• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You love asking questions but you hate answering them, why is that?
It is untrue. I enjoy answering questions. It is one of my chief pleasures.

I also enjoy studying evolutionism, and other systematic deceptions. I find absurdities amusing, apparently more than the average man, and I especially enjoy seeing the arrogant who think themselves "elite" reduced to feigning stupidity. It may not sound "nice", but I think everyone likes those situations at least a little.

And "nice" or not, it may be their only hope. Continue feeding their inflated image of themselves, and how are they to realize how false it really is, how tiny they have become? It is not love to tell a filthy flea he's a magnificent elephant.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Then you should try it sometime, why don't you start with this:
So at what point did the descendent's of Noah start to change to look like Chinese, Nigerians and Swedes?
I don't believe such a point exists. The Chinese, Nigerians and Swedes would seem to have traveled along different vectors.
I think you mean 'evolution and other systematic deceptions'.
Well you think incorrectly. I have a great deal of respect for the conventions of the English language.
However you are still unable to tell us why they are 'systematic deceptions' all you can do is tell us they are.
I am?

Well, now that you mention it, I am unable to tell you anything. Thanks for making that so abundantly clear.
 
Upvote 0
H

Huram Abi

Guest
george-washington-prayer-valley-forge-300x213.jpg


Closet Scoffer

Revising revision is revisionist? Whatever...


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

Sure I can present more

and more

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?


Just what are you trying to support with these?

That Washington wasn't a Freemason? You've failed.

That Washington endorsed Christianity above other religions? You've failed again.

This is one letter of hundreds, and the subject was regarding to appointment of chaplains, so the discussion of Christian soldiers was inevitable. That he mentioned them is not relevant to whether he intended for all America to be a Christian nation.

His feelings towards the imposition of one faith or another become apparent, just a year later, when Congress proposed to appoint chaplains at brigade level. His opposition was made clear:

"and in many instances would compel men to a mode of Worship which they do not profess. The old Establishment gives every Regiment an Opportunity of having a Chaplain of their own religious Sentiments, it is founded on a plan of a more generous toleration, and the choice of the Chaplains to officiate, has been generally in the Regiments."
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Just what are you trying to support with these?
The truth. In my own honest opinion I have been very successful and you have utterly failed, as must the entire campaign to assassinate George Washington's character. I do not deem it wise to pretend otherwise.
 
Upvote 0
H

Huram Abi

Guest
Assassinate George Washington's character?

How so?

By being honest enough to acknowledge there is nowhere in his extant writings that he calls Jesus his god?

I make no commentary on his character by saying that we do not have a definitive case to say that he certainly was a Christian.

I find it extremely naive for anyone to imply that one cannot have good or even great moral character and serve a noble cause if one does not profess to worship Jesus Christ.

Let the man's deeds speak to the sort of man he was and we will see if he is worthy. As I am willing to do that, you must stop pretending that there IS a campaign to assassinate his character here.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Assassinate George Washington's character?

How so?

By being honest enough to acknowledge there is nowhere in his extant writings that he calls Jesus his god?

I make no commentary on his character by saying that we do not have a definitive case to say that he certainly was a Christian.
Deductive logic permits but two conclusions.

Washington was a member of a Christian church. Either
1 He was a Christian
or
2 He was deceitful

To claim he was deceitful without evidence is character assassination. A man is innocent until proven guilty. There is no evidence of guilt, and abundant evidence of innocence in this case, far more than I have presented, or even my links. More than most of us have time to conveniently peruse.

...And no need for any until we see evidence of deceit (on Washington's part.)

The astute will note the persistence - not only in attacking Washington, but in changing, changing, changing the claims against him, until building up to this one; the continual misplacement of burdens of proof; attempts to convince people the longest accepted, most widely-known history is false and poorly-devised revisions of anti-American, anti-God non-scholars are the default.

Further considerations: had Washington not been a Christian, would he be so attacked? Had he not led a long and well-documented life fully consistent with his beliefs, would we see this?

