damnthing

Wait...what? If you're an atheist, why the 'jewish' qualifier?

Historically it was more of a 'jesus for jews' kind of a thing. It is a bit confusing, if a jew is for jesus doesn't that, by default, make him an x tian?

We hope...

I've been popping in for a while, but it's often quiet...

I kid, a few good friends are all that's needed. Quality over quantity all day long

Some of the friends I have...might as well be my enemies instead

"So if someone wears a cross they should put it inside their shirt? How about a star of david? " Did not say or suggest that...at all "I thought it was appropriate to wear necklaces outside of the shirt and not hidden away?" It's neither appropriate nor inappropriate, wearing a cross, any religious symbol, was not my point. "Or is this just your special rule for religious pendants?" Intentional or not this is what came across as 'attitude'. In any case perhaps go back an read the conversations leading up to my comments, it's about context. "Is it only the cross?

Come at the question without the attitude and I'll be glad to clairify

Yes but...I'm not talking about someone who wears a cross on a chain that maybe visible depending upon what the wearer is wearing, nor am I talking about nuns or priests or the like who wear a cross outside of their clothing as part of their uniform. Not even talking about a person who, as a result of some physical maneuvering has flipped their cross onto the outside of their shirt,etc. What I am talking about is someone who buttons his shirt up to to the top button with the cross intentionally 'isolated' from accidentally NOT being seen. I get the yarmulke, it's part of a person's

The first time I saw a tv add for a certain pillow company I immediately knew the guy was a cryster. How? Because he had his shirt buttoned up to the top button but was wearing his plus sign on a chain outside his shirt. Why? To specifically let people he was a cryster. There is/was absolutely no reason to announce that other than to just put it in people's faces. Turns out he (no surprise, really) is a uuge drumpf fan. And turns out (nice surprise) a number of companies will no longer carry his product because of his support for drumpf and the insurrection (and unsurprisingly) all

I meant as it was a more appropriate forum and any 'interference' could be removed

So why not move the discussion over to - http://ulc.net/forum/forum/153-earthnature-based-indigenous-religions/ where the conversation can be more broadly discussed while limiting it to poly/pan etc to the exclusion of monotheism. It would be an interesting discussion to follow along with (because I really have nothing to offer other to it)

Insofar as I can see, a polytheist can present their viewpoint just as easily as a monotheist. I can not believe in many gods as easily as I can not believe in one god. Regardless of who defines what, in the end it's up to the person believing to define for themselves what it is they believe in. Maybe because in western society monotheism is more the 'norm'. But then there are a lot of hindus, my partner is hindu and from him, family and friends I've been exposed to some of their beliefs and traditions. They have an interesting cafeteria approach to polythei

I suppose that's true but since muslims as a general rule aren't trying to force their way into the american public sphere, they aren't the threat that x tians are

Who says it was a monotheist who made that definition? And shouldn't there be a common definition for words? Otherwise how would be communicate effectively?