cross prominently displayed on top of his shirt is a red flag, especially if he's past middle age, I avoid them because they usually incorporate religion into normal conversation.

Middle aged guys (who aren't modestly dressed) wearing a visible cross is also a red flag, it often means they just found God so there's a chance they'll be preachy.

I rarely see young black guys or Southeast Asian guys wearing a visible cross so when they do I assume it's religious.

I assume anyone with a cross tattoo is religious unless it's a Celtic cross.

I assume young women wearing a visible cross are religious.

The most devoutly religious people I've known don't wear crosses, in some cases I don't think they believe in wearing them.

I tattooed a cross on my hand so I don’t have to wear it.

I've worn a religious medallion around my neck and underneath my shirt since aged thirteen. I was raised Catholic, And I still practice it. I have written about this in other posts. Let me just say that there is a wide gulf between the official and popular church.

I've worn a miraculous medal, or a small medal in the shape of a Romanesque cross with four medals engraved on it. I now wear a Celtic cross that belonged to my Dad. All the medals were sterling silver.

I swim and take the cross off beforehand (sterling silver and chlorine don't mix). Even if I'm naked, I really feel naked if I don't have that Celtic cross around my neck.

[quote]my East Falls white trash slut training

Philadelphia, R25?

They think it gives them magical powers over you.

[quote] Upside-down crosses mean the devil. Satan’s symbol.

Actually an upside down cross is a symbol of Saint Peter, known as a Petrine Cross. It comes from the belief that when he was martyred he said he was not worthy to die in the same manner as Christ and was allowed to be crucified upside down. It is often, therefore, used by Popes.

What about upside down Christmas trees?

R43 It usually just means you have no real style.

I’m with R4. If I know you are religious, I will automatically think you are a dim and have poor judgement.

R45, I’m the same way when I see a cross. But I don’t have that same reaction when I see a Star of David or a Buddha necklace.

People with beliefs are so strange.

I do not wear a neckless in general but I have absolutely no problem wearing one.

Any jewelry on men is a turn off to me

A cross is a big turn off and red flag not to even befriend this person.

Most people wear crosses because they look the way they look. It has zero to do with religiosity. From my experience it's usually the slutty people who love silver cross necklaces.

Many Latinos do wear Catholic crosses or amulets with Mary. But that's expression of a cultural identity than being extremely religious.

[quote] Wearing one as I type this

You will be blessed for your faith.

r16, wearing a rosary can indicate membership in a gang.

I learned this a few days into my new job of working at a middle school. I was wondering why these boys wearing rosaries had so much attitude.

I wear a cross under my shirt that's usually knotted up in my hairy Spanish chest. We're given this kind of jewelry by family members and frankly it doesn't mean much.

Ha, this is funny: I was just in a meeting the other day when I noticed that a guy had a very large cross on a chain around his neck along with some other medallion I couldn't place. This is the same guy that wears t-shirts saying "I stand for the flag and kneel for the cross" (or something like that - maybe I got it backwards). I agree that people like this may as well have HYPOCRITE tattooed on their forehead. The tend to be fundies wanted to make sure you know what good CHRISTIANS they are, but they are the worst, most hateful people out there.

Are you autistic? Just ask the person and move on if you dislike their bias.

R31: This young woman always seemed quite secular to me, and no way fundamentalist, which is why I asked.

I admire it, and then I ask them to admire my Satanic necklace.

r58, be careful.

I have a gay Instagram acquaintance who is a Satanist, R58. Whatever floats your boat...

[quote] If they're Latino, the cross doesn't mean they're religious zealots. But it still makes me feel that they're too dumb to know better.

Are you Latino? I have more Latino relatives that wear crosses and scapulars and never go to church than the other way around. Some are Ivy league educated. They're not stupid, they're just wearing it to satisfy their grandma or as a cultural identifier. Richie from Looking is a good example of that. You should travel more, you sound stupider and with very outdated views.

[quote]R58, be careful.

Of what, R59? Of being taken for some jewelry that doesn't have the value being charged?

There's no intrinsic threat to that object; what it represents does not exist. The only possible risk might come from Christians who might see it and decide to retaliate against the person wearing it.

