Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[JimL]

that sounds like someone suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

[Mountain Man]

Of course I do. But those ideals and beliefs aren't included in the DoI; they have to be obtained elsewhere.

The DoI does not refer to the Xtian god specifically.

You concede that the Founding Fathers were Christian, that the Declaration of Independence was written based on the ideals Christianity, that the signatories were Christians who believed the document they were endorsing reflected their core values; for that matter, the concluding paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence refer to "the Supreme Judge of the world" and appeal to "the protection of divine Providence", so it's not talking about some hands-off "watchmaker" god who has no interest in the affairs of his creation.

If you not believe this preponderance of evidence is sufficient to conclude that the Declaration of Independence is explicitly referring to the God of Christianity then which "god" is it referring to, and what evidence do you have to support it?

[Roy]

I guess you haven't seen the Supreme Court building then?

No. But I now know it has a couple of displays of historical lawgivers and lawmakers. It does not include a monument listing the ten commandments, just a few scraps on a tablet held by Moses, nor does it include any other law codes.

I'm also aware of one judge who installed a monument of the ten commandments in his courthouse without regard for protocol, procedure, law or even the consent of his colleagues.

[Roy]

You concede that the Founding Fathers were Christian, that the Declaration of Independence was written based on the ideals Christianity, that the signatories were Christians who believed the document they were endorsing reflected their core values;

I have not conceded and do not concede any of those things.

If you not believe this preponderance of evidence is sufficient to conclude that the Declaration of Independence is explicitly referring to the God of Christianity then which "god" is it referring to, and what evidence do you have to support it?

You've had three chances to quote the part of the DoI which explicitly refers to the God of Xtianity, and have failed to do so. Instead, you're reduced to misrepresentation and burden-shifting because you simply cannot support your ignorant claim.

The DoI does not specifically or explicitly refer to the God of Xtianity. It includes not include a single mention of 'Jesus', 'Christ' or even 'Bible'.

[Sparko]

No. But I now know it has a couple of displays of historical lawgivers and lawmakers. It does not include a monument listing the ten commandments, just a few scraps on a tablet held by Moses, nor does it include any other law codes.

I'm also aware of one judge who installed a monument of the ten commandments in his courthouse without regard for protocol, procedure, law or even the consent of his colleagues.

You were arguing that if there were displays of other lawmakers they would somehow be covered up and only the 10 commandments would remain. The frieze on the SCOTUS building disproves that.

[Mountain Man]

I have not conceded and do not concede any of those things.

So you deny that he Founding Fathers were Christian, that the Declaration of Independence was written based on the ideals of Christianity, and that the signatories were Christians who believed the document they were endorsing reflected their core values? Are you ignorant, or just bullheaded?

You've had three chances to quote the part of the DoI which explicitly refers to the God of Xtianity...

And I have given you answers that any reasonable person would accept.

So now answer my question: If the Declaration of Independence is not referring specifically to the Christian God then which "god" is it referring to? What's your supporting evidence?

[Roy]

You were arguing that if there were displays of other lawmakers they would somehow be covered up and only the 10 commandments would remain. The frieze on the SCOTUS building disproves that.

I was not. Lawmakers are not codes of law.

[Roy]

So you deny that he Founding Fathers were Christian, that the Declaration of Independence was written based on the ideals of Christianity, and that the signatories were Christians who believed the document they were endorsing reflected their core values? Are you ignorant, or just bullheaded?

No, you are.

Most of the founding fathers were Christians, but some were more deistic that Christian, Thomas Paine in particular (although not all consider him to be a founding father). The DoI owes little to nothing to Christian values, and certainly wasn't based on the ideals of Christianity, which are not even mentioned. And while the signatories were Christians, the values espoused in it are political, not religious.

You've had three chances to quote the part of the DoI which explicitly refers to the God of Xtianity...

And I have given you answers that any reasonable person would accept.

You've given answers that any reasonable person would accept as showing not only that there are no specific/explicit references to the Xtian god in the DoI, but that you don't know what the words 'specific' and 'explicit' mean.

So now answer my question: If the Declaration of Independence is not referring specifically to the Christian God then which "god" is it referring to? What's your supporting evidence?

When you delete the answer to a question and then re-ask it, you must be really desperate.

Here it is again: The DoI does not specifically or explicitly refer to the God of Xtianity. It includes not include a single mention of 'Jesus', 'Christ' or even 'Bible'. You can 'add 'Jehovah', Yahweh', 'Genesis', 'Christian', 'Christianity', 'Xtianity', 'Lord', 'Master', 'Son of God', 'Son of Man', 'Logos', 'Lamb' and many other similar terms to that list too.

The DoI refers to god in terms that are equally applicable to most or all Christian denominations, as well as to Deists and Jews. Your claim that the DoI specifically or explicitly refers to the God of Christianity is not only ridiculous, but suggests you not only know less than nothing about your own history, but can't read.

[seer]

The DoI owes little to nothing to Christian values, and certainly wasn't based on the ideals of Christianity, which are not even mentioned.

