5 Founding Fathers' Skepticism About Christianity Would Make Them Unelectable Today

[Cammmpbell]

Mr. Robert Lewis who was Washington's nephew and was his private secretary during the first part of Washington's Presidency who also knew him well.
Mr. Lewis lived with him on terms of intimacy, and had the best opportunity for observing his habits.

Mr. Lewis said that he had accidentally witnessed his private devotions in his library both morning and evening; that on those occasions he had seen him in a kneeling posture with a Bible open before him, and that he believed such to have been his daily practice.'”
So we have proof by his adopted daughter and nephew that George Washington was a very devoted Christian.

LMAO!! He also couldn't tell a lie.....admitted cutting down a cherry tree. Ama ing how the do gooder Christians will lie at the drop of a hat if it's to protect their 2000 year old fairy tale.

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Rev 21:8

There is a big difference between myths and facts.
So what you are saying is the Washington's adopted daughter and his nephew were liar's.
I find that amazing, that you think that, in order to keep your uneducated view's.
You obviously have never read any of Washington's letter's, works or correspondences.
How about reading some of them and then make your judgment.

Yep! Bold faced liars. Nothing Washington did while he was alive would even remotely indicate he was a born again Christian. What it proves is his adopted daughter and nephew were Christians...not unlike the lies Christians tell about atheists and agnostics having some kind of magic stroke of magic from above on their death beds. Christians lie every day when they talk about god helping them and seeing visions of Jesus and knowing somebody went to heaven etc. etc. etc.

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." Rev 21:8[/QUOTE]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Washington was an Anglican, then an Episcopalian Christian. He was not evangelical, and no one who knows his story would every suggest such a thing. He was a man of the Enlightenment. He was a Christian by his own lights, and you are apparently either (1) unaware of the truth or (2) a liar.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Washington was an Anglican, then an Episcopalian Christian. He was not evangelical, and no one who knows his story would every suggest such a thing. He was a man of the Enlightenment. He was a Christian by his own lights, and you are apparently either (1) unaware of the truth or (2) a liar.

Washington was a deist and one of his pastors severely critici ed him for never kneeling when he attended church. He made a habit of leaving a service before sacrement was taken and rarely attended the same church two times in a row. His personal journals told of writing, resting and fox hunting on most Sundays.

I have this problem about any of the forebears being much of a Christian. If they were please explain why there's no mention of Jesus or the holy bible in the declaration of independence or the constitution. They seemed to be very thorough about everything else.

Since Jesus said his followers were to acknowledge him and spread the gospel it seems to me that if the aforementioned had been Christians they would have been extremely interested in letting it be known by everyone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Washington was an Anglican, then an Episcopalian Christian. He was not evangelical, and no one who knows his story would every suggest such a thing. He was a man of the Enlightenment. He was a Christian by his own lights, and you are apparently either (1) unaware of the truth or (2) a liar.

Washington was a deist and one of his pastors severely critici ed him for never kneeling when he attended church. He made a habit of leaving a service before sacrement was taken and rarely attended the same church two times in a row. His personal journals told of writing, resting and fox hunting on most Sundays.

I have this problem about any of the forebears being much of a Christian. If they were please explain why there's no mention of Jesus or the holy bible in the declaration of independence or the constitution. They seemed to be very thorough about everything else.

Since Jesus said his followers were to acknowledge him and spread the gospel it seems to me that if the aforementioned had been Christians they would have been extremely interested in letting it be known by everyone.

That (1) he did not kneel and (2) did not take sacrament make him not a Christian? You just ruled out many of the Baptists and Methodists here in my home town. Foolish. You need to read far, far more.

Every Founder was spiritual and or religious, even Allan and Paine. Jefferson used language in the DoI that both deist and Christian could accept. The Constitution was written to prevent an established religion at the national government.

The Founders opposed established religion at the government level, not religion itself.

 

[NoNukes]

History says that whenever a leftist totalitarian Utopia has been tried, it winds up knee-deep in blood and the survivors are oppressed.

You think that would be great?

Which History is this?

The real kind, not the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky "everything bad is America's fault" kind popular among leftists.

I must say this about Howard Zinn. Although I found much of his book boring and repetitive, what he wrote about the time that I have been alive has been accurate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Which History is this?

The real kind, not the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky "everything bad is America's fault" kind popular among leftists.

I must say this about Howard Zinn. I found much of his book boring and repetitive, what he wrote about the time that I have been alive has been accurate.

Zinn and daveman share that: being boring and repetitive.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Washington was an Anglican, then an Episcopalian Christian. He was not evangelical, and no one who knows his story would every suggest such a thing. He was a man of the Enlightenment. He was a Christian by his own lights, and you are apparently either (1) unaware of the truth or (2) a liar.