OP, the cross is a statement of values by anyone sufficiently outspoken as to wear it. It serves as a warning that they are morally impaired, that they have double standards, and put religious fantasies before facts. It means that they're hypocritical, and intellectually dishonest. I keep my dealings with such individuals as limited and superficial as possible.

OP you in danger girl! Doubt they could resist the urges of using you as improvised firewood as soon as they see you clad in your rather risqué caftan flopping to and fro, perhaps try moderating your decolletage, not everybody is ready to be as free and dangling as you are.

Upside crosses are used in Catholicism and charismatic movements. They're very common in Latin America.

They're bareback and swallow and likely beg me to pound them harder.

It depends on the cross. Some crosses can be beautiful and fashionable, in a non religious way...I think. Some are fashion statements.

R64 Saint Peter was crucified downwards, and hence the inverted cross is the sign of his own particular passion. Same for the "inverted" pentagram, which refers to the five elements of nature according to Aristotle, which are aether, fire, air, water and earth.

I don’t think anything of it…neither positive nor negative connotation.

[quote]Upside crosses are used in Catholicism and charismatic movements. They're very common in Latin America.

You mean the Petrine Cross, R64.

I am unaware of its use among charismatics, unless charismatic Catholic.

R69 Many charismatics want to reclaim first century Christianity, so the Petrine Cross makes sense, for them, as does their frequent embrace of Jewish rituals or festivals.

Excuse ME?

Is it a cross or crucifix? If it's a Catholic crucifix I think it's kind of charming, like some old superstition a hot white adjacent has brought with him from the Old World. If it's a cross, and a Protestant, I think it's a trashy born again Christian.

Crosses what a joke. All these’ I-talians, Portuguese and Spaniards only wear them to impress their Mamas and Nonnas.

[quote]Is it a cross or crucifix?

What’s the diff?

We’ll wait while you figure that one out on your own.

[quote] Are you Latino? I have more Latino relatives that wear crosses and scapulars and never go to church than the other way around. Some are Ivy league educated. They're not stupid, they're just wearing it to satisfy their grandma or as a cultural identifier. Richie from Looking is a good example of that. You should travel more, you sound stupider and with very outdated views.

I am Latino. Y tu vete a la mierda.

R74 a crucifix has a representation of the body of Christ on it. I could never wear one of those. I only wear a cross.

Scully was a true believer R32, confirming some of the posts. She wore it as a sign/affirmation of her belief.

Which when your honestly compare her (the character’s) belief to Mulder’s …

I don’t know which one I would call more ridiculous, and yet there are no threads shitting on SETI people.

R78, Mulder and Scully are television depictions of fictional characters, each the work of dozens of episode writers and contributors. One cannot infer anything about the integrity of their views, for the simple reason they don't have any.

It depends how one wears it . . .

To R40, Yes Philly, 19129, East Falls. Where Grace Kelly and the Kelly Family grew up!!. St Bridgets Parish& school. Do you know East Falls?

[quote]R70: Many charismatics want to reclaim first century Christianity, so the Petrine Cross makes sense, for them, as does their frequent embrace of Jewish rituals or festivals.

Since the meaning of the Petrine Cross is kind of a minority view for Catholics (as opposed to the popular view of the inverted cross), it doesn't make much sense for charismatics - unless, as I remarked, they were Catholic charismatics. The Christian embrace of "Jewish rituals or festivals" is entirely unrelated to issues of what sort of cross one might wear, since it's offensive to Jews and probably also to traditionalist Catholics of the sort that might embrace a Petrine cross.

Do you have any evidence of its use among charismatics, Latino or otherwise?

I don’t know if that is a fair assessment R79, as no one questions Dante’s beliefs in the Inferno.

[quote] I don’t know which one I would call more ridiculous

This came off a bit more harsh than I meant. Millions of people across the world believe many things on faith alone, and yet on DL, we get threads bashing the religious, when there are many people, who believe even more … “unusual” things, and yet, we don’t post threads about them.

