US Constitution Divine?

Jesus Constitution
Okay, I am going to say this emphatically and succinctly: the Constitution of the United States of America was not divinely inspired.  The Constitution of the United States of America was not handed to the Founding Fathers by Jesus Christ.  Nor did Jesus hand around for another hundred years and hand gold plates to Joseph Smith to translate into the Book of the Mormon.

Thank you for your kind attention.

SEE ALSO: In Congress We Trust: Original Sin and the Health Care Debate

Advertisements

About Aaron Gardner

Aaron is a counselor and student of the Bible, passionate about sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. He lives in central Indiana with his wife, one-year-old son and their two dogs. View all posts by Aaron Gardner

37 responses to “US Constitution Divine?

  • Wes Ellis

    may I add that Jesus didn’t have any more to do with the writing of the U.S. Constitution than he did with the construction of whatever founding documents guide the governing of such countries as Iran, Afganistan, Lebenon, North Korea, or any other country.

  • shematwater

    Question: What is your proof that the Founding Father’s were not lead by the spirit? Also, Why do make this sound like such an impossibility? Did God have the power to inspire the constitution, and if he did how do you know he didn’t act on that power?
    Just wondering. It really doesn’t matter much to me, but I think before you go making such definite statements aimed at giving the final word you really should answer these questions.

  • Aaron

    @shematwater

    Well, since it really doesn’t matter… 😉

    I am thinking about this from a few different angles. Most obviously Jesus did not come down and hand the US Constitution to the Founding Fathers. Granted this painting is symbolic, but it is entirely misleading.

    Secondly, we can speculate about who among the Founding Fathers were Christian, but it is obvious that at least a few (even some depicted standing behind Christ in the painting) were not. Jefferson was in fact the most talked about in this regard and we have a significant amount of material that will back that up.

    Next, Jesus actually said, in essense, that he did not present the United States with the Constitution in Scripture. Okay, so he did not really say it, but he was emphatic about his kingdom not being of this world. Why would he say that and then contradict himself by establishing his rule in the United States?

    If we think that Christ did in fact inspire the writing of the Constitution, the Founding Fathers must not have heard correctly. Why else would it need ammending?

  • Boz

    Blasphemer!

    You are not a True Christian!

    😉

  • pedleyj

    Yes he is. Great post, Aaron

  • shematwater

    Interesting.

    However, the idea that they weren’t all Christians doesn’t make sense. After all, Cyrus was inspired to let the Jews return to Judea, and he was not an Israelite. Paul received a vision for persecuting the saints. We also know the Pharoah received visions, as did his Baker and Butler, which were from God. So, it would not be all that unpresidented, or unlikely that God would have inspired the Founding Fathers.

    Now, as to Christ setting up His kingdom, I really dont see how inspiring the constitution would be setting up his kingdom. Christ is not made the head of the United States. We do not live in a Theocracy. Thus, this is not his kingdom.

    I think that God has inspired many good men (who were not Christians). After all, he is no respecter of persons. No, God inspires men when the need arrises for some work to be done.

    I believe that God was on the side of the Romans when they conquered the known world. This was done in preparation for the coming of Christ. It was their road systems and patrols that made it possible for the extensive travels of Christ and later the apostles. Also, if the Jews had been independent they would have killed Christ too soon.

    Now, I will commend you for actually thinking this through.

  • Aaron

    Hmmm…. but do dreams of a Pharaoh make Egypt a Christian nation? “Inspiritation” and “sanctioned” are different concepts. Not sure that they should or could really be equated.

    Allowing the Romans to conquer did not have to be sanctioned by God for God to later use it to fulfill the divine plan of the coming Christ.

  • Brian

    So, I’m fairly new to this blog, I’ve been reading for awhile but never posted anything.

    A few of the comments have inspired me to put in a couple of comments and questions. The picutre itself seems silly and I don’t have any probelm with the blog entry. My interest is based on some of the comments.

    quoting Aaron below:
    ****************************************************
    Jesus actually said, in essense, that he did not present the United States with the Constitution in Scripture. Okay, so he did not really say it, but he was emphatic about his kingdom not being of this world. Why would he say that and then contradict himself by establishing his rule in the United States?
    ***********************************************************

    Maybe I need some clarification on your view of the picture – I mean your view of how God interacted with the setup (and continuining managment) of the United States Government. Or any government for that matter.

