Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[seer]

Are you going to help MM out by quoting the passage from the DoI that specifically/explicitly references the god of Christianity?

If not, I'm not interested in anything you write.

So you are not interested in the clear influence of Christian writers on the DoI and the founding in general. OK...

[Roy]

Are you going to help MM out by quoting the passage from the DoI that specifically/explicitly references the god of Christianity?

So you are not interested in the clear influence of Christian writers on the DoI and the founding in general. OK...

I'll consider that an attempt to avoid admitting that there's no such passage.

[seer]

I'll consider that an attempt to avoid admitting that there's no such passage.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Which God was the First Congress speaking about in their first two proclamations of thanksgiving?

Congress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a "day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to "confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness." Massachusetts ordered a "suitable Number" of these proclamations be printed so "that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same" and added the motto "God Save This People" as a substitute for "God Save the King.

Congress set December 18, 1777, as a day of thanksgiving on which the American people "may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor" and on which they might "join the penitent confession of their manifold sins . . . that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance." Congress also recommends that Americans petition God "to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.'"

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

[Sparko]

I'll consider that an attempt to avoid admitting that there's no such passage.

And you are just picking nits again, because the defacto religion of their society WAS the God of Christianity. They had no need to specify it. It was assumed as the default. They didn't have to worry about all of the various other religions in the world because in their society it was Christianity and there were no muslims screaming for equality, or even many Jews. They formed the country allowing for religious freedom so they didn't make a big deal about specifying denominations and such, but the religion was considered to be Christianity. There was no need to specify it. If you want to nitpick the bible the same way you could. Just find every passage where they just say "God" (Theos) instead of YAHWEH and then complain that they didn't specify WHICH God so how do we know it wasn't Allah, or Krishna? You are doing the same thing here. They knew no other God.

[Roy]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Which God was the First Congress speaking about in their first two proclamations of thanksgiving?

Those are excellent examples of referring specifically to the Christian god. Such a pity for MM that there is nothing similar in the DoI.

[Mountain Man]

Those are excellent examples of referring specifically to the Christian god. Such a pity for MM that there is nothing similar in the DoI.

It's time to take a trip in the Wayback Machine and look at my original claim:

The fact is, the United States of America was most certainly founded as a Christian nation to the extent that our Declaration of Independence rests entirely on the premise that God exists and that he is the Creator of all men. And, no, it's not referring to some generic "god" concept but specifically to the God of Christianity, a fact that becomes clear to anybody with even a passing familiarity with the writings and speeches of America's Founding Fathers.

seer's post very nicely supports this position, doncha think? Oh, that's right, you don't think.

[Roy]

And you are just picking nits again, because the defacto religion of their society WAS the God of Christianity. They had no need to specify it. It was assumed as the default. They didn't have to worry about all of the various other religions in the world because in their society it was Christianity and there were no muslims screaming for equality, or even many Jews. They formed the country allowing for religious freedom so they didn't make a big deal about specifying denominations and such, but the religion was considered to be Christianity. There was no need to specify it. If you want to nitpick the bible the same way you could. Just find every passage where they just say "God" (Theos) instead of YAHWEH and then complain that they didn't specify WHICH God so how do we know it wasn't Allah, or Krishna? You are doing the same thing here. They knew no other God.

Just to be 100% clear - are you confirming that the Declaration of Independence does not refer specifically to the Xtian god?

I don't doubt that most of the founding fathers meant the Xtian deity when they said/wrote "God". However, the DoI, unlike the Thanksgiving proclamations seer just cited, is written without any specific references to the Xtian deity. This may be, as you say, because that was the default then, or it may be, as I think, that the references to god were sparse and general so as to be inclusive of deistic views.

[Mountain Man]

Just to be 100% clear - are you confirming that the Declaration of Independence does not refer specifically to the Xtian god?

I don't doubt that most of the founding fathers meant the Xtian deity when they said/wrote "God". However, the DoI, unlike the Thanksgiving proclamations seer just cited, is written without any specific references to the Xtian deity. This may be, as you say, because that was the default then, or it may be, as I think, that the references to god were sparse and general so as to be inclusive of deistic views.

Yes, because when Christians refer to "God", they must be referring to a generic god rather than the Christian God, right? Right?

And I already knocked down your "deist" argument.

Sorry, kiddo, it's not referring to a deist god since [the Declaration of Independence] explicitly refers to "the Supreme Judge of the world" and appeals to "the protection of Divine Providence", neither of which describe the hands-off "watchmaker god" of deism.

[seer]

Those are excellent examples of referring specifically to the Christian god. Such a pity for MM that there is nothing similar in the DoI.

Sheesh Roy, these come from the Continental congress, the very Founders who wrote the DoI and signed to DoI!

[Roy]

Sheesh Roy, these come from the Continental congress, the very Founders who wrote the DoI and signed to DoI!

Then explain why they refer specifically to Jesus and the DoI does not.

[Roy]

Yes, because when Christians refer to "God", they must be referring to a generic god rather than the Christian God, right? Right?

Sometimes they are.

You still haven't cited a passage in the DoI which refers specifically or explicitly to the Xtian god. You can't, because there isn't one. Yet you will never, ever admit it.

[seer]

Then explain why they refer specifically to Jesus and the DoI does not.

Why does it have to, to be the God of the bible? The very men we are speaking of did reference Christ in official Proclamations. So they were speaking of two different Gods? One in the DoI and one in the Proclamations? Sorry Roy, that doesn't make sense.

[Sparko]

Why does it have to, to be the God of the bible? The very men we are speaking of did reference Christ in official Proclamations. So they were speaking of two different Gods? One in the DoI and one in the Proclamations? Sorry Roy, that doesn't make sense.

This is Roy picking nits and splitting hairs to avoid admitting he is wrong. It's what he does.

[seer]

This is Roy picking nits and splitting hairs to avoid admitting he is wrong. It's what he does.

Say it ain't so Joe!

[Roy]

This is Roy picking nits and splitting hairs to avoid admitting he is wrong. It's what he does.

If I'm wrong, then you should be able to show me a specific reference to the God of Christianity in the Declaration of Independence.

Anything else is confirmation that I'm right when I say that there isn't one, and that the Xtians here, you included, are more than willing to sacrifice truth in favour of fellowship.

As for your claim that I'm nit-picking to avoid admitting I'm wrong, that's just your own excuse for not admitting that I'm actually right. You even stated that there wasn't a specific reference to the god of Xtianity (because no specific reference was needed), only an implicit one based on the culture of the time, but you are still balking at conceding that I was right about that clear and obvious fact. You could even have said that I was right, but it doesn't really matter. Instead you've chosen to back up your fellow Xtians in falsehood.

Unless some-one - anyone - either cites a specific reference to the God of Xtianity or admits there isn't one, I'm done here. I've stated many times what would prove me wrong, and no-one has done it. MM is right about beating my head against a wall, but the wall is impenetrable theistic intransigence.