I was raised Catholic and have no ill will toward the Church. I can’t say I 100% believe, but theory of the Big Bang leaves the possibility of a greater power so ….

R82 Only that I've known ones, here in the American South that wear them. They were very much into studying and saying they were trying to emulate the Apostles and early Christian martyrs, and rediscovering their stories. Also, the majority of the ones that embrace the Jewish festivals don't do it to be offensive. The original church was a Jewish movement. Jewish festivals are essential to trying to practice or recapture first century Christianity, its really not possible to separate them. Many people, including Christians, seem to forget we worship a God, that we claim is the Jewish Messiah, that was born, raised, and died a Jew. And, all the Apostles, Mary, Joseph, etc... were all Jews. It is why I can not and will never understand an anti-Semitic Christian.

I'm not the person that mentioned Latin America.

[quote] [R78], Mulder and Scully are television depictions of fictional characters, each the work of dozens of episode writers and contributors. One cannot infer anything about the integrity of their views, for the simple reason they don't have any.

What are you talking about? The whole point of creating and writing for characters is to give them views and breathe life into them. Just because they’re fiction doesn’t mean they don’t have views or integrity. There are show bibles and character bibles that detail all that make up the character, from their background, upbringing, belief systems, personality, etc. It’s more detailed than real people.

It's also the product of more than one person, R85, and those creators have different views. The characters are not consistent across all episodes, or from one end of the series to the other; they change, depending upon who's writing them. And that's despite "show bibles" and "character bibles."

Mulder and Scully are not real people. Story, end of.

Do many (any?) Catholic men wear scapulars these days?

I ask them if it's the flammable type, because most Xtians and Bible thumpers are irrational racist assholes.

[quote]The original church was a Jewish movement.

That's a believers' assumption, R84, dependent upon literary depictions in fictional narratives. The gospels and Acts are not history, but hagiography. From a critical standpoint, it is always important to draw a sharp distinction between the 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 in narratives like the gospels, and their anonymous 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑠. They are not the same thing.

In the gospels and Acts, the Jewish characters are 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 or Jews crafted by gentile authors, not actual Jews themselves. The gospels and Acts have about as much to do with the factual origins of Christianity as the storyline of 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐭 𝐌𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞 (1979) has to do with the origins of the Muppets.

Why are they depicted as Jews? Because the point of the Christian narratives is to herald the end of the Jewish relationship with God in favor of a so-called "New Covenant" (the doctrine is called supersessionism) with a new people, and it was felt that this could be more convincingly conveyed through characters who were depicted as Jews.

[quote]Many people, including Christians, seem to forget we worship a God, that we claim is the Jewish Messiah, that was born, raised, and died a Jew. And, all the Apostles, Mary, Joseph, etc... were all Jews.

Your "Messiah," as well as "all the Apostles, Mary, Joseph, etc.," R84, were all literary characters in a narrative. Not persons.

[quote]We're given this kind of jewelry by family members and frankly it doesn't mean much.

My grandfather gave me one that I wear. I'm not particularly religious but it does remind me of him which is exactly why I wear it. He was one of my "best friends" as a kid and the only person who would ask me about my day that actually seemed to give a damn.

@R89, "𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝐨𝐟 Jews"

R89 It is established secular history that the Christian movement arose out of Judaism. Unless you subscribe to the pseudo-historical theory that Christianity was created by Rome, who then persecuted the movement for some reason. That theory is not accepted by the vast majority of scholars. Which means that regardless of how one feels about the existence of the people mentioned, the initial audience for the stories, were Jews. And, the first followers were Jews. That is provable from archeology and ancient sources. No one disputes that.

[quote]R92: It is established secular history that the Christian movement arose out of Judaism.

That the "Christian movement" (funny that you seem to think there was only one of these) appropriated the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures, the Septuagint, and regarded themselves as both the inheritors and the fulfillment of them, seems fairly obvious. But the assertion that it consisted of Jews - the ones mentioned in the New Testament - is not. That would be a bit like insisting that there were Scientologists running around in the 19th century US. "Christianity" as a movement, did not emerge until the middle of the 2nd century CE.

You do know that the Book of Daniel wasn't written in the 5th century BCE in Babylon, right?