    Is your suggestion that Jesus doesn’t have interest or input on setup or management of governments at different points in history? Or does your opinion suggest that we should be looking to the authority around the kingdom of God, and not any “earthy” kingdom? Or is there a #3 I’m missing?

    Either way, my mind went to the first part of Romans 13 when I was reading through these comments.

    Apologies if I took this in an unintended direction.

  • Chaz

    The worst thing about this error of Const inspiration is that Mormon Glenn Beck is preaching it to the Tea Baggers of which i am one. This has political and spiritual ramifications beyond
    Obama being defeated. If Beck harnasses his followers to a false spitituality we may have something far worse than WOF on our hands.

  • shematwater

    I like what Brian said.

    Now, Aaron, I do agree that sanction and inspiration are very different. When God sanctions something he approves it, when he inspires he guides it.
    Now, was Pharoah’s dream a sanction? If it was I would really like to know what God was approving of, because it seems more like guiding Pharoah than approving him. Dreams and visions are not sanctions, they are inspirations.
    God sanctioned Saul as the King of Israel, but inspired Samuel in making the selection. He sactioned David as well, but guided him through inspiration in becoming King.

    Chaz
    Please explain to me how a belief that the Constitution was devinely inspired is going to cause any real problems. This is an idea that can be shared by all faiths, who ever you believe God to be. How is that idea bad?

  • Aaron

    Hey, Brian! Thanks for the comments! Did you make it to the last Challenge meeting?

    Yes, I agree that there are certainly connections between God’s will and action and government. Romans 13 is a great place to pick that up. Again, I think that there is a difference between a government being sanctioned and it being allowed… Romans was written to people who were being oppressed by the government. In Romans 13 I think that Paul is also making a distinction between government and the Kingdom of God. It is a reminder that we are only here for a short time, and that heaven is where the fullness of Christ’s victory over sin will be realized.

    Democracy is in many ways a different animal. People argue that we are under the tyranny of the majority. I think when we talk about God’s action in government there is a concept that I have intentionally left out. Does not God have everything in his control? Cannot God do what he will to mold and shape our world and our history to accomplish his work?

    Indeed God has a hand, but God was not involved in direct revelation with the Founding Fathers in the establishment of the US Constitution. Lack of direct revelation does not mean that Christians are not bound to follow the law of the land (again Romans 13).

    As an aside, I think that the efforts that many are making to “take back the nation for Christ” is unfounded for a few reasons: 1) the country was only arguably Christian in the first place and 2) it is more concerning that heresies and false doctrines are replete in mainline churches these days. I think it is more important to take back the church for Christ!

  • Boz

    A better version:

    (HT pharyngula)

  • Aaron

    Hmm… I am trying to decide which is more patriotic and which is more blasphemous!

    Thanks for sharing, Boz!

  • shematwater

    Very Good Aaron, although I still think your reasoning is flawed. I would also say that unless you can show a direct quote from God stating that he did not inspire these men, such statements of finallity can be dangerous.

  • Aaron

    I would challenge you to give me a direct quote from God that says that he did.

  • Boz

    Ah, shifting the burden of proof.

    Shematwater, this is quite an easy way to justify any spurious belief.

  • shematwater

    D&C 101: 80
    80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

    Here is my direct quote from God stating that he had a direct hand in guiding the Founding Father’s in creating the Constitution of the United States.

    As to shifting the burden of proof, I have done no such thing. The burden of proof always lies with the person who is trying to persuade the other. I am not tryng to persuade anyone that the constitution was inspired, only that it could have been. Thus, all I need to prove is that God has directed the government of other nations (such as Pharoah’s dream) as a president that he could have directed this government. This I have done. It is your intent to persuade that God did not inspire the constitution, and thus you must give the proof that he did not.

  • Aaron

    WAIT!!! You are using the cultic writings of Joseph Smith to challenge me on this????

    “Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”?????

    Shematwater, if you want to hold a debate about Christianity, the Bible, and the work of God, I would be glad to engage. But if you are going to present “evidence” from a work that clearly contradicts the teachings of the cannonical Bible and say that it is a direct quote from God, I will bid you “good day.”

  • Boz

    shematwater said:”D&C 101: 80
    80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

    Here is my direct quote from God stating that he had a direct hand in guiding the Founding Father’s in creating the Constitution of the United States.”