Actions speak louder than words.
Let the man's deeds speak to the sort of man he was and we will see if he is worthy.
Already done, and no American or honest resident of less privileged lands shall turn back.
As I am willing to do that, you must stop pretending that there IS a campaign to assassinate his character here.
We've witness what you're willing to do - some of it at least. I bid you repentance, and if you decline that, nothing but failure.

Your target, once again:

george-washington-prayer-valley-forge-300x213.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Deductive logic permits but two conclusions.

Washington was a member of a Christian church. Either
1 He was a Christian
or
2 He was deceitful
There is a third option. In that time if you wished to be a person of influence you joined the dominant church. As is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence." George Washington did the same.

When Washington traveled, he never missed a service. He would visit all different manner of churches. Catholic, Anglican even Quaker. In Philadelphia , the Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church, related a story in which Washington said he was never a communicant. Washington regularly left services before communion, along with the other non-communicants. When Abercrombie mentioned in a weekly sermon that those in elevated stations set an unhappy example by leaving at communion, Washington completely stopped attending on communion Sundays (communion was not celebrated every week in the Episcopal Church at that time). Long after Washington died, when asked about Washington's beliefs, Abercrombie replied: "Sir, Washington was a Deist!" Nonetheless, at the time it was not uncommon for churchgoers to pass on participating in communion.

On February 1, 1800, a few weeks after Washington's death, Thomas Jefferson made the following entry in his journal, regarding an incident on the occasion of Washington's departure from office:

"Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed Genl. Washington on his departure from the govmt, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Xn religion and they thot they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However he observed the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the states when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion. "I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did."

To claim he was deceitful without evidence is character assassination. A man is innocent until proven guilty. There is no evidence of guilt, and abundant evidence of innocence in this case, far more than I have presented, or even my links. More than most of us have time to conveniently peruse.
It is not guilt. It is simply the way men behaved in that day and age. You attended church for one of two reasons, faith or social standing. Neither was frowned upon.

The astute will note the persistence - not only in attacking Washington, but in changing, changing, changing the claims against him, until building up to this one; the continual misplacement of burdens of proof; attempts to convince people the longest accepted, most widely-known history is false and poorly-devised revisions of anti-American, anti-God non-scholars are the default.
Nobody is attacking Washington. These are the facts. He was tolerant to a fault of everyone's beliefs. He insisted that everyone be given the chance to believe what they wished. And he believed in a "grand architect" of the universe. Reverence for other's beliefs and holding them yourself are two entirely different things. I don't see evidence for George Washington being a Christian. I see evidence for Washington respecting Christianity.

Further considerations: had Washington not been a Christian, would he be so attacked? Had he not led a long and well-documented life fully consistent with his beliefs, would we see this?
He is not being attacked.

Your target, once again:

george-washington-prayer-valley-forge-300x213.jpg
Really? And I suppose you believe he really cut down a cherry tree too.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
There is a third option. In that time if you wished to be a person of influence you joined the dominant church. As is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence." George Washington did the same.
But that would be deceit, for Washington never disclosed his imagined disbelief. Law of non contradiction: disclosing and not disclosing are not the same thing.

You also misrepresent Jefferson. He claimed to be a Christian, and atheist would surely consider him one had he murdered even half a million. They want to claim him, but he was actually born one day too late.



Nobody is attacking Washington.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands are attacking Washington and others for various motives. Under non-moral systems, lying is not a sin. According to Christianity it is.

You may disregard the evidence I've presented. Your reputation will fall with some and rise with others. Probably not dramatically.

He is not being attacked.
^_^


Your target, once again:
george-washington-prayer-valley-forge-300x213.jpg
Really? And I suppose you believe he really cut down a cherry tree too.
I believe what the evidence indicates.

There is no evidence - none beyond 3rd hand hearsay and speculation - that Washington was not what all the good, solid evidence indicates he was.