[quote]Which means that regardless of how one feels about the existence of the people mentioned, the initial audience for the stories, were Jews. And, the first followers were Jews. That is provable from archeology and ancient sources. No one disputes that.

How do you know that, R92? What "archaeology"? What "ancient sources"? You know, the bible cannot be cited in support of the claims of the bible. And 'everyone says so' is not a valid argument.

[quote]Unless you subscribe to the pseudo-historical theory that Christianity was created by Rome, who then persecuted the movement for some reason. That theory is not accepted by the vast majority of scholars.

The only alternative of which you're aware, apparently, is Joseph Atwill's 𝐶𝑎𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑟'𝑠 𝑀𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑎ℎ (2005). No, I'm not advocating anything like that. As flawed as Atwill's thesis is, though, that it's "not accepted by the vast majority of scholars" is not the problem with it. (That's an 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑢𝑚.)

Proceed with caution.

My necklace has an electric chair charm on it.

[Quote] Called me a whore.

But'chare Blanche!

Any religious symbol is a red flag. Run!

[quote] It is why I can not and will never understand an anti-Semitic Christian.

R84 Steal the laws and history meant solely for Jews and then spend the next 2,000 years fomenting socio-cultural Jew hatred, while persecuting and committing genocide on Jews to annihilate the Jews so that Xtianity can get rid of the evidence of their theft and supersede them. Makes Jew-hating Xtians perfectly understandable.

[quote]Your "Messiah," as well as "all the Apostles, Mary, Joseph, etc.," [R84], were all literary characters in a narrative.

R89 Not quite. The Gemara mentions, anecdotally, several unnamed itinerant Rabbis in the 1st century CE who performed "wonders" (נפלאות) and "miracles" (נסים). So "Jesus" may not necessarily be a "narrative character".

Erratum R99 "Rabbis", not Rabbis

No respectable scholarship supports the "Jesus was just a fictional character" thesis. That's a halfwit theory that half educated people believe which makes them think they are superior to the rest of mankind.

No one except fundamentalists believe the NT is an accurate historical account either.

It's an account, with a goal in mind of building up a new community, based on some historical events.

To R96..Thank You!! Yes, I am a whore, it's safer that way!!

[quote]I was raised Catholic and have no ill will toward the Church.

Even after all the pedophilia and the cover ups, going on for decades, if not centuries? The links to the Nazis, the theft and plunder of valuables all the while preaching to others to be humble? The anti-semitism and the Inquisition?

If the Catholic church wasn't a religious organisation, it wouldn't still be in existence after everything it's done. It's amazing what blind spots people get if you just say something is religious.

[quote]R89 Not quite. The Gemara mentions, anecdotally, several unnamed itinerant Rabbis in the 1st century CE who performed "wonders" (נפלאות) and "miracles" (נסים). So "Jesus" may not necessarily be a "narrative character".

R99, the Gemara is said to have been compiled between the third and sixth centuries CE, which makes it unsuitable as witness for a supposed historical Jesus, not least because its authors may have been interacting with the claims of Christian literature, widely available by that point. The Toldoth Jesu is an example of that kind of response. And it is rarely possible to nail down exactly when a given section of the Talmud may have been contributed, since material continued to be added throughout the Middle Ages, without meaningfully dating the addenda. Rabbinical attributions ("Rabbi So-and-so said,") were frequently pseudepigraphal, designed to give the saying the weight of antiquity, and not useful for actually dating a contribution.

As an observation, though, the use of the term "rabbi" is anachronistic for 1st century Judea and 'Temple Judaism,' both by the Gemara and by the gospels. It belongs more properly to the 2nd century and later, to Rabbinic Judaism and to the Christianity which was polemically responding to it.

R104

[quote] the Gemara is said to have been compiled between the third and sixth centuries CE, which makes it unsuitable as witness for a supposed historical Jesus,

It was compiled starting in the 2nd Century CE. Thus the word "anecdotal".

[quote] though, the use of the term "rabbi" is anachronistic for 1st century Judea and 'Temple Judaism,' both by the Gemara

Anachronistic for someone who has no idea how the term "rabbi" was used/designated then . . . or now.

