If you would read by ONE serious unitarian source, you just wouldn't raise this objection. All unitarians identify the one God with the Father, on the basis of numerous NT passages. Yep - I'm too lazy, or rather, busy, to list them for you. Again, read a book, any decent unitarian book.
i) Asking me to read one decent unitarian book is like asking me to find a married bachelor.
ii) Bracketing the oxymoron, I’ve been reading a lot of Dale Tuggy’s stuff. But I guess that doesn’t count as “serious” or “decent.”
iii) Tuggy is also confused–as usual. Did I say I was classifying actual unitarian positions? No. I prefaced my illustrations with the following qualification: “In principle"... a unitarian could believe…
So, as I made clear at the outset, I’m discussing hypothetical unitarian positions. Considering the fact that Tuggy is a philosophy prof., his reaction is odd. After all, philosophers routinely explore the logically possible permutations of certain positions, whether or not those permutations have an actual sponsor.
iv) But Tuggy’s defensiveness is unintentionally revealing. He acts like a high churchman who distinguishes between reputable, “orthodox” unitarianism, and disreputable, “heterodox” unitarianism. The self-anointed Photius of the one true unitarianism.
All the “real” unitarians identify the Father as the one true God. Not to be confounded with those , damnable, schismatical, anathematical versions of unitarianism!
But his indignant reaction seems more political than principial. A marketing ploy.
Any other form of unitarianism is crazy old Aunt Mae, whom respectable unitarians have to keep locked in the attic. Mustn’t let her get out. She might turn up at the soirée and say or do embarrassing things that besmirch the family name. What would the neighbors say?