You have a burden of proof to meet, if anyone is even to question the issue. We all know you have no hope.

What did you bring? Review it, people. One man claiming another man said he was a Deist. Mind you he didn't say Washington himself claimed to be a Deist - no. We have nothing more, no basis for the conclusion.

What else? He attended church often, just like other phonies. Mighty suspicious, that. But if you stop to think about it, it's circumstantial evidence at most that he was a scoffer.

"Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that..."
No comment. It speaks for itself.

"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did."

So the man presenting the story says it comes from a pretender, and the pretender is himself an alleged scoffer claiming Washington as one of his own. Hmmm... Sound familiar? Are not scoffers claiming Washington to this day?

We know some of the things Washington said and did. We know more than enough to convict him of being a Christian in the very same sense that we consider friends and neighbors Christians routinely.

The painting above was inspired by events, some say


In the freezing winter of 1777, General Washington was burdened with the lack of supplies for his troops camped at Valley Forge, as well as the overwhelming superiority of the British forces. Soldiers died at the rate of 12 per day, with many not ever having blankets or shoes. General Washington recorded that the men were without clothes to cover them, blankets for sleeping, or shoes to protect their feet from the snow. Their routes could be traced by the blood from their feet visible in the snow. A Committee from Congress likewise reported on the condition of the troops, “feet and legs froze till they became black, and it was often necessary to amputate them.” These conditions caused General Washington to seek divine assistance. The famous account of Washington’s prayer for the nation was given by a Quaker, Isaac Potts, who chanced upon Washington praying in the snow as Potts was riding through the woods on his land. Potts’ land was the temporary location for the weary troops who were camping at Valley Forge. At the moment when Potts, concealed by the trees, came upon Washington, he heard the General interceding for his beloved country. He was thanking God also for taking Washington from the ‘depth of obscurity and exalting him to the head of a great nation’ and interceding for that nation fighting at fearful odds for all the world holds dear….. Upon returning home, his wife noted that Potts appeared to have something heavy on his heart. She inquired what was troubling him. Remember that Quakers are pacifists. Potts responded to his wife’s question in this way, “I have seen this day what I shall never forget. Till now I have thought that a Christian and a soldier were characters incompatible; but if George Washington be not a man of God, I am mistaken, and still more shall I be disappointed if God does not through him perform some great thing for this country.” (taken from AMERICA’S GOD AND COUNTRY, William J. Federer, Fame Publishing, Coppell, TX, 1994, p.640-641).
Now it is also said the story is false. So then, let those who care investigate. Weigh the evidence, and come to a conclusion.

Those not quite ready to go that far might note that New World Encyclopedia reports on that and another story of Washington in prayer without any caveat.



Washington, George

People do not act without motives, and whatever conspiracy theory may have been invented to explain it away... Well, I'm confident someone can C & P from the Atheism-Я-Us sites.

What I doubt they can C & P is any plausible evostory regarding this:

I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection; that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for brethren who have served in the field; and finally that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.
Then again, half of 'em may not see what needs to be explained away...
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I see no quick fix, so I'll explain
But that would be deceit, for Washington never disclosed his imagined disbelief. Law of non contradiction: disclosing and not disclosing are not the same thing.

You also misrepresent Jefferson. He claimed to be a Christian, and atheist would surely consider him one had he murdered even half a million. They want to claim him, but he was actually born one day too late.

Nobody is attacking Washington.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands are attacking Washington and others for various motives. *** Under non-moral systems, lying is not a sin. According to Christianity it is. ***

You may disregard the evidence I've presented. Your reputation will fall with some and rise with others. Probably not dramatically.
That part between stars was not formatted well. I was explaining that Washington, if he had lied, would be sinning rather than innocent - not, as one might mistakenly take from the format, reminding anyone that false accusations are lies.
 
Upvote 0
C

cupid dave

Guest
Making excuses for why there is no evidence for what you want to be true is called "intellectual dishonesty."

