Tim Wrote in message:
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 5:45:31 PM UTC-6, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/25/17 4:08 PM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Doubtful. I don't see how it is possible to be a Jew and believe that
Jesus was anything more than an ordinary man who lived (maybe) in
interesting times.
....
Not difficult. Hebrew by blood line (though that can in cases be hard to trace) and messianic by belief.



Oh, conversions. The Spaniards were good at that.

What do Spaniards have to do with people converting their faith by free will?


Ask a Huganaut if you can find one.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 5:04:39 AM UTC-6, justan wrote:
Tim Wrote in message:
On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 5:45:31 PM UTC-6, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/25/17 4:08 PM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Doubtful. I don't see how it is possible to be a Jew and believe that
Jesus was anything more than an ordinary man who lived (maybe) in
interesting times.
....
Not difficult. Hebrew by blood line (though that can in cases be hard to trace) and messianic by belief.



Oh, conversions. The Spaniards were good at that.

What do Spaniards have to do with people converting their faith by free will?


Ask a Huganaut if you can find one.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

That kinda goes alone with Harry's statement. Besides, like Greg implied of Harry's switching the subject. Yes I'm familiar with Louis 15 and the French Calvinists. But I'm talking about free will conversion. not the old 'kiss the cross or kiss the sword'...

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 9:53:21 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Dec 2017 19:06:55 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Monday, December 25, 2017 at 5:45:31 PM UTC-6, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/25/17 4:08 PM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Soze
- show quoted text -
Doubtful. I don't see how it is possible to be a Jew and believe that
Jesus was anything more than an ordinary man who lived (maybe) in
interesting times.
....
Not difficult. Hebrew by blood line (though that can in cases be hard to trace) and messianic by belief.



Oh, conversions. The Spaniards were good at that.

What do Spaniards have to do with people converting their faith by free will?


Old mr False Equivalency is comparing a creche in front of city hall
with the spanish inquisition.

I'd say that's a fair observation...

On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:14:40 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/26/17 4:48 PM, wrote:

You are splitting hairs until you tell what "Law" "Congress" made.
If the first few words of the 2d amendment define the rest, so do the
first few words in the 1st, no matter what Blackmon wrote in 1962.

Bear in mind the SCOTUS has a long rich history of being wrong.
They are the ones who said black people could never be US citizens and
that protesting the draft was a clear and present danger to the US
akin to crying fire in a crowded theater.
Both of those decisions were reversed, the latter in about 50 years
and the former in less than 10.
Who knows how a court more conservative than Warren's would rule on
the narrow case of simply having symbols on public property without
any official opinion of them at all. (simply a free speech zone).
It has always seemed strange to me that you can advocate for criminals
nazis and communists on public property but a private person
advocating for god (any god) is forbidden.



Your hair splitting is absurd, and so is your logic.

And I don't "advocate" for criminals, nazis, and communists" on public
property, but I'm pretty sure the 1st Amendment allows them to speak.
Doing so does not violate the Establishment Clause. Where do you get
your notions about me...from magic mushrooms you ingest?


Nobody said YOU personally advocate anything but you could and we are
not saying the city advocates religion when they allow a display on
their property but it is clear they will allow such a display for
those other things I mentioned.
Why isn't a religious display as much free speech as a swastika?