    The christian God didn’t say that.

  • Boz

    also, the burden of proof always lies with the positive claimant.

  • Aaron

    The plot thickens. I have been just informed by IMonk that the artist, Jon McNaughton, is a Mormon. The “college student” in the bottom left of the painting is holding a Mormon textbook called “The Five Thousand Year Leap” by W. Cleon Skousen and this particular artist also has painted the Mormon temple.

    I honestly did not know how pertinent my original observation was when I declared that Jesus did not show up and hand over the Constitiution to the Founding Fathers.

    Some people will believe anything!

  • shematwater

    Aaron, you miss the point. I am not providing this reference in the Doctrine and Covenants in an attempt to persuade you I am right. You do not accept this as the word of God, and that is fine. But I do. And thus when you ask me to give a direct quote from God I am free to use any words that I believe are God’s, as you did not ask for a quote from the Bible. This is all I did.

    As I said before, my intent is not to prove that God did have a hand in the Constitution. This is a matter of individual belief, and I am fine with it. But when you say that there is no way he could have, that is when I think you are making the mistake.

    I believe he did, because of the quote I gave, but I do understand that this is not sufficient for others. However, you have stated what you believe to be fact, and yet you have been unable to show it as fact.

    In all truth, I am not arguing the point of the constitution, but the validity of any statement made concerning the workings of God without proof. If stated as opinion and personal belief that is fine, but stated as the final truth is not fine, unless you give direct proof of it.

    Boz, the burden of proof lies with you, for I stated neither a negetive nor a positive, but a neutral idea. I know that I cannot prove it was, but I also know I can’t prove it wasn’t. Thus, all I want is the acknowledgement of the possibility of it, since neither side can be proven.

    Oh, and you are right, the quote I gave is not from the God of Christianity, but from the one true God of the Bible, so I think it trumps what you say. (Hee Hee).

  • Aaron

    Shematwater, first of all, the burden of proof in this situation is yours because, indeed, you have stated the positive. You contend that God DID have a direct hand in the Constitution. I have stated the negative: He DID NOT.

    Secondly, your book of the Mormon makes no sense and teaches doctrine in direct conflict with what is taught in the Bible. If you believe that your God is the one true God of the Bible, then you must reject the contradictions in the writings of Joseph Smith. I will not make disparaging judgments against you and your belief, but I urge you to compare these writings to see what you are really basing your faith on.

    Again, you say that you are not attempting to prove yourself right, and again you have not presented evidence that your opinion could even be a possibility in this case.

  • shematwater

    Aaron

    I have not stated as fact that God directed the Constitution, only that there is a possibility that he did. As that possibility exists, but without true proof, both of us are free to believe how we want. I choose to believe he did, and i have given my reasons for that belief. You choose to believe he did not, and have given your reasons for that belief.
    The evidence that my opinion could be possible is that you cannot prove it impossible.
    but this is all either of us can do. Neither can proof that what we choose to believe on this point is correct. It is impossible. It is not stated in the Bible, which is the only source both of us accept, and thus neither one can prove it.

    The problem is that you state your opinion as fact, when it is only a subjective interpretation of the Bible. This is what I am arguing against. A declaration of fact based on subjective opinion is a dangerous thing, and even more so when it addresses the dealings of God. Personally, I don’t care if you don’t believe the Constitution was inspired, but I do care that you present this as fact when it is not fact.

    As to the Book of Mormon, I have read both it, the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, and i have found all three to be in perfect harmony with each other. Please do not assume that I have not read the scriptures on which I base my faith, or that I have not studies them in depth. I have, and what I believe is because I have.

  • shematwater

    One other thing, concerning the Burden of proof.

    You are the one arguing a positive in this case. Yes, you are saying that God did not do this, which is a negetive. However, I am not say he did, and thus there is no opposing positive to your negetive, and thus I have no burden of proof.

    However, you are saying that you are right, and I am saying that you are not right, thus you are arguing a positive for the direct purpose of this discussion. Thus the burben of proof falls on you to prove yourself right, and not on me to prove you wrong.

    I am perfectly willing to admit that your belief is a valid one, even though I disagree. But I am not willing to conceed that it is the only valid one, which is what you have asserted. So, prove it is the only valid.