Washington is known for making invocations to Almighty God. That we know.

Beyond that is speculation. I accuse him of nothing; either of being Christian or non-Christian. There is no ability to be certain, because, while he certainly did write, as in his will, in "the name of God," he doesn't go so far as to mention scripture, let alone quote from it. We do not know his attitude toward those mentioned within its pages.


Are you implying that washington was muslim or Jewish?

Christians accept that God is an euphemism for Christ ever since 325AD, and up and until recently, when gnostism has resurrected the idea of Arianism.

Who else were the founding fathers calling God, but the Trinity?
 
Upvote 0
C

cupid dave

Guest
Really? And I suppose you believe he really cut down a cherry tree too.


So can you produce a scrap of writing where Washington speaks for himself in regard to whether his regular church visits were merely politically useful and he, himself, does not refer to Christ as god?

Did he attend muslim mosques or Jewish synagogues?

Are your suspicions the only source for this accusations?
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
:cool:Goggle up, Evolanders:cool:

Seeing how you've been pigeonholing me from the very start on this thread I shouldn't be surprised at this nonsense.


I haven't claimed he was deceitful, and I wll not defend the position that he was now. As I've already said, it is indeterminable whether he was a Christian.
Anyone can review and see your claims. I distinctly recall something about him never employing the name 'Jesus'.

"Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon. I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me. Make me to know what is acceptable in Thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith, and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life." - Authentic handwritten manuscript book, April 23, 1752"

George Washington Quotes

<edit>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
But that would be deceit, for Washington never disclosed his imagined disbelief.
Washington didn't disbelieve. He believed in a deity. He was a deist. As were many at that time and place. For one thing they didn't have the concept of evolution or abiogenesis or the Big Bang to explain how the universe and life got here. They had no other recourse but to imagine a deity. But there were many who did not believe that Jesus was divine. Jefferson chief among them. Those that did not believe still went to church, still participated in prayer to a god. They just weren't... "Christian". That's why the Freemasons don't require that you are Christian, simply that you admit the existence of a higher power.

You are the one calling it deceit. At the time people simply called it more or lesser amounts of faith. Again, you're measuring the actions of people from another time with a measuring stick from today. That's not valid.

Law of non contradiction: disclosing and not disclosing are not the same thing.

You also misrepresent Jefferson. He claimed to be a Christian, and atheist would surely consider him one had he murdered even half a million. They want to claim him, but he was actually born one day too late.
Read the Jefferson Bible sometime. I don't misrepresent him at all.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands are attacking Washington and others for various motives. Under non-moral systems, lying is not a sin. According to Christianity it is.
Stating facts is not attacking someone.

You may disregard the evidence I've presented. Your reputation will fall with some and rise with others. Probably not dramatically.
The evidence you've presented falls in line with a deist attending Christian church.

I believe what the evidence indicates.
You believe what you want to believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

There is no evidence - none beyond 3rd hand hearsay and speculation - that Washington was not what all the good, solid evidence indicates he was.
Washington was a deist. He was never anything else until you came along spouting that he was a Christian. He never took communion. He prayed but not to Jesus, to his god. I'm sorry... you can try to mangle the facts all you wish but George Washington was a deist as were many of his brethren.

You have a burden of proof to meet, if anyone is even to question the issue. We all know you have no hope.
All right. Let's go to the man himself. Washington's diaries are published in four volumes.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html

We will divide the Diary into four periods, using only such years as are complete. First, before the Revolution; second, after the Revolution; third, while he was President, and fourth, after his second term as ended. During the Revolution he discontinued the Diary. We find in 1768 that he went to church 15 times, in 1769, 10 times, in 1770, nine times, in 1771, six times, and the same number in 1772. In 1773, he went five times, while in 1774 he went 18 times, his banner year outside of the Presidency. During this year he was two months at the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, where he was in church six times, three times to the Episcopal, once to Romish high mass, once to a Quaker meeting and once to a Presbyterian. In 1784, after the Revolution, he was in the West a long time looking after his land interests, so we will omit this year. In 1785 he attended church just once, but spent many of his Sundays in wholly "secular" pursuits. In 1786 he went once.

