"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence

[Huram Abi]

It does, however, state that George Washington intended to have them learn of Jesus Christ in efforts for peace, like I posted before.

They had already learned of Jesus Christ. He suggested that they continue to do so, but that doesn't speak for his intentions. His intentions, as he stated, were to keep the peace and the letter shows no indication that his preference was for them to learn Christianity specifically, except that they were already in the process.

 

[CTD]

They had already learned of Jesus Christ. He suggested that they continue to do so, but that doesn't speak for his intentions. His intentions, as he stated, were to keep the peace and the letter shows no indication that his preference was for them to learn Christianity specifically, except that they were already in the process.

No indication?

Well, none except for George Washington's very own words, in both literary and situational context!


But beyond that... no. We cannot travel back in time and read the man's heart, we cannot prove he was not disingenuous.

We do have recourse to more of his words, however

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.... Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." - G. Washington, 1796

We may also note the absence of evidence for the contention that he was disingenuous. We may be satisfied that if the situation may arise where contemporary character witness testimony is presented against him, there shall be an overwhelming abundance of such testimony in his favour.

 

[CTD]

They had already learned of Jesus Christ. He suggested that they continue to do so, but that doesn't speak for his intentions. His intentions, as he stated, were to keep the peace and the letter shows no indication that his preference was for them to learn Christianity specifically, except that they were already in the process.

Your speil is self-defeating. You rely upon the unstated presupposition (if one were to attempt to come close to the conclusion you desire) that a man may have but one intention. ...Yet you yourself employ the plural form 'intentions'.

You present a good reason for them to learn Christianity, of which he was aware, but your case rests upon one holding the unreasonable view that Washington (not you or I) believed there to be no other reason.

Yes, one might imagine a lying atheist saying such things in the situation. So what? We have no evidence that Washington was indeed such a lying atheist, and abundant evidence to the contrary.

If you try, it's not really difficult to distinguish between things that have been proven, and things you wish. When you understand how to do this, you should understand why you have the burden of proof.

 

[Huram Abi]

Your speil is self-defeating. You rely upon the unstated presupposition (if one were to attempt to come close to the conclusion you desire) that a man may have but one intention. ...Yet you yourself employ the plural form 'intentions'.

You present a good reason for them to learn Christianity, of which he was aware, but your case rests upon one holding the unreasonable view that Washington (not you or I) believed there to be no other reason.

If you try, it's not really difficult to distinguish between things that have been proven, and things you wish. When you understand how to do this, you should understand why you have the burden of proof.

The entire point was that someone tried to put the context of what he had written regarding the Delaware Indians in a broader scope than his intention.

I dispute that claim. I have no burden of proof, but I can still supply evidecne that will demonstrate the claim to be wrong.


There is no presupposition. It is "unstated," as you claim, because you drew that from somewhere. I didn't imply that a man can only have one intention and I don't feel it necessary that I should now defend this strawman.

However, I can remain confident that, unless he plainly states other intentions besides the one that he gave, we shouldn't assume another intention for our own purposes.

Lets simply take the man at his word. I believe that if he had another intention that would be relevant to the common American in this regard, he would have included it. He did not.

 

[CTD]

I dispute that claim. I have no burden of proof,

They never do...

There is no presupposition. It is "unstated," as you claim, because you drew that from somewhere. I didn't imply that a man can only have one intention and I don't feel it necessary that I should now defend this strawman.

Well see the deal there is that you need to compel the acceptance of your conclusion from your premises. Without the unstated presupposition, your conclusion does not logically follow.

Washington's motive was x
Therefore Washington's motive was not y

That's the form of your argument. Now what you need is a premise precluding Washington from having motives x and y.

However, I can remain confident that, unless he plainly states other intentions besides the one that he gave, we shouldn't assume another intention for our own purposes.

Lets simply take the man at his word.

I agree. No attempt to suggest ulterior motives is likely to prosper at this time.

I believe that if he had another intention that would be relevant to the common American in this regard, he would have included it. He did not.

I don't much get that part. Whatever...

 

[Huram Abi]

Washington's motive was x
Therefore Washington's motive was not y

That's the form of your argument. Now what you need is a premise precluding Washington from having motives x and y.

No, actually, it isn't.

The form of my argument is this:

Washington gives x as his motive
There is no compelling reason to assume any other motive beyond x.