  • Aaron

    Negative and positive do not refer to who is right and who is wrong. After all, I could just as easily say that you think you are right, thus you have the positive and the burden of proof.

    But that is not what “burden of proof” is about. The positive is that you think that something exists. If you believe that the Constitution was inspired by God, then that is the positive of the argument. I am arguing for the absence of that belief, thus I am arguing the negative.

    It would be the same if you argued that there were a such thing as invisible unicorns. That would be the positive and the burden of proof would be yours. I would argue that invisible unicorns do not exist, thus I would be arguing for the negative.

    I wonder if this is a difficult concept if you can really rely on your own assessment of the teaching of the Bible and those of the Book of the Mormon and other apostasy. Have you read comparative commentaries on both? Have you read perspectives from both sides?

  • shematwater

    Aaron

    The problem with your logic is that I am not arguing that I am right. I am not arguing that the Constitution was inspired. This is not my point, as I have stated several times. If this was my intent I would agree with you.

    Because of this I hold to the assertion that the burden of proof is on the person trying to persuade.
    The rules of proof that you outline can only be effective when one side is arguing a positive and the other side a negetive. Because you want these rules to apply you are trying to force me into arguing the positive, which I am refusing to do, and thus these rules lose their efficiency.

    So, you are arguing that God did not inspire the constitution. For me to argue the positive I would have to say that he did. Yet all I have argued is that both sides are possible, and thus I have remained neutral, and so I do not need to prove anything. And since the negetive is impossible to prove (which is what you are arguing) the whole discussion can go nowhere on this point.

    Thus, to make the discussion fit with the rules of proof I have now forced you into a positive, if you want to persuade me. That positive being that God has stated he did not inspire the document in question. For this discussion to go anywhere you must argue the positive “He has told us this,” while I will argue “He has not.”
    In refusing to argue the positive in the one area I have forced you to argue it in another, and thus by my methods of discussion the burden of proof is on you.
    Now, you could also refuse to take the positive on this and we would end the discussion in a stalemate, which is the only way two good debaters can end a discussion.

  • Aaron

    No… I am saying that you do not understand the basic rules of debate.

    You cannot force me to argue the positive. You are arguing for the existance of something, which is the positive position. I am arguing for the negative because I am arguing for the non-existance of what you are claiming. Whether you agree with the positive position or not, you are arguing for it and thus in the debate you have the positive position.

    If you were neutral in the debate then you would be arguing from both sides. To be neutral does not mean that you do not believe in your position, but it is about what position you are arguing for. You are clearly arguing that the Constitution was inspired, whether you believe it was or not, and so you have chosen the positive position.

    In refusing to argue the positive in the one area I have forced you to argue it in another, and thus by my methods of discussion the burden of proof is on you.

    The only thing that I can think of that this could be referencing is the other element you have introduced: the validity of D&C. To answer that, I will appeal to other more studious authorities one of which is here: http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html Yet, here again, you are arguing for the positive, that the writings of Joseph Smith are authoritative. My argument is that they are not, especially in light of good biblical scholarship and the teachings of Christianity based on that scholarship.

    If we reach an impass it is because you are unwilling or unable to provide adequate evidence for your position.

  • Boz

    “And thus when you ask me to give a direct quote from God I am free to use any words that I believe are God’s,”

    This is a good point, shematwater.

    God said that shematwater is going to hell.

  • Boz

    Shemwater said: “Boz, the burden of proof lies with you, for I stated neither a negetive nor a positive, but a neutral idea. I know that I cannot prove it was, but I also know I can’t prove it wasn’t. Thus, all I want is the acknowledgement of the possibility of it, since neither side can be proven.”

    .

    Shematwater, you heavily implied that God did inspire then constitution, with the following four quotes.

    (1)”I would also say that unless you can show a direct quote from God stating that he did not inspire these men, such statements of finallity can be dangerous.”
    (2)”Please explain to me how a belief that the Constitution was devinely inspired is going to cause any real problems. This is an idea that can be shared by all faiths, who ever you believe God to be. ”
    (3)”80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”
    (4) “I choose to believe he did, and i have given my reasons for that belief.”

    Shematwater, you are now trying to backtrack by claiming that you didn’t say this.

    .

    “I know that I cannot prove it was, but I also know I can’t prove it wasn’t.”