These last two year's he was so busy with the work on his farm and other business affairs that he seems to have forgotten the Church almost entirely. In 1787 he went three times. This was the year he was present at and presided over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. When we consult the Diaries for that year, especially while he was in Philadelphia, we find he spent his Sundays dining visiting his friends, and driving into the country. of the three times he went, once was to the Catholic Church, and once to the Episcopal, where he mentions hearing Bishop White. In 1788, he attended church once. The Diaries deal many hard blows to the mythical Washington, above all to the myth that he went regularly to church.

In 1789, he became President, during which time the Diary is incomplete, and it is impossible to account for all the Sundays. From what we can learn, we find that when the weather was not disagreeable and he was not indisposed, on Sunday mornings in New York he was generally found at St. Paul's Chapel or Trinity. In Philadelphia he attended either Christ Church, presided over by Bishop White, or St. Peter's, where the Rev. Dr. Abercrombie officiated. This was to be expected. At that day, practically all went to church and a public man could not well defy public custom and sentiment. Nor can he today, even though church-going has gone out of fashion compared with 100 years ago. Washington spent his Sunday afternoons while President writing private letters and attending to his own business affairs. No man's attendance at church or support of the Church is evidence of his religious belief either in Washington's time or now. Any honest minister will admit this. After Washington retired from the Presidency his own master, and free from criticism, he went to church as few times as possible, for in 1797 he attended four times, in 1798, once, and in 1799, the year of his death, twice. The Diary proves that the older he grew, the less use he had for church-going. And only twice in the Diary does he ever comment upon the sermon; once, when he called it "a lame discourse," and again when he said it was in German and he could not understand it. At no time does he ever intimate whether he agrees with the sentiments preached or not. This is significant.

That Washington was a vestryman has no special significance religiously. In Virginia, this office 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.

How about your painting...? The scene was laid in Valley Forge, in the winter of 1777-78, while Washington's army was in winter quarters, suffering from hunger, nakedness and cold, when many had abandoned all hope of success. There, Isaac Potts, a Quaker, at whose house Washington is said to have had his headquarters, when walking in the woods on a cold winter day, saw Washington on his knees in the snow engaged in prayer, his hat off and his horse tied to a sapling.

This story was first told by our old acquaintance, Weems, the great protagonist of Washington mythology, He does not give his authority for telling it, but others have added to the account.

According to Weems, Potts accidentally finds Washington at prayer. Being attracted by a sound in "a venerable grove," he looks into it and finds him pouring forth his soul to God, his countenance being of "angelic serenity," these two expressions being added to give a dramatic and romantic effect. Weems makes Potts a patriot, who, after watching Washington's struggle with the Almighty, rushes into his house with great glee, and shouts to his wife, "Sarah! My dear Sarah! all's well! all's well! George Washington will yet prevail!" telling her what he had seen. According to the story as told by the Rev. Mr. M'Guire, Potts was a Tory, as most Quakers were, and he makes him say to his wife, not calling her by any Christian name, "Our cause is lost." He seemed to think the revolutionary conflict would be settled by Washington's prayer. Instead of Potts's coming upon Washington suddenly, hearing a sound in the grove, and upon investigating finding the Commander-in-Chief at his orisons, as told by Weems, M'Guire makes him follow the General for some time to see where he was going and what he was going to do, when, lo, he saw him get down on his knees in the snow and pray. According to the Snowden account, Potts's wife's name was not Sarah, but Betty. He represents him as now willing to support the cause of America, does not tell what his views were previously. The prayer causing the Quaker to change from a Tory to a patriot was no doubt the work of some later artist who wished the fable to be more effective.