That isn't exactly right is it. The DoI was influenced by Locke's Second Treatise on Government, which grounds human liberty and property rights in Scripture and the God of Scripture.

http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.ed...ext=clevstlrev

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/asse...locke1689a.pdf

[Mountain Man]

No, you are.

Most of the founding fathers were Christians, but some were more deistic that Christian, Thomas Paine in particular (although not all consider him to be a founding father). The DoI owes little to nothing to Christian values, and certainly wasn't based on the ideals of Christianity, which are not even mentioned. And while the signatories were Christians, the values espoused in it are political, not religious.You've given answers that any reasonable person would accept as showing not only that there are no specific/explicit references to the Xtian god in the DoI, but that you don't know what the words 'specific' and 'explicit' mean.

When you delete the answer to a question and then re-ask it, you must be really desperate.

Here it is again: The DoI does not specifically or explicitly refer to the God of Xtianity. It includes not include a single mention of 'Jesus', 'Christ' or even 'Bible'. You can 'add 'Jehovah', Yahweh', 'Genesis', 'Christian', 'Christianity', 'Xtianity', 'Lord', 'Master', 'Son of God', 'Son of Man', 'Logos', 'Lamb' and many other similar terms to that list too.

The DoI refers to god in terms that are equally applicable to most or all Christian denominations, as well as to Deists and Jews. Your claim that the DoI specifically or explicitly refers to the God of Christianity is not only ridiculous, but suggests you not only know less than nothing about your own history, but can't read.

So you claim it's not referring to the Christian God specifically... but you can't tell me which other "god" it could possibly be referring to.

Yeah, OK.

[tabibito]

Tabibito, John Calvin was a Christian, Calvinism is Christianity. I understand that Jefferson didn't agree with Calvins type of Christianity, but he was Christian nontheless. And Jefferson not only didn't acknowledge Jesus as god, he said the whole Christian story built up around Jesus was a myth. So Calvins god, the Christian god, was not Jeffersons god, Jesus, the Christian god, was not Jeffersons god, Jefferson was a Deist not a Christian.
And btw, the god of Jesus was Yahwey, a dipiction of god which Jefferson despised and compared to Calvins depiction of the Jewish/Christian god.

It seems that you missed this bit, JimL: "So much for your quotation of Calvin's `mon dieu! jusqu'a quand' in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our antient Colleagues, and recieve with them the seal of approbation `Well done, good and faithful servants.'"

Of course, it was the final paragraph. So what happened? TLDR?

[tabibito]

No, you are.

Most of the founding fathers were Christians, but some were more deistic that Christian, Thomas Paine in particular (although not all consider him to be a founding father). The DoI owes little to nothing to Christian values, and certainly wasn't based on the ideals of Christianity, which are not even mentioned. And while the signatories were Christians, the values espoused in it are political, not religious.You've given answers that any reasonable person would accept as showing not only that there are no specific/explicit references to the Xtian god in the DoI, but that you don't know what the words 'specific' and 'explicit' mean.

When you delete the answer to a question and then re-ask it, you must be really desperate.

Here it is again: The DoI does not specifically or explicitly refer to the God of Xtianity. It includes not include a single mention of 'Jesus', 'Christ' or even 'Bible'. You can 'add 'Jehovah', Yahweh', 'Genesis', 'Christian', 'Christianity', 'Xtianity', 'Lord', 'Master', 'Son of God', 'Son of Man', 'Logos', 'Lamb' and many other similar terms to that list too.

The DoI refers to god in terms that are equally applicable to most or all Christian denominations, as well as to Deists and Jews. Your claim that the DoI specifically or explicitly refers to the God of Christianity is not only ridiculous, but suggests you not only know less than nothing about your own history, but can't read.

Equally certain - the DoI does refer to a creator and ultimate judge of the world ... so, regardless of which god might be referred to by the authors, there is a religious component to the document. Denying the fact doesn't improve the chances of being deemed credible.

[Mountain Man]

Notice how he bailed on this thread when I pressed him to tell me which other "god" it could possibly be referring to if not the Christian God.

It's not the first time he's embarrassed himself in his often desperate attempts to prove me wrong about something. Just look at his signature where he claims that two non-contradictory statements somehow contradict. And he's so proud of that signature, too.

[Roy]

The DoI owes little to nothing to Christian values, and certainly wasn't based on the ideals of Christianity, which are not even mentioned.

That isn't exactly right is it. The DoI was influenced by Locke's Second Treatise on Government, which grounds human liberty and property rights in Scripture and the God of Scripture.

I suggest you learn the difference between incluenced bysomething, vs being based on it.

[Roy]

... The DoI refers to god in terms that are equally applicable to most or all Christian denominations, as well as to Deists and Jews. ...

So you claim it's not referring to the Christian God specifically... but you can't tell me which other "god" it could possibly be referring to.

I just did. You even quoted it.

This is like fish in a barrel shooting themselves so I don't have to.