Yes, it does matter. You said that Nellie's testimony was "very shaky pillar" because she had observe Washington "from the eyes of a youngster only", but it was pointed out that she lived with them 20 years and was not a youngster when GW died.
20 years IS a youngster, its what I meant when I said it. If you don't like the term, thats fine, I withdraw it. I will point out that she was only 20 when GW died. That is too young to be considered an objective and reliable observer for a question like this. Is is certainly old enough for *specific* observations she makes to be sound, but it is not old enough for her *analysis*, esp. when it lacks specific supporting details, to be considered sound. People of that age weren't considered competent enough to vote, and thats a considerably less involved process than objectively determining the faith of one's adoptive parents.
Yes, her testimony should be taken into account, but to center one's argument around her testimony is unsound from both a logical and scholarly point of view. Esp. since her testimony mostly boils down to "of course he was, how could you say otherwise". I am not saying her testimony is worthless, merely a shaky basis for the foundation of an argument. It is, at best, a supporting document to clarify what is already known from other sources. As it is though, its the CENTRAL document. Thats extremely poor scholarship and logic.
Now, if she had said the GW claimed faith in Christ, then that would be a whole nother ball game. In that case, she would be recalling pertinent details and we wouldn't have to rely on her suspect analysis. She doesn't do that though. Its not even clear that by "Christian" she meant the same thing as an evangelical would.
She admitted that he "was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself" and that "I was, probably, one of the last persons on earth to whom he would have addressed serious conversation", and that she didn't know details of his faith, so to that extant you are right.
Hence her testimony needs to be taken in that light.
But there was not a lack of details in her testimony. She said that Washington regularly attended a Christian church, that he believed in the power of prayer, that he had private devotionals. We know that he read the Bible. We know that he believed he had seen God's intervention in his own life.
All these details are known w/o the need for her testimony. The problems with these details is that they don't add up to his being a Christian. Not from an evangelical point of view at least.
Washington said, "You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ." He wrote, "Without an humble imitation of the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, we can never hope to be a happy nation."
Which author was he talking about? Not Mohammed. He was speaking of Christ.
He spoke about Christ because that is
a. what he knew
b. what was applicable to the society he was in
c. furthermore, he doesn't speak of Christ in the second quote (as is the case with most all of his religious quotes)
What you will never find is where he ever refers to Jesus as divinity or savior (personal or otherwise). One can find parallels of his quotes from many other moral and devout people - people that everyone agrees were no Christian. Jefferson is an excellent example of this. In fact, Jefferson actually says "I am a Christian".
So, where quotes like the ones you give are shown as proof of GWs Christian faith, they aren't accepted as evidence of say, Jefferson's Christian faith (with a few exceptions). This is only because GW was largely silent - but taking his silence as evidence is a fallacy of argument from silence. In the end, GW is only considered a Christian because one can't find clear evidence that he isn't.