The Rev. M.J. Savage says:

"The pictures that represent him on his knees in the winter forest at Valley Forge are even silly caricatures. Washington was at least not sentimental, and he had nothing about him of the Pharisee that displays his religion at street corners or out in the woods in the sight of observers, of observers, or where his portrait could be taken by 'our special artist!'"

Benson J. Lossing, in his 'Field Book of the Revolution' (vol. 2, p. 336), also gives an account of this historical prayer, but does not mention the source from which he obtained it. Like Weems, he tells that Potts was attracted by a noise in the grove, but while none of the other chroniclers say anything about Washington's having a horse, Lossing speaks of "his horse tied to a sapling," and instead of the General's face being a "countenance of angelic serenity," he says it was "suffused with tears." A reasonable question to ask is, "Can there be found any evidence that Washington was a 'praying man?"

Bishop White, whose church he attended on and off for 25 years in Philadelphia, says he never saw him on his knees in church. This ought to settle the question. If he did not kneel in church, who will believe that he did so on the ground, covered with snow, with his hat off, when the thermometer, was probably below zero?

As further proof that the story is fictitious, there is reason to believe that Isaac Potts did not live in Valley Forge at the time Washington's army was there, in the winter of 1777-1778. Mr. Myers of the Valley Forge Park Commission, recently admitted this.

That Potts did not own the house at the time is established by Washington's account book, where it is proved that the rent for headquarters was paid to Mrs. Deborah Hawes, and the receipts were made out in her name. Potts bought the house when the war was over.

But it is not likely that the Valley Forge prayer story will die soon. It is too good a "property" to abandon, for the Rev. W. Herbert Burk, the Valley Forge rector, is working hard to erect a million dollar church to commemorate it. He also stands sponsor for the prayer in St. Paul's Chapel in New York City. Bishop Warburton once said: "A lie has no legs and cannot stand, but it has wings and can fly far and wide."

from here.

You may not like what you read. But it's mostly his own words. Lastly, I leave you with this:

Among the addresses sent to Washington when he became President was one from the First Presbytery of the Eastward, which objected to the new Constitution because it did not recognize God and the Christian religion, in these words: "We should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some explicit acknowledgement of the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent, inserted somewhere in the Magna Charta of our country." To this, Washington replied:

"The path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. ... In the progress of morality and science, to which our government will give every furtherance, we may confidently expect the advancement of true religion and the completion of our happiness."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
:cool:Goggle up, Evolanders:cool:


Anyone can review and see your claims. I distinctly recall something about him never employing the name 'Jesus'.

"Most Glorious God, /snip/ the Way, the Truth, and the Life." - Authentic handwritten manuscript book, April 23, 1752"
Except that so-called quote was refused by the Smithsonian as not being authentic.
 
Upvote 0
H

Huram Abi

Guest
"On April 21-23, 1891, there was sold at auction in Philidelphia a remarkable collection of Washington relics owned by Lawrence Washington, Bushrod C. Washington, Thomas B. Washington and J.R.C.Lewis. Among them was found a little manuscript book entitled Daily Sacrifice... The occassional interlineations and emendations indicate that is was prepared for [Washington's] own use."


So, an auction in 1891 formulates the basis of attribution of this manuscript to George, specifically, though these items belonged to other Washingtons.

Looks like snake-oil antics to me.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
You left out the best part:
"The word of very old men is always to be taken with a grain of allowance, especially when uncorroborated. I once talked with an old man of 87 who claimed that he had seen Lafayette, Charles Carron, of Carronton, and Martha Washington. Upon an investigation, I found it possible that he had seen the first two, but as his birth record showed him to have been born in 1802, the year Martha Washington died, it is certain that he never saw her."

I'll not be taking history lessons from this fellow. I don't dispute the age he claims for himself, but he has already negated his own testimony by disparaging the elderly.

Let's see: He was talking to a fellow of 87, born in 1802. So that would've been 1889. It is now 2011. I'd say he's ripe!
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Nobody's perfect.