I need no presupposition to maintain this position and freely admit that he could have had other motivators. We simply shouldn't assert other possible motivations as actual factors to his decision unless clearly demonstrated.


Can you follow that this conclusion is logical now?

 

[CTD]

No, actually, it isn't.

The form of my argument is this:

Washington gives x as his motive
There is no compelling reason to assume any other motive beyond x.

I need no presupposition to maintain this position and freely admit that he could have had other motivators. We simply shouldn't assert other possible motivations as actual factors to his decision unless clearly demonstrated.


Can you follow that this conclusion is logical now?

Oh, well see I was thinking you were trying to discredit the quotation, and convince folks Washington didn't mean the words he spoke. You seem to have shifted positions without notifying us.

If we can take Washington at his word, what's left? Here it is again (retaining previously added bold):

Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open the Arms of love to them, and will look upon them as their own Children, and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations to the end of time, and to become One people with your Brethren of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it.

We understand that he wasn't speaking on behalf of the congress, and he desires peace with these Indians. Your additional quote, if genuine (I haven't felt it necessary to check) informs us that he did not trust these Indians and he would have preferred not to speak with them.

If the "ulterior motive" issue is gone, I have no idea what you might be arguing at this point, so I think it best to wait and see.

 

[CTD]

While we're in the neighborhood, how about a quick, easy defeater for the title claim of the thread?

Before Whose alter did Thomas Jefferson claim to have sworn eternal enmity against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man?

 

[Huram Abi]

No, I've maintained the same position. I simply wanted the quotation put into context.

And though I am still arguing the same thing, you say you have no idea what it is. So, let me reiterate:

Washington gives x as his motive
There is no compelling reason to assume any other motive beyond x.
Therefore, let us consider all his comments were made in regard to x.

And the point to all this is to address someguy14's claim that "(America) should have kept Christian qualities as George Washington intended."

So we cut to his actual intention regarding the quote on which someguy14 had based his assertion. We learn this from this other letter to Congress where he puts it plainly: "it appeared to me to be our present policy at least to conciliate; and in this spirit my answer was conceived."

Within the scope of his encouragement to these Indians, then, we must consider all his comments, including those on the learning of the religion of Jesus Christ, as part of that appeasement while at the same time remembering to acknowledge just to whom his statements were made: the Delaware Nation.

And in that, I believe I have established enough support to accurately say that someguy14's supplied quotation does not confirm his claim that George Washington intended for America to keep Christian qualities.

I hope you will agree that this is a fair assessment.

 

[CTD]

No, I've maintained the same position. I simply wanted the quotation put into context.

Oh, well I see my idea of maintaining the same position differs from yours.

At the very least, we gather that George Washington was aware that Christianity is a peaceful way of bringing people's together and maintaining peace, regardless of assumed accusations that George Washington may have had ulterior motives for the discussion.

Accusations? He admits as much.

Seems to be one position.

Lets simply take the man at his word. I believe that if he had another intention that would be relevant to the common American in this regard, he would have included it. He did not.

Seems another.

And in that, I believe I have established enough support to accurately say that someguy14's supplied quotation does not confirm his claim that George Washington intended for America to keep Christian qualities.

I hope you will agree that this is a fair assessment.

Huh? Oh my! Did you really fear he'd established that? He presented a quote very consistent with it, but not one which fully demonstrated it.

No, to demonstrate that point conclusively would entail dipping a little further into the history.

"If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God."- G. Washington stated to delegates to the Constitutional Convention

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure my self that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence." - Inaugural address of George Washington, 1789

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; etc.
- George Washington - AD 1789

I must say I find it remarkable that you would challenge the premise Washington intended America to be a Christian nation. I know there's some antihistory floating about, but one would have to be void in knowledge of actual history to buy into it overly much. The internet is the internet; liars will lie if they think they can get away with it. The Atheism-Я-Us hate sites are not the first and last place one should visit.

 

[lindart]

CTD, well done! Please tell me that your calling is to use your God given gift of intelligence and the written word to defend God's truth against those whose agenda is to write God out of 'HIStory'!

Again, well done!

 

[Huram Abi]

Check again. It's the same position.

I'm challenging the specific evidence provided for the claim, which clearly wasn't consistent with the claim.