Washington was a deist and one of his pastors severely critici ed him for never kneeling when he attended church. He made a habit of leaving a service before sacrement was taken and rarely attended the same church two times in a row. His personal journals told of writing, resting and fox hunting on most Sundays.

I have this problem about any of the forebears being much of a Christian. If they were please explain why there's no mention of Jesus or the holy bible in the declaration of independence or the constitution. They seemed to be very thorough about everything else.

Since Jesus said his followers were to acknowledge him and spread the gospel it seems to me that if the aforementioned had been Christians they would have been extremely interested in letting it be known by everyone.

That (1) he did not kneel and (2) did not take sacrament make him not a Christian? You just ruled out many of the Baptists and Methodists here in my home town. Foolish. You need to read far, far more.

Every Founder was spiritual and or religious, even Allan and Paine. Jefferson used language in the DoI that both deist and Christian could accept. The Constitution was written to prevent an established religion at the national government.

The Founders opposed established religion at the government level, not religion itself.

One thing I know....as we speak there are more than 44,000 denominations, conventions, sects, cults, sub cults, etc. of the Christian faith. If it's so important that it will determine the eternal fate of mankind...........why in the phuck is it so complicated and confusing

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because mankind is quarrelsome? Heck, look at you and me, two old guys arguing over this stuff. It's what Americans do, I guess.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Because mankind is quarrelsome? Heck, look at you and me, two old guys arguing over this stuff. It's what Americans do, I guess.

I still haven't see many jumping up and declaring that they believe this load of primitive bullschit:

1) Mankind and dinosaurs on a boat till nearly four mile deep waters receded/evaporated

2)Big fish puking up live men

3) Folks enduring a 1200 degreefurnace


4) Seas opening long enough for the white hats to pass then closing on the bad guys

5) Stone walls falling on command

6) Evil people being turned into salt

7) The sun blacked out by an invisible man in the sky

8) 5,000 hungry pilgrims plus women and children
being fed with two fish and five loaves then twelve baskets of leftovers collected

9) Virgin Birth

10) Healing leprosy by touching

11) Walking on water

12) Turning water into wine

13) Raising from the dead

14) Hanging a man up and bleeding him to death only to see
him fit as a fiddle two days later.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is requiring you to believe in religion or a god, Cammmpbell.

I believe that faith and science are not exclusive, as do hundreds of millions of Christians.

Those 'Christians' who make creationism a faith-based issue are strange critters to me.

 

[peach174]

Washington was an Anglican, then an Episcopalian Christian. He was not evangelical, and no one who knows his story would every suggest such a thing. He was a man of the Enlightenment. He was a Christian by his own lights, and you are apparently either (1) unaware of the truth or (2) a liar.

Washington was a deist and one of his pastors severely critici ed him for never kneeling when he attended church. He made a habit of leaving a service before sacrement was taken and rarely attended the same church two times in a row. His personal journals told of writing, resting and fox hunting on most Sundays.

I have this problem about any of the forebears being much of a Christian. If they were please explain why there's no mention of Jesus or the holy bible in the declaration of independence or the constitution. They seemed to be very thorough about everything else.

Since Jesus said his followers were to acknowledge him and spread the gospel it seems to me that if the aforementioned had been Christians they would have been extremely interested in letting it be known by everyone.

They made it very clear - Freedom of all religions, not just Christianity.
They appointed Chaplains to both the House and Senate to open each business day with prayer.
The appointed Chaplains represent all religions for spitural support.

Chaplains are elected as individuals and not as representatives of any religious community, body, or organization. As of 2011, all House Chaplains have been Christian but can be members of any religion or faith group. Guest Chaplains, recommended by congressional members to deliver the session's opening prayer in place of the House Chaplain, have represented many different religious groups, including Judaism and Islam.

 

[Intense]

George Washington and Religion

Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later.

When trying to arrange for workmen in 1784 at Mount Vernon, Washington made clear that he would accept "Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." Washington wrote Lafayette in 1787, "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception."

Clear evidence of his personal theology is lacking, even on his deathbed when he died a "death of civility" without expressions of Christian hope. His failure to document beliefs in conventional dogma, such as a life after death, is a clue that he may not qualify as a conventional Christian. Instead, Washington may be closer to a "warm deist" than a standard Anglican in colonial Virginia.

He was complimentary to all groups and attended Quaker, German Reformed, and Roman Catholic services. In a world where religious differences often led to war, Washington was quite conscious of religious prejudice. However, he joked about it rather than exacerbated it. Washington once noted that he was unlikely to be affected by the German Reformed service he attended, because he did not understand a word of what was spoken.