According to the hate sites.... How'd that go again?

Then in the prayer book manuscript all of the words are spelled correctly, while Washington was a notoriously poor speller.

The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents

Abbot, who says he's "lived with Washington for 20 years," notes that these papers show Washington was not, as some say, "a bad speller and careless writer." Abbot blames the leader's scribes, including his young nephew Howell Lewis. Lewis's "misspelled words, misreadings, omissions and bizarre punctuation disfigure and even distort the letter-book copies of many of GW's letters during these years," Abbot writes. Abbot wrote that even Lewis's mother called him "a boy of very Slender Education."

Papers of George Washington
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
All right. Let's go to the man himself. Washington's diaries are published in four volumes. We will divide...
Mighty big copy & paste. Why not just link directly to the hate site?

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html

Much easier to copy & paste an url. Watch:

http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/prayer.html#01

Yes, there are different versions of two different stories behind paintings of George Washington praying at Valley Forge. The existence of counterfeits does not negate the legitimacy of the real.

Were a trial to be held, Washington would be convicted of praying. Stories are sometimes mishandled; and they can acquire embellishment or lose detail. Enough core facts remain in this case.

We know something inspired a great change in Mr. Potts' life. By all extant accounts it was his encounter with General Washington. We may be uncertain about the details, but when all the facts are in, I see no reason to doubt that some encounter took place.

Discover, verify, reconcile. No, we cannot reconcile and know what words were spoken by Potts when he returned home. That is not the issue.

One might note the wide variety of claims presented thus far. Scofferdom hasn't a consensus of its own to offer. Some claim this and some claim that. Why adopt the anything-but-the-truthist approach? The history of the revisionist movement itself is a joke. They're trying to claim their work is a done deal, and all hope of returning to the earlier view of Washington is mirage. If they have a done deal, why then do they not agree? If they've established anything - anything, what is it? I only see a desire established; nothing which impacts the earlier history of America negatively. The futility of their quest is manifest, and adds to our confidence that the truth cannot be harmed even facing a sustained campaign.
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, there are different versions of two different stories behind paintings of George Washington praying at Valley Forge. The existence of counterfeits does not negate the legitimacy of the real.
That isn't the point. The point is that Washington wouldn't have done such a thing, in the cold, with his hat off. It's not a picture of an actual event.

Were a trial to be held, Washington would be convicted of praying. Stories are sometimes mishandled; and they can acquire embellishment or lose detail. Enough core facts remain in this case.
Praying? Perhaps. But not on his knees in the snow. And not likely to Jesus Christ.

We know something inspired a great change in Mr. Potts' life. By all extant accounts it was his encounter with General Washington. We may be uncertain about the details, but when all the facts are in, I see no reason to doubt that some encounter took place.
We do? How do we know that? Because you say so? What we do know is that Potts didn't even own the house at the time Washington stayed there. Verified by Washington's own records. Rent was paid to "Deborah Hawes" not Potts.

Discover, verify, reconcile. No, we cannot reconcile and know what words were spoken by Potts when he returned home. That is not the issue.
That's right. Potts bought the house when the war was over. So what he supposedly said is not the issue.

One might note the wide variety of claims presented thus far. Scofferdom hasn't a consensus of its own to offer. Some claim this and some claim that. Why adopt the anything-but-the-truthist approach? The history of the revisionist movement itself is a joke. They're trying to claim their work is a done deal, and all hope of returning to the earlier view of Washington is mirage. If they have a done deal, why then do they not agree? If they've established anything - anything, what is it? I only see a desire established; nothing which impacts the earlier history of America negatively. The futility of their quest is manifest, and adds to our confidence that the truth cannot be harmed even facing a sustained campaign.
Why not just admit it? Washington was a private man who never ever said what his religious beliefs were. But he did show what they were by not attending church, by never kneeling and by not taking communion.

You claim to want the truth. Deal with it.
 
Upvote 0