If you have any consistent evidence that Washington intended America to be a Christian nation, I will be glad to hear it. As far as anyone providing this evidence either now or before the internet was created, I am not aware of it happening.

Here's something you should not at all be surprised about-

My personal feelings are that Washington was a deeply religious man with a great devotion to God. The quotes you provided can attest to that.

As to the divinity of Christ, I am unconvinced that this was his conviction, but it really doesn't matter if it was or if he followed the same Deist notions as his contemporaries and fellows in Freemasonry. Where is the explicit expression of a desire for the nation to be Christian, specifically?

Whatever antihistory or atheism sites you are talking about are not relevant here, because my opinion was not formed there and this belief of mine can be undone simply by showing such an endorsement for a Christian nation. And for that purpose, for obvious reasons this Delaware circumstance simply cannot be counted.

 

[CTD]

CTD, well done! Please tell me that your calling is to use your God given gift of intelligence and the written word to defend God's truth against those whose agenda is to write God out of 'HIStory'!

Again, well done!

Absotively!

It not sufficient for an American apologist to restrict himself to defending the Gospel these days; we must also defend its fruit: the American way. There are but two major targets in all the world which no evil ignores: Israel and America.

The God-America connection isn't well-understood, but it is very real and very, very serious. Few Americans realize how many enemies we have, and how extremely dedicated they are to sinking us. They understand the enmity better than the typical American Christian (although both Americans and our enemies almost universally get by with an intuitive rather than intellectual understanding.)

S'pose we should exchange some PM's if there's anything further needs to be said.

 

[CTD]

Check again. It's the same position.

I'm challenging the specific evidence provided for the claim, which clearly wasn't consistent with the claim.

If you have any consistent evidence that Washington intended America to be a Christian nation, I will be glad to hear it. As far as anyone providing this evidence either now or before the internet was created, I am not aware of it happening.

Here's something you should not at all be surprised about-

My personal feelings are that Washington was a deeply religious man with a great devotion to God. The quotes you provided can attest to that.

As to the divinity of Christ, I am unconvinced that this was his conviction, but it really doesn't matter if it was or if he followed the same Deist notions as his contemporaries and fellows in Freemasonry. Where is the explicit expression of a desire for the nation to be Christian, specifically?

Whatever antihistory or atheism sites you are talking about are not relevant here, because my opinion was not formed there and this belief of mine can be undone simply by showing such an endorsement for a Christian nation. And for that purpose, for obvious reasons this Delaware circumstance simply cannot be counted.

Well the whole Freemason deal is way distorted. No doubt the symbols are to be found in the layout of Washington D.C.

GW's participation, however, is more speculation than fact. He joined and attended something like one or two meetings and never attended any more. That's consistent with an honest man not caring for their teachings much more than it is with a grand conspirator.

I don't question honourable men without cause, and Washington "deist" nonsense simply relies on one choosing to believe him deceitful. Know what? I can do that with anyone. It's even easier in the past. Name a pope I can't choose to believe was secretly an atheist. Such methods are not employed in honest research.

I don't have to prove Washington's membership and church attendance were not fraudulent. The burden lies on the person making up the fantasy. This is contrary to the teaching of evolutionism, but it's reality. The events of the past are what count - not what one can just up'n say. Legitimate history is not vulnerable to ad hoc speculation.

 

[Huram Abi]

Well the whole Freemason deal is way distorted. No doubt the symbols are to be found in the layout of Washington D.C.

GW's participation, however, is more speculation than fact. He joined and attended something like one or two meetings and never attended any more. That's consistent with an honest man not caring for their teachings much more than it is with a grand conspirator.

I don't question honourable men without cause, and Washington "deist" nonsense simply relies on one choosing to believe him deceitful. Know what? I can do that with anyone. It's even easier in the past. Name a pope I can't choose to believe was secretly an atheist. Such methods are not employed in honest research.

I don't have to prove Washington's membership and church attendance were not fraudulent. The burden lies on the person making up the fantasy. This is contrary to the teaching of evolutionism, but it's reality. The events of the past are what count - not what one can just up'n say. Legitimate history is not vulnerable to ad hoc speculation.

I am compelled to point out that one doesn't become nominated for Grand Mastership of the Independent Grand Lodge by attending only 2 or 3 meetings and never going to any more. Nor is one presented with Masonic Aprons of higher degrees if they have not earned those degrees. His participation is certainly substantiated.

