Bush says Bible is not literally true

[Euphonious Polemic]

In the recent ABC Nightline Interview with George W. Bush, he was asked by Cynthia McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true. He replied:

You know. Probably not. … No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son'

For debate: Is this belief something that Bush essentially kept under wraps for the last 8 years? Was he previously pandering to the fundamentalist community, or have we just been unaware of his non-literalist leanings until now?

Another question - will this harm his "legacy" among the fundamentalists, or will they just go "meh".

[Bryan Ekers]

I think he just blew his chance at re-election.

[Shodan]

Has anyone asked Obama if he believes the Bible is literally true, or is he pandering to the fundamentalists too?

Regards,
Shodan

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Has anyone asked Obama if he believes the Bible is literally true, or is he pandering to the fundamentalists too?

Regards,
Shodan

I'm sorry, this thread is not about Obama's beliefs. If you would like to start one, feel free. In the meantime, please do not hijack this thread with your usual tu quoque.

(at least we can be thankful he did not bring up Clinton...)

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Has anyone asked Obama if he believes the Bible is literally true, or is he pandering to the fundamentalists too?

Was Obama elected with the aid of strong support from the religious right? He did get some significant support from religious voters which Democrats hadn't enjoyed recently, but Obama isn't pro-life and hasn't pushed for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which are issues of import to social conservatives. I have no idea why you asked this question.

That said, when I heard this I found I wasn't surprised. Maybe a little surprised he admitted it (in the last days of his term, of course), but not surprised that he feels that way. It wouldn't fit his personality, even if it did fit his social views.

[Captain Amazing]

Did Bush ever say in the past that he blieved the bible WAS literally true?

[mswas]

A minority of Christians are biblical literalists. I know it takes the fun out of Christ bashing, but that's the case. It might be a sizable minority but biblical literalists are rarer than you might think.

[Ethilrist]

Great. NOW he starts saying things that kind of make sense.

Nice timing, George.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

Did Bush ever say in the past that he blieved the bible WAS literally true?

That's what I'm not sure on... did he just say nothing and let people assume? Or what?

And to mswas: I certainly apologize to you for the "Christ bashing" in my OP. It was certainly uncalled for. I wonder if you could answer the original question though; will this harm Bush's legacy among those that are biblical literalists?

[Anaamika]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Has anyone asked Obama if he believes the Bible is literally true, or is he pandering to the fundamentalists too?

Regards,
Shodan

I rarely get involved in these discussions, but WHY do you do this? They asked you a question about Dub, not about Obama. Stop hijacking the discussion! Back Dub all you want but this never provides for a good discussion.

Euphonious Polemic said it already. This is not a thread about Obama. Make a new thread.

ETA: You are not the only one who does it, but you do it a lot.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by mswas

A minority of Christians are biblical literalists. I know it takes the fun out of Christ bashing, but that's the case. It might be a sizable minority but biblical literalists are rarer than you might think.

You can easily bash non-literalists. Literalists are utterly unimaginative and dim-witted, while non literalists are hypocrites for picking and choosing what they want to believe in their holy book.

I find it interesting that Christians have a sense of persecution, considering they are the most powerful religion on the planet. When a Christian is eaten by a lion nowadays it's usually a wealthy, fat, moron at a Safari Park.

On topic: Bush was presumed to be really evangelical, but I suspect it was like the administration's case for getting into Iraq. Lots of innuendo and people assumed what they wanted to believe.

[Palo Verde]

Apparently the fundamentalists are pissed

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/pol...bush.bible.cnn (WARNING: video - curse you CNN for making so many of your stories by video only!)

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

That's what I'm not sure on... did he just say nothing and let people assume? Or what?

Well, did people assume Bush thought the bible was literally true? He's born-again and an evangelical, and that's never been a secret, but as far as I know, nobody's ever said he was a fundamentalist or a literalist. And he's a United Methodist, which isn't exactly a fundamentalist denomination.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

On topic: Bush was presumed to be really evangelical, but I suspect it was like the administration's case for getting into Iraq. Lots of innuendo and people assumed what they wanted to believe.

Not all evangelicals are literalists, remember.

[ITR champion]

I find it interesting that Christians have a sense of persecution, considering they are the most powerful religion on the planet.

I'm sure that the thousands of Christians who have been starved to death in Sudan, shot in North Korea, imprisoned in Cuba, sent for "re-education" in China, and murdered or abused at other places around the world take great comfort from your interest.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

non literalists are hypocrites for picking and choosing what they want to believe in their holy book.

I fail to see how this is hypocritical. That's a common charge thrown out against believers and I think it's absolutely intellectually dishonest - as you say, either they're idiots for accepting the literal truth of a contradictory and metaphorical document, or they're hypocrites or somehow dishonest for not believing every word of the story or of their particular religious authority. Members of non-religious groups aren't generally held to that standard and it makes no sense.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

I'm sure that the thousands of Christians who have been starved to death in Sudan, shot in North Korea, imprisoned in Cuba, sent for "re-education" in China, and murdered or abused at other places around the world take great comfort from your interest.

You forgot to mention the war on christmas. Isn't that important to you?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Please note:

The "Christians are persecuted" "no they're not" "yes they are" Thread
and the
"believers are hypocrites" "not they're not" "yes the are" Thread

are next door. Thank you for coming. Please see the OP for the topic of this thread.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

I'm sure that the thousands of Christians who have been starved to death in Sudan, shot in North Korea, imprisoned in Cuba, sent for "re-education" in China, and murdered or abused at other places around the world take great comfort from your interest.

I thought martyrdom was a key tenet of their faith.

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by mswas

A minority of Christians are biblical literalists. I know it takes the fun out of Christ bashing, but that's the case. It might be a sizable minority but biblical literalists are rarer than you might think.

One third. Is that rare? I reckