tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post7470279511986074265..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Meyerson Deconstructs Washington's Presidential Oath StoryBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64443370773882771862020-07-12T17:45:57.105-06:002020-07-12T17:45:57.105-06:00This has nothing to do with religion and everythin...<i>This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with text and the meaning of words. The biblical God's name is Christ, since jehovah cannot be accessed except by His Son</i><br /><br />That is YOUR religious opinion. <br /><br />https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith<br /><br />Jehovah is just as much God as Christ is. He is the same God and no other.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73346981770244479502020-07-12T00:54:18.968-06:002020-07-12T00:54:18.968-06:00""There is ZERO evidence the God of the ...""There is ZERO evidence the God of the Founding was ever anything other than the Biblical one, Jon--including in Jefferson and Paine's public utterances.""<br /><br />This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with text and the meaning of words. The biblical God's name is Christ, since jehovah cannot be accessed except by His Son. Nature's god is the god of deism, matching one of its definitions mentioned on Cato unbound. <br /><br />Paine and TJ's words are not words of the people written in their social covenant as the foundation of the union and therefore mean nothing. Hs words are what he wanted the people to believe but have no authority because his words weren't made by the people. Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-87232720834082914812020-07-11T18:07:49.477-06:002020-07-11T18:07:49.477-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89254942662729433822020-07-11T18:01:12.026-06:002020-07-11T18:01:12.026-06:00invoked an ethically monotheistic God who is not n... <i>invoked an ethically monotheistic God who is not necessarily the God of any particular sectarian religious creed. But could be, if the believer finds a way in his conscience to connect this more generic God to his more specific religious tradition</i><br /><br />That's not the God of the bible at all. Either it's Him or it isn't. <br /><br /><br /><br />.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1885512548769640202020-07-11T15:12:57.620-06:002020-07-11T15:12:57.620-06:00It wasn't jehovah either because jehovah isnt ...<i> It wasn't jehovah either because jehovah isnt named and He cannot be accessed apart from Christ.</i><br /><br /><br />That is a religious opinion, not a historical one, Jim. <br />https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/100-scriptural-arguments-for-the-unitarian-faith<br /><br />There is ZERO evidence the God of the Founding was ever anything other than the Biblical one, Jon--including in Jefferson and Paine's public utterances. <br /><br /><br />Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74834048199811493682020-07-11T12:22:12.309-06:002020-07-11T12:22:12.309-06:00Well my opinion is they invoked an ethically monot...Well my opinion is they invoked an ethically monotheistic God who is not necessarily the God of any particular sectarian religious creed. But could be, if the believer finds a way in his conscience to connect this more generic God to his more specific religious tradition. Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-85619037281789957022020-07-11T12:01:14.762-06:002020-07-11T12:01:14.762-06:00The ffs established the ecumenical God of deism as...The ffs established the ecumenical God of deism as the God of the nation, which is why they put nature's God in the doi. It wasn't jehovah either because jehovah isnt named and He cannot be accessed apart from Christ. Therefore, their god was nature's god, which is no god at all.<br /><br />They can say what they want, but it doesnt follow jehovah was the God of the founding. No matter what they wrote, they did not list jehovah in the founding documents. Plus, only a fool would do that because they weren't Jews, nor did they worship Judaism. Claiming you're a Christian or a jew means nothing in relation to the God of the nation.<br /><br />They were ignorant no doubt about it.Our Founding Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01072993191810565535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64188909152482981992020-07-10T14:35:33.878-06:002020-07-10T14:35:33.878-06:00FTR, historically speaking, I lean heavily against...FTR, historically speaking, I lean heavily against the proposition that GWash uttered "so help me God."<br /><br />That said, once again I strongly dispute the premise here<br /><br /><i>Pfander, therefore, had no qualms about introducing the notion that this supposed regular occurrence had, in effect, produced a “constitutional amendment.”</i><br /><br /><br />I would put it this way: Taking the existence of God as a given was not considered a matter of "religion" and thus an "establishment" of religion.<br /><br />The existence of God was "self-evident." That there was a "Supreme Judge of the world" was self-evident. The ratification of the Constitution did not undo the Declaration, did not disestablish the existence of God as a FACT and not just one theory among any.<br /><br /><br />To the ratifiers' understanding, "religion" referred to the particulars of God's existence and nature, and not even the infidels Jefferson and Paine saw God's existence as a matter for religious difference or dispute. The Constitution NEVER would have been ratified with the understanding that it disputed God's very existence!!<br /><br /><br />We must take a step back from the Michael Newdows of the world, whose arguments are, historically speaking, absurd.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com