Beyond your revisionist claims regarding Washington's association with the freemasons, I am going to assume your response indicates a "No, I don't have any evidence that says Washington wanted America to be a Christian nation."

 

[cupid dave]

Absotively!

It not sufficient for an American apologist to restrict himself to defending the Gospel these days; we must also defend its fruit: the American way. There are but two major targets in all the world which no evil ignores: Israel and America.

The God-America connection isn't well-understood, but it is very real and very, very serious. Few Americans realize how many enemies we have, and how extremely dedicated they are to sinking us. They understand the enmity better than the typical American Christian (although both Americans and our enemies almost universally get by with an intuitive rather than intellectual understanding.)

S'pose we should exchange some PM's if there's anything further needs to be said.

You are right.

But the worst enemy America has is the feminist Matriarchy that is pushing sexual promiscuity to the point of destruction.

Religion = sexual restraint.
Atheism = sexual deviance and promiscuity.

The nation now has half of all families headed by a Single Mother who is raising anti-social fatherless kids.


Check the Stats and see that 75% of the fatherless kids end up as social problems.

 

[Belk]

You are right.

But the worst enemy America has is the feminist Matriarchy that is pushing sexual promiscuity to the point of destruction.

Yes. It is all the fault of those darn women running around. The men are of course blameless.

Religion = sexual restraint.
Atheism = sexual deviance and promiscuity.

Huh. And yet oddly enough I am a monogamous atheist. Must be the fact that I am not a true atheist.

The nation now has half of all families headed by a Single Mother who is raising anti-social fatherless kids.


Check the Stats and see that 75% of the fatherless kids end up as social problems.

That sounds like a good idea. Go ahead and show us these "Stats" you are citing.

 

[CTD]

Closet Scoffer

I am compelled to point out that one doesn't become nominated for Grand Mastership of the Independent Grand Lodge by attending only 2 or 3 meetings and never going to any more. Nor is one presented with Masonic Aprons of higher degrees if they have not earned those degrees. His participation is certainly substantiated.

Beyond your revisionist claims regarding Washington's association with the freemasons,

Revising revision is revisionist? Whatever...

I am going to assume your response indicates a "No, I don't have any evidence that says Washington wanted America to be a Christian nation."

Well, if people remain unconvinced after seeing the evidence, what am I to do?

Sure I can present more

"Dollars and one third pr month -- The Colonels or commanding officers of each regiment are directed to procure Chaplains accordingly; persons of good Characters and exemplary lives -- To see that all inferior officers and soldiers pay them a suitable respect and attend carefully upon religious exercises. The blessing and protection of Heaven are at all times necessary but especially so in times of public distress and danger -- The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavour so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country." - Order of General Washington, New York, July 9, 1776

and more

“All chaplains are to perform divine service tomorrow, and on every succeeding Sunday. . . . The commander in chief expects an exact compliance with this order, and that it be observed in future as an invariable rule of practice—and every neglect will be consider not only a breach of orders, but a disregard to decency, virtue and religion.” - Order of General Washington

but to what end?

The move to revise George Washington is not new. I do not commit to debunk it to your satisfaction, or anyone else's. I maintain that the available evidence supports my position, and I am not afraid of those who cannot resist the temptation to say otherwise.

For the curious, here are a couple of links. They're not too lengthy - just nice starting points.

The Christian Soldier | The Modern Knight

George Washington and Religion - Probe Ministries

Why now should I not conclude I'm finished? Your capacity for contrariness I acknowledge, so what more might remain?

 

[Jazer]

But the worst enemy America has is the feminist Matriarchy that is pushing sexual promiscuity to the point of destruction.

The problem is the supreme court allows our young people to be exposed to that corruption on the internet. (They struck down the Child protection act 1984) If it were not for the vote of one person this world would be a very different place today.

 

[someguy14]

You love asking questions but you hate answering them, why is that?

He has answered. It is then your responsibility to believe the answers given or reject them. Some are asking for proof that God exists and still ignore the fact that it is all around them. Trees growing. How many purposes does a tree have...many many. Shelter. Wood for building. Fruits for food, sap. On and on. This is obviously intelligent design. Do I want to force that fact on another, no. Is it obvious for all to witness, yes.