Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So again, as in the OP, we find that Washington was a great politician who understood the influential value of feigned piety. It is fascinating that his only mention of Jesus Christ in any of his writings turns out to have been pious flattery which he chose to "couch it in general but friendly terms."
NM, I found the source. When I read it, I will reply
Ok read it, again... you must use speculation and assumption to suggest that. This isn't support that he was not a Christian, but by the circumstantial evidence alone, it is better weighted that he was. The quotation is not fake, It is even in your sources as such. The site you linked attempts to "speculate" as you do now that it is simply a politicians words. More "questions" of the evidence, but no answers to lead to your conclusion. The entire position operates within the bounds of fallacious reasoning.
Again, you are using a failed philosophical principal to argue your position.
That is, you are focusing on the absence of all absolute understanding to suggest that he may not. There is no other reason for applying such process. The whole point of "we do not know absolutely" is to force the opposing position to require an absolute proof to avoid having to consider the circumstantial evidence that is in support. This is a fallacy.
In matters such as this, where a definitive can not be obtained, then a circumstantial support is to be considered through weight of the evidence. The support for him being so is apparent as was discussed and cited. The support for him not being so is based on "pure" speculation at odds with what is reasonably evident.
I am declaring an absolute, this is the fallacy of your position demanding such of my conclusion. I need only find reasonable support and there is ample support for this without pure speculation under reasonable assessment. Your position requires stepping outside of reasonable or common belief to assess a position that is highly speculative and founded on nothing but finding holes and filling them with assumptions.
The point is, you use "we can not know for sure" to invalidate that which is known in reason. Its an old failed eastern philosophical approach.
NO, I'm not focusing on the absence of absolute understanding to suggest that he may not. I'm focusing on the available materials that would be the best indicators of his beliefs, and that those materials are voluminous, and yet in all those voluminous materials he studiously avoids mentioning Christ, and never publicly commits himself to being a Christian.
You are free to believe he was a Christian. Your beliefs are your own business. His beliefs were his business. And he preferred not to share them. And I'm defending that.
You're position requires that you and others can state absolutely a position, without absolute proof of that position. My position, that we don't know, is the reasonable position. Your position is the irrational one.
NO, I'm not focusing on the absence of absolute understanding to suggest that he may not. I'm focusing on the available materials that would be the best indicators of his beliefs, and that those materials are voluminous, and yet in all those voluminous materials he studiously avoids mentioning Christ, and never publicly commits himself to being a Christian.
You are free to believe he was a Christian. Your beliefs are your own business. His beliefs were his business. And he preferred not to share them. And I'm defending that.
You're position requires that you and others can state absolutely a position, without absolute proof of that position. My position, that we don't know, is the reasonable position. Your position is the irrational one.
Support your position. I ask yet a second time. The lack of mention directly of Christ (other than is response I cited encouraging the teachings of Jesus Christ) is not evidence of anything. Especially when we have evidence of his attendance and accounts by those close to him.
Your premise is that he didn't attend church enough (what number is appropriate to attend?) and you contest the accounts by those who speak of him by picking at details in order to bring doubt. The bulk of your position then leans on the fact that he doesn't specifically mention Christ in his writings.
Its a grasping at straws argument, one that positions itself based on its inserting of doubt using weak points to proclaim an alternate conclusion.
It is reasonable to assume he was a Christian, it is unreasonable to speculate in the manner you present that he was not.
Then cite the references as context is a common misleading result to the issue here.
Nonsense. It is instead the explicit presentation to you of the tool that you could use to contradict my assertion, were it untrue. I have given you the figures and the source. Go count for yourself if you do not believe me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Also, we are talking about simply attendance, yet how does this extend to "He was not a Christian" as a conclusion? The numerous citations of evidence is the accounts of him praying, the accounts of his attention, devotion and continued attendance to Church. His invlovement in such and the accounts by those close to him.
The point of the reference is that it proves that "the accounts of his attention, devotion and continued attendance to Church" are directly contradicted by his own account. It shows yet again the level of pious fraud that populates the "evidence" trotted out by those who argue that Washington was a Christian.
You will find no similar fabrications, falsehoods or forgeries among the arguments of those who argue otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
The position that he was not rests in extreme speculation and requires extensive twisting to result in such a conclusion. The basis of him being a christian is supported, the claim that he was not tries to dismiss that which was obvious in order to obtain a more complex position of support which honestly relies far more on assumptive interpretation.
Extensive twisting? You mean like the lie of his prayer in the woods at Valley Forge? Or the lie of his "last words" being religious in nature? The lie of his commonly taking communion or never missing church for reasons other than weather or illness? The lie of the Indian chief's prophecy, or his uniquely miraculous survival during the Battle of the Monongahela?
That kind of twisting?
If what we are trying to dismiss is so "obvious" why do you guys have to lie about it and we don't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
You contest a witness account by his adopted daughter who was very close to him and you do so by speculating concerning intent, meaning, etc.... all that is as close to the source accounts are pushed aside to dictate meaning from "words" as to meaning.
Nonsense. I contest the account by his adopted daughter because his own account contradicts her.
And you appear to be running away from that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Honestly, if you are going to argue the case, please provide the specific quotes and citations to their original sources and use those quotes to make your position. For context is the true position for a case in these issues, not simply "words" to which may be manipulated freely as to intent and purpose.
This is a profoundly dumb request. It is a only deeply flawed reasoning that would suggest my listing of particular days that Washington attended church would be evidence that he attended on no other days. "Proving a negative" is one of the better known logical fallacies, accounting for its popularity among the deeply religious.