    “I have not stated as fact that God directed the Constitution, only that there is a possibility that he did. As that possibility exists, but without true proof, both of us are free to believe how we want. ”

    This is a rhetorical device used in an attempt to give credibility to a position which deserves none. It is clearly true that we cannot [strictly] prove the positive or negative position. However, the implication that there is a high level of uncertainty, and that the position (The constitution was divinely inspired) can be justified, is false.

    To exemplify this, consider the position “You cannot prove that gravity exists, but I also know that I cannot prove that it doesn’t. (Therefore, I imply that non-acceptance of the existence of gravity is reasonable)”.

    Objectively, it is possible that a deity did inspire the constitution, but the probability of this is so vanishingly low, that anyone seriously suggesting this possibility can be accurately said to be wrong or lying.

    .

    Aaron said:”Secondly, your book of the Mormon makes no sense and teaches doctrine in direct conflict with what is taught in the Bible. If you believe that your God is the one true God of the Bible, then you must reject the contradictions in the writings of Joseph Smith. I will not make disparaging judgments against you and your belief, but I urge you to compare these writings to see what you are really basing your faith on.”

    Those in glass houses…

    .

    Shematwater said:”The evidence that my opinion could be possible is that you cannot prove it impossible.”

    haha! This argument can be used to hold any opinion! You cannot prove it impossible that God Hates Fags, therefore he does. And I will lobby to ensure that all three levels of Government discriminate against homosexuals. After all, it is God’s will. How pathetic. Shematwater, do you happen to live in california?

  • shematwater

    Aaron

    I have not argued that it was. I have argued that the evidence taht exists on the subject is insufficient to either prove or disprove the idea. I have made statements that I believe it was, but I have not argued it was, only that it could be based on the evidence. That is what you don’t seem to be getting. I am not arguing the existance of anything. I am agruing that believing in its existance is just as valid as not believing in it. Thus, on the question of “Did God inspire the constitution?” I have answered neither yes, nor no, but have stated that no definite answer can be given. You are the one who has given a definite answer, which was No. Thus, on this question you are on the negetive, and I am no where.
    Now, on the question “Is it possible that God could have inspired the Constitution?” Yes, I have taken the Positive, because it is possible. The evidence of this possibility is that God has not denied it, and has actually guided other non-believing governments (example Pharoah).
    Considering that this is the positions we have taken, and I am really not trying to persuade that he did inspire the constitution, if you want to persaude me that God did not you must then take a positive position on a related issue which would disprove the positive that opposes the negetive you are arguing.

    This is how the discussion has developed. You can claim I am arguing he did all you want, but that is not what I am doing.

  • shematwater

    Boz Said “Shematwater, you heavily implied that God did inspire then constitution, with the following four quotes.”

    I heavily implied that I believe he did, which is very different then stating it as fact, which is how you have presented your belief.

    The quotes you give do not show an argument that God did. You must understand the difference between what a person is arguing and what they actually believe. I do believe it was inspired of God, but I am not going to argue that it was, because such an argument is pointless. If I am going to try and persuade you (which is the purpose of a debate) I am going to argue that which I think you may be willing to conceed. In this case I know there is no way that you will conceed that he did inspire it, and so I am not going to argue that he did. However, the idea that this is a possibility you might conseed, and so I will argue only that there is a possibility he did.
    To truly win a debate one side must alter the opinion of the other (I am not speaking of professional or acedemic debate, but debate in its purest a truest form, which is to persuade). Thus, for me to argue that which cannot alter your opinion only insures that I cannot succeed.

    Now, in quoting the D&C I was not seriously adding that to the debate, and I appologize for any confusion. As I said, it is the reason I believe what I believe, but all I am truly arguing, or what i am trying to persuade you of, is that me believing it is just as reasonable as you not believing it.

    Boz said: “Objectively, it is possible that a deity did inspire the constitution, but the probability of this is so vanishingly low, that anyone seriously suggesting this possibility can be accurately said to be wrong or lying.”

    How have you calculted the probabilities? You make this claim, but what do you have to back it up? Where do you get the probability that he did inspire it to be so low? This is question I would to have answered before you claim I am wrong in accerting the possibility that he did.