Depends if it’s a religious cross or a “fashion cross.” The latter are ok and can sometimes look chic.

[quote]R105: It was compiled starting in the 2nd Century CE. Thus the word "anecdotal".

From Wiki:

[quote]There are two versions of the Gemara. The Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi) or Palestinian Talmud was compiled by Jewish scholars of the Land of Israel, primarily of the academies of Tiberias and Caesarea, and was published between about 350–400 CE.

350 CE is the 4th century, Matt.

[quote]The Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) was published about 500 CE by scholars of Babylonia, primarily of the academies of Sura, Pumbedita, and Nehardea.

500 CE is the 6th century.

[quote]Anachronistic for someone who has no idea how the term "rabbi" was used/designated then . . . or now.

That 'nobody knows anything about Judaism but me' was the give-away that it was you.

Regarding the use of the term 'rabbi,' I follow the opinion of Solomon Zeitlin.

R107 The Yerushalmi BEGAN being compiled in the SECOND CENTURY CE. It was COMPLETED approximately 350 CE.

[quote]That 'nobody knows anything about Judaism but me' was the give-away that it was you.

What has your link to do with the original assertion in R106?

[quote]Anachronistic for someone who has no idea how the term "rabbi" was used/designated then . . . or now.

And you certainly know nothing about Jews, their laws, history or community. You're reduced to cutting/pasting from Wikipedia, which doesn't prove your point, but rather reiterates your ignorance.

[quote] The Yerushalmi BEGAN being compiled in the SECOND CENTURY CE.

Link a source that says that, R108/Matt.

[quote]What has your link to do with the original assertion in R106?

R106 is not my post.

I made several assertions in R104, in reply to your post at R99. The link at R107 was in response to your assertions at R105. Can't you follow the discussion?

[quote]And you certainly know nothing about Jews, their laws, history or community.

A claim that makes little sense, since I frequently agree with things you've said. What does that say about your claims?

[quote] You're reduced to cutting/pasting from Wikipedia, which doesn't prove your point, but rather reiterates your ignorance.

I offer support for what I post, which is more than can be said of you. But you don't seem to care about supporting your assertions; you're in full-on troll mode.

[quote]I offer support for what I post,

R109 "Support" is a misnomer. You offer more ignorant horseshit, just that you don't realize that it is. Why would I need to "support" my assertions with outside "sources" when I provide detail based on personal knowledge/experience? Unlike you, who is reduced to posting Wikipedia nonsense.

avoid

Addendum R110

[quote] And you certainly know nothing about Jews, their laws, history or community.

[quote]A claim that makes little sense, since I frequently agree with things you've said.

Agree is a misnomer. See your posts on this thread, on the How Many Times Does the Bible Forbid Homosexuality thread for examples.

[quote]Link a source that says that

I have the knowledge of when the Gemara was written, don't need a "source. But here, knock yourself out . . .

From My Jewish Learning: Although the Yerushalmi was completed earlier (with material spanning roughly 200-500 C.E.) . . .

[quote] There's no intrinsic threat to that object; what it represents does not exist.

Your mother sucks cocks in hell, r62.

Your mother's a biology teacher in Cheshire!

Addendum R112

Again, from My Jewish Learning: Although the Yerushalmi was completed earlier (with material spanning roughly 200-500 C.E.), it was eclipsed by the much longer Bavli (200-600 C.E.).

[quote]Why would I need to "support" my assertions with outside "sources" when I provide detail based on personal knowledge/experience?

Because you're not a valid source. Many assertions require support; "'cuz I say so" won't cut it.

[quote]Agree is a misnomer. See your posts on this thread, on the How Many Times Does the Bible Forbid Homosexuality thread for examples.

I concur that the Jewish bible does not condemn homosexuality; that is agreement. As for the rest, I have no assurances that you even understand what I've said. You certainly cannot even keep straight who you're talking to.

[quote]From My Jewish Learning: Although the Yerushalmi was completed earlier (with material spanning roughly 200-500 C.E.) . . .

R112, I have linked 'My Jewish Learning' in the past, only to see you denounce it.

