Gerald Evans
The Horns of a Dilemma
The Oath of Office
People wanting to remove the religious foundation aspect out of our government will want to remove key phrases like “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” and “So help me God”. However, no person in the Jewish Christian Heritage would denounce God.
The first thing we have to remember is how God built the heavens and the earth. He built the Spiritual domain and then the Physical domain. Our Physical brain is an organ used to create Spiritual patterns. We spiritually conceive the idea and then we physically build its existence. The Oath of Office is such a spiritually conceived idea that sets the person swearing the oath into God’s spiritual domain. Now when they are in God’s spiritual domain and then reject God’s existence where are they? They are out of God’s spiritual domain and therefore not sworn into there office. So whenever they propose to remove God from the Oath of Office in that act they rejected God’s existence and therefore are out of God’s spiritual domain. However they must be in God’s spiritual existence to be sworn into office. In that act they are out of God’s spiritual domain, they are not sworn into office and cannot perform the duties of that office. So they cannot change the oath. They are clearly stuck in the horns of a dilemma. In this case the act of even swearing into office is an act of lying to God and perjury.
If we do the accounting we could see how many people in congress would be able to swear the Oath of Office. Maybe the Democrats did not have a sufficient number of Jewish Christian Heritage people to win a vote.
So in creating the “new” Oath of Office they were not sworn into office and that document is not valid. So now we have people swearing into office using an invalid document that does not position them into the office. Further, because the Democrat that was sworn into office is no longer in office because they rejected God’s existence therefore any law they passed is not valid either. To rejoin the other valid office holders they can swear into office using the original Oath of Office however I would guess they did not do that so they passed no valid laws since they tried to replace the Oath of Office.
Emotionally based people live in the reality of their mind, their Dr. Harris’s The Child. The people that live in the analytical world live in Dr. Harris’s The Adult of the real world of analytical logic not wishes and whims based on how they feel. Emotional arguments, based on feelings, are not valid here.
The fact that these oath changers rejected God, they also rejected the basis of the oath and the constitution, that is to defend the constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. Maybe get a Ph.D. in Mathematical proofs, maybe one that teaches masters classes in algebraic proofs that are not emotional, could help here.