My comment was in response to your #632 where you write: " A man, who apparently believed similarly as you, turned on the American people, betrayed their trust by denouncing everything they held sacred, in the mistaken thought that he could sway them to any way of thinking he wished, discovered he could not, and died with their scorn and in disgrace. Would that no better fate should await you, but I defer to the Lord’s will on that issue."
And all this is in response to my statement "Those who deny the divinity of Jesus or the Trinitarian nature of God are not Christians." (#623) For that I am associated with "turning against" the American people, "betraying their trust", even "denouncing" everything [sic] they held sacred, and just might, like the fellow I am likened to, "die in scorn and disgrace," wishing me no better fate? Talk about above and beyond!
And you think that telling someone to turn down such emotional and confrontation attitude is reason enough to start flame wars? Over what? Over the fact that Christianity is founded on the belief that Christ is divine and that those who deny Jesus' divinity are not considered Christians no matter how much they call on his name? Well, it's true! They are not Christians, even if they swear up and down that they are.
Now, now. We’ve both been enjoined to not make it personal, but rather to discuss the issues.
“. . . those who deny Jesus' divinity are not considered Christians no matter how much they call on his name? Well, it's true! They are not Christians, even if they swear up and down that they are.”
Nonetheless, even if that assessment is entirely true, it does not address the fact that the Revolutionary Generation, “Diest” and Christian alike, are unequivocal in their affirmation that the Revolutionary Act was grounded in Christian values. All this frantic hand-waving and dust kicking-up changes not a whit of it.