But it bears pointing out that "200 CE" is the 3rd century, not the 2nd. The 2nd century began at 100 CE.

If the material itself spans "roughly 200-500 C.E.," then it cannot be argued that it's compiled earlier than that.

[quote]Many assertions require support; "'cuz I say so" won't cut it.

No, because I have knowledge from education and personal experience. Not from flailing around Wikipedia looking for any half-assed response. In addition, I know exactly how IGNORANT you are about Hebrew, Jewish Bible, law, custom, how Hebrew is taught outside of Israel, how ignorant Rabbis are about spoken Hebrew, etc. You make that quite plane in the ignorant horseshit you post. And THAT'S what bothers you.

[quote]As for the rest, I have no assurances that you even understand what I've said.

Oh, I understand perfectly. Thus the lengthy responses correcting "what you've said".

EXECUTION DEVICE. Like an electric chair. But a simple, almost elegant design.

R117, you cannot even tell which poster I am, much less what I've said. At R108 on this thread, you cited me as being R106. You're impaired.

When I offer a link (i.e. Wikipedia), that isn't where I got the information, as though I didn't know it before I looked it up; the link serves as a citation confirming what I've said, as a source outside of myself. That's the point of posting it.

You are not a source in and of yourself.

And Wikipedia is not a source in and of itself, to which haughtiness can be applied in order to dismiss it. It is a clearinghouse for supporting sources, to be found in its notes. Any article is as strong - or as weak - as the underlying sources. They have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

[quote]you cannot even tell which poster I am, much less what I've said. At [R108] on this thread, you cited me as being [R106].

Quite desperate, aren't you? Your balls must be REALLY hurting.

[quote]You are not a source in and of yourself.

Just because YOU are ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is. As I've illustrated. Many times.

They're not sending their best r19.

Many who wear it do so as a heirloom. I'm an atheist who likes catholic symbolism, so I'm hardly an authority on the matter. For me it's a symbol of personal accountability for your actions, but also one of confidence. If it's a heirloom, there is also the subliminal awareness that there were those who preceded you - and that you have responsibility for those who will come after you. It makes you feel you are part of an intergenerational relay team. This is of course true as well if you're a teacher for example, or for any way you pass on what you have learned to the next generation. So no, I wouldn't run if someone wore a. crucifix, but I would be a little wary.

I'd never heard of Gemara until now, so thanks to DL (once again) for educating me. I am fairly expert about Gamera, but I don't think he's Jewish.

[quote] Since the meaning of the Petrine Cross is kind of a minority view for Catholics (as opposed to the popular view of the inverted cross), it doesn't make much sense for charismatics - unless, as I remarked, they were Catholic charismatics

I was talking about Catholic charismatics indeed, but many evangelical charismatics use it as well, in Latin America that is, specially in South America. In Brazil, supposedly the biggest Catholic nation in the world, charismatics are the ones keeping Catholicism alive and the Petrine cross is seen everywhere.

If it's a hot guy, I usually hope he's hung like his savior. If it's and uggo or a frau, I don't care.

Are we talking a Chanel Maltese cross?

"When you meet someone and they're wearing a cross"

I feel the same way about it as I do when I see a jew wearing one of their stupid jew beanies.

Cool R21 and R52. I always wear a gold Crucifix and a Miraculous Medal as well as a Brown Scapular and am privileged to do so.

[quote] I feel the same way about it as I do when I see a jew wearing one of their stupid jew beanies.

For some reason that doesn’t bother me. I think it’s cute when a hot guy wears it. Only Christian artifacts bother me, weirdly.

Christ was nailed to a stake, not to a cross, you blasphemous vipers! That is why we of the true faith would wear a line at the end of a chain if we were prone to sinful idolatry like y’all. It’s Satan’s system to blame for your unclean immorality in selecting, even wearing, misleading jewelry. Jehovah God loves you. He would never request the impossible, you little mustard seeds, you.

Christ hanging on the cross, he was always HOTT Looking. In St. Bridgets Church (Philly-East Falls) at Mass, I would wonder if Jesus was well-hung!