I have instead provided you a link to the diaries and given you the exact count of the number of times he attended church in each of those years. If you do not believe the counts to be accurate, you have all the tools necessary to quickly and expeditiously prove me wrong. I will wait with bated breath while you fulfill your rhetorical obligation and do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Your position of "days spent" in church does not explain "why" church was missed, nor does the case of him not attending a certain number of time make the case he was not Christian (what magic number is required for one to be a Christian? Also, by what requirements of the faith is it to be a Christian?). For a persons faith and belief is not defined by their attendance.
It was not meant to. It was meant to disprove a particular piece of evidence used by Christians to assert that Washington was one of them. As we have seen, that Christian evidence is proved false. Were it not, you would probably feel no urge to release the red herring that populate your response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
We do know.... He did attend by accounts and was active within the foundations and direction of the churches.
I challenge you to justify the characterization of Washington as "active within the foundations and direction of the churches." In Virginia, the Vestryman's office (the only one that Washington appears to have held with the church) was also political. The vestry managed the civil affairs of the parish, among others, the assessment of taxes. Being the largest property holder in the parish, Washington could hardly afford not to be a vestryman, which office he would have to hold before he could become a member of the House of Burgesses. Thomas Jefferson, a pronounced unbeliever, was also a vestryman, and for the same reasons. General A.W. Greeley once said, in 'The Ladies Home Journal,' that in that day "it required no more religion to be a vestryman than it did to sail a ship." It is remarkable, after the civil functions of the vestry were abolished in Virginia, in 1780, how few times Washington attended church. He no longer had a business reason for going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
There are multiple accounts of his character concerning such by those closest to him. Now you can certainly speculate as to his minds eye, pick apart words and place context to your choosing, but in the end, the evidence supports that he was and only by extreme speculation of intent can you say otherwise. That is, the evidence that he is not is simply guessing in the face of what is known plainly and accounted by witness.
He was certainly of excellent and remarkable character. What about that would you find particularly "Christian?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Personally, I will take the accounts of those close to him such as Nelly's account over pretentious historians who think that they have any clue as to someones internal thoughts and are often motivated by a personal desire for their speculation to be truth to sustain their political motivations concerning this country and its relation to Christianity.
And personally, I will take his account over that of his adopted daughter.
If you believe I have misrepresented his account, please show me.
Ok read it, again... you must use speculation and assumption to suggest that. This isn't support that he was not a Christian, but by the circumstantial evidence alone, it is better weighted that he was.
First off, you persist in arguing against straw men. No one has suggested that this is evidence that "he was not a Christian." It is instead a rebuttal to the claim that this quotation represents a demonstration of his own Christian belief. The context shows that instead he was providing a polite and ambiguous response to a demand by the Delaware chiefs, and acknowledging their testimony of belief, not making his own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
The quotation is not fake, It is even in your sources as such.
Had you read the source more carefully, you would have noted that it does not declare the quotation a fake. It points out instead that it is the origin for a different "quotation" that is in fact fake.
Support your position. I ask yet a second time. The lack of mention directly of Christ (other than is response I cited encouraging the teachings of Jesus Christ) is not evidence of anything. Especially when we have evidence of his attendance and accounts by those close to him.
Your premise is that he didn't attend church enough (what number is appropriate to attend?) and you contest the accounts by those who speak of him by picking at details in order to bring doubt. The bulk of your position then leans on the fact that he doesn't specifically mention Christ in his writings.
Its a grasping at straws argument, one that positions itself based on its inserting of doubt using weak points to proclaim an alternate conclusion.
It is reasonable to assume he was a Christian, it is unreasonable to speculate in the manner you present that he was not.
It is reasonable to assume he was a Christian. It is unreasonable to absolutely assert that he was a Christian and could not be anything but a Christian based on the evidence. It is unreasonable to assert absolutely that he was a Christian, and then to use that assertion as support about the intentions of the Founding Fathers. Which is basically the reason why so many people want to assert absolutely that he was a Christian, couldn't have been anything but a Christian.
You want me to prove a negative, a logical impossibility. And then when I don't perform a logical impossibility, you call me the unreasonable one. That's funny!
Even if this is true (and I have no obvious reason to believe that it is), what would that matter?
It is absolutely in the version that was signed by President Adams and ratified by the Congress.
I wasn't going to talk to you, because I told you are weird. But what this shows is how some people will look through a small scope while others will use a much broader one. Adams wanted to save lives, not mix with words in order to get that accomplished. He didn't have any more time to waist on the matter, urgency is at its up most high as thousands were being brutally enslave, killed and this activity had been going on for a long, long time. He needed the royal navy support and he needed it yesterday.
Seriously I do not know what was up with the Joe Barlow, translator dude that thought, what?, this would be funny to insert the article 11. Could he not read, or did he have his own agenda? Also, if it wasn't in the Arabic version, did the Algerians take it out? (others that do not believe to this day American not a Christian nation)
I told you, I love a good mystery and this one, has me scratching my head.
Do you argue that President Jefferson was in error when he coined the phrase?
No more in error there as he was when he expressed his view on the corruption of Christianity (organization).
The difference between you and I is that I have heard the Lord's voice 4 times in my life. Each time was to give to me an insight (heads up) about something that was relevant to me and only me. I'm not a church goer.
I have no doubt and neither did the founding fathers of this nation. They had nothing to prove, either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