Washington was an inclusive, "big tent" political leader seeking support from the large numbers of Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers in Virginia, and even more groups on a national level. He did not enhance his standing in some areas by advocating support for a particular theology, and certainly did not identify "wedge issues" based on religious differences. Instead, in late 1775, Washington banned the Protestant celebration of the Pope's Day (a traditional mocking of the Catholic leader) by the Continental Army. He deplored the sectarian strife in Ireland, and wished the debate over Patrick Henry's General Assessment bill would "die an easy death."

Washington was not anti-religion. Washington was not uninterested in religion. He was a military commander who struggled to motivate raw troops in the French and Indian War. He recognized that recruiting the militia in the western part of Virginia required accommodating the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, Baptists, and Dutch Reformed members in officially-Anglican Virginia. He was aware that religious beliefs were a fundamental part of the lives of his peers and of his soldiers. He knew that a moral basis for the American Revolution and the creation of a new society would motivate Americans to support his initiatives - and he knew that he would receive more support if he avoided discriminating against specific religious beliefs.

In the Revolutionary War, Washington supported troops selecting their own chaplains (such as the Universalist John Murray) while trying to avoid the development of factions within the army. Religion offered him moral leverage to instill discipline, reduce theft, deter desertion, and minimize other rambunctious behaviors that upset local residents. It was logical for Washington to invoke the name of the Divine, but it may have been motivated more by a desire for improving life on earth rather than dealing with life after death.

Wahington understood the distinction between morality and religion, and between toleration of differences and full religious liberty. Washington's replies to messages from Jews and Swedenborgians showed he was not merely accepting the differences of religion, tolerating those who had not chosen the correct path. Instead, he endorsed what Jefferson would later define as a "wall of separation between church and state."

George Washington and Religion

 

[daveman]

Which History is this?

The real kind, not the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky "everything bad is America's fault" kind popular among leftists.

I must say this about Howard Zinn. Although I found much of his book boring and repetitive, what he wrote about the time that I have been alive has been accurate.

No, it isn't.

"Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”
--Howard Zinn

He tells you that he flat-out distorts history to serve his ideology.

And his ideology has proven by history to be a failure.

 

[daveman]

The real kind, not the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky "everything bad is America's fault" kind popular among leftists.

I must say this about Howard Zinn. I found much of his book boring and repetitive, what he wrote about the time that I have been alive has been accurate.

Zinn and daveman share that: being boring and repetitive.

Yes, Jake, come riding to the rescue of your far-left brethren. It makes your claims of being mainstream Republican so much more credible.

 

[NoNukes]

The real kind, not the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky "everything bad is America's fault" kind popular among leftists.

I must say this about Howard Zinn. Although I found much of his book boring and repetitive, what he wrote about the time that I have been alive has been accurate.

No, it isn't.

"Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”
--Howard Zinn

He tells you that he flat-out distorts history to serve his ideology.

And his ideology has proven by history to be a failure.

I know that the history that he writes of the time that I have been alive was accurate.

 

[NoNukes]

I must say this about Howard Zinn. I found much of his book boring and repetitive, what he wrote about the time that I have been alive has been accurate.

Zinn and daveman share that: being boring and repetitive.

Yes, Jake, come riding to the rescue of your far-left brethren. It makes your claims of being mainstream Republican so much more credible.

He is not rescuing anyone, no one needs rescue from you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Zinn and daveman share that: being boring and repetitive.

Yes, Jake, come riding to the rescue of your far-left brethren. It makes your claims of being mainstream Republican so much more credible.

He is not rescuing anyone, no one needs rescue from you.

daveman is boring, whether imitating lefties or righties. daveman likes to pretend he is GOP, conservative, mainstream. He is not, he is reactionary, and he is far beyond the horizon. We are seeing just how weak those like him are this election cycle.

 

[daveman]

I must say this about Howard Zinn. Although I found much of his book boring and repetitive, what he wrote about the time that I have been alive has been accurate.

No, it isn't.

"Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity.”
--Howard Zinn

He tells you that he flat-out distorts history to serve his ideology.

And his ideology has proven by history to be a failure.

I know that the history that he writes of the time that I have been alive was accurate.

No. It isn't. That you agree with his distortions does not make his history accurate. It means you like being lied to.

 

[daveman]

Zinn and daveman share that: being boring and repetitive.

Yes, Jake, come riding to the rescue of your far-left brethren. It makes your claims of being mainstream Republican so much more credible.

He is not rescuing anyone, no one needs rescue from you.

Jake seems to think so.

 

[daveman]

Yes, Jake, come riding to the rescue of your far-left brethren. It makes your claims of being mainstream Republican so much more credible.

He is not rescuing anyone, no one needs rescue from you.

daveman is boring, whether imitating lefties or righties. daveman likes to pretend he is GOP, conservative, mainstream. He is not, he is reactionary, and he is far beyond the horizon. We are seeing just how weak those like him are this election cycle.

"Gobama! Gobama!"