    Boz Said: This argument can be used to hold any opinion! You cannot prove it impossible that God Hates Fags, therefore he does.”
    Again you are wrong. I have never said that because you can’t prove he didn’t that that is proof he did. I onlt asserted that since you can’t prove he didn’t it leaves the possibility that he did.
    With this example of yours the argument I make is that if you can’t prove he doesn’t hate them then you cannot say a person is wrong who believes he does.

    You are again assuming that I am arguing that God did inspire the Constitution, when I am not. I am arguing the possibility that he did, but also the possibility that he didn’t. Until it is either proven that he did or did not inspire it, then that in itself is enough to show that either side is possible.

    The whole point I was trying to make concerning the whole thing is that without the proof no one should be making statements of finallity. Aaron stated God did not inspire the constitution. As a personal opinion of belief that is fine, but when it is said as the final word, stated as a fact and not a belief, then it requires proof, and without that proof the one making the statement can find themselves in trouble if it turns out that they are wrong, which is why I said such statements are dangerous.

    If there is a possibility the statement is wrong it should be said with caution.

  • Aaron

    Shematwater, obviously I am having difficulty adequately explaining where you have misunderstood the rules of debate. I respectfully suggest that you do some research on the topic. We are spinning our wheels here because you do not understand what I am attempting to explain. Once again, in a debate there is no neutral position. You do not have to believe your position, but in suggesting the possibility of inspiration in this situation, you are indeed taking the positive position and thus accepting the burden of proof.

    I am stepping out of attempting to debate with you. It is not a consession at all, but this conversation is getting tedious because of this impass. Please take some time and study some basic rules of debate and when you understand what I am failing to explain well then I would be happy to continue our conversation.

    Until then, all my best to you.

  • Boz

    “so I will argue only that there is a possibility he did”

    This is a no-brainer – almost anything is possible. Any reasonable person would agree with you. What likelihood/probability would you place on the position “he did”?

    “but all I am truly arguing, or what i am trying to persuade you of, is that me believing it is just as reasonable as you not believing it.”

    “Just as reasonable” implies equally persuasive evidence for both sides – 50/50. (Note that claiming that the next roll of a fair 6-sided dice will be a 4 is less rasonable than claiming that it will not be a 4). What evidence are you presenting?

    “Boz said: “Objectively, it is possible that a deity did inspire the constitution, but the probability of this is so vanishingly low, that anyone seriously suggesting this possibility can be accurately said to be wrong or lying.”

    How have you calculted the probabilities? You make this claim, but what do you have to back it up? Where do you get the probability that he did inspire it to be so low? This is question I would to have answered before you claim I am wrong in accerting the possibility that he did.”

    To demonstrate “god inspired the constitution”, we have to do two things. (1) show that your deity exists, and (2) show that it did this action. Given that there is 0 evidence for either of these two claims, the default position is the negative. So, the most rational position is that this claim is vanishingly unlikely.

    This claim has the same vacuous strength as “Ra posessed Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot JFK”, or “Allah told the 19 young men to do 11/9”, or “Thor inspired the Wright brothers to make the first flight”.

  • shematwater

    I enjoyed this. And Aaron, I did understand everything you said, but I wanted the impass, as such discussions are more enjoyable when you realize that neither side is going to convince the other.
    From the beginning I only wanted to have apointless discussion, because anything else would have been tedious and eventually useless.
    I did appreciate the explanations you gave for your belief, and I did learn from them, so please do not think I did this just to waste your time.

    Boz
    I see your logic, but it seems to be flawed. As I said, I am not concerned with if he actually did, but if the possibility exists. As to proof of God’s Existance, I have just as much as you, so let us assume he does exist. I do not need proog he did inspire the constitution to make a reasonable assumption that he did. All I need is the president that he has inspired other governments. You say he did not inspire the constitution, which would be strengthened if he had never inspired any government. However, as I have shown, he has inspired other Earthly Governments through dreams. Thus, the president is set, and this evens out the probability, for if he did it for one nation it is not improbable he did it for another.
    If God had never inspired other nations I would agree that you have the higher probability (not the overwhelming one you seem to claim, but a higher one).

    However, as Aaron says, this is getting a little tedious. I will reply again, but only for a few more days.

  • In Congress We Trust: Original Sin and the Health Care Debate « A Great Work

    […] to fail.  This nation was not setup by God nor ordained as his earthy kingdom (see this post and this post), though God does allow kingdoms to stand and fall.  The Founding Fathers were not all Christians […]

%d bloggers like this: