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.
It is untrue. I enjoy answering questions. It is one of my chief pleasures.You love asking questions but you hate answering them, why is that?
I don't believe such a point exists. The Chinese, Nigerians and Swedes would seem to have traveled along different vectors.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?
Well you think incorrectly. I have a great deal of respect for the conventions of the English language.I think you mean 'evolution and other systematic deceptions'.
I am?However you are still unable to tell us why they are 'systematic deceptions' all you can do is tell us they are.
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?
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.Just what are you trying to support with these?
Deductive logic permits but two conclusions.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.
Already done, and no American or honest resident of less privileged lands shall turn back.Let the man's deeds speak to the sort of man he was and we will see if he is worthy.
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.As I am willing to do that, you must stop pretending that there IS a campaign to assassinate his character here.
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
He is not being attacked.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?
Really? And I suppose you believe he really cut down a cherry tree too.Your target, once again:
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.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.
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.Nobody is attacking Washington.
He is not being attacked.
I believe what the evidence indicates.Really? And I suppose you believe he really cut down a cherry tree too.Your target, once again:
Now it is also said the story is false. So then, let those who care investigate. Weigh the evidence, and come to a conclusion.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 Washingtons 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 wifes 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 AMERICAS GOD AND COUNTRY, William J. Federer, Fame Publishing, Coppell, TX, 1994, p.640-641).
Then again, half of 'em may not see what needs to be explained away...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.
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.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.
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. ***Nobody is attacking Washington.
You may disregard the evidence I've presented. Your reputation will fall with some and rise with others. Probably not dramatically.
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.
Really? And I suppose you believe he really cut down a cherry tree too.
Anyone can review and see your claims. I distinctly recall something about him never employing the name 'Jesus'.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.
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.But that would be deceit, for Washington never disclosed his imagined disbelief.
Read the Jefferson Bible sometime. I don't misrepresent him at all.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.
Stating facts is not attacking someone.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.
The evidence you've presented falls in line with a deist attending Christian church.You may disregard the evidence I've presented. Your reputation will fall with some and rise with others. Probably not dramatically.
You believe what you want to believe. Nothing more, nothing less.I believe what the evidence indicates.
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.There is no evidence - none beyond 3rd hand hearsay and speculation - that Washington was not what all the good, solid evidence indicates he was.
All right. Let's go to the man himself. Washington's diaries are published in four volumes.You have a burden of proof to meet, if anyone is even to question the issue. We all know you have no hope.
Except that so-called quote was refused by the Smithsonian as not being authentic.Goggle up, Evolanders
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"
Then in the prayer book manuscript all of the words are spelled correctly, while Washington was a notoriously poor speller.
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."
Mighty big copy & paste. Why not just link directly to the hate site?All right. Let's go to the man himself. Washington's diaries are published in four volumes. We will divide...
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.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.
Praying? Perhaps. But not on his knees in the snow. And not likely to Jesus Christ.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 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.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.
That's right. Potts bought the house when the war was over. So what he supposedly said is not the issue.Discover, verify, reconcile. No, we cannot reconcile and know what words were spoken by Potts when he returned home. That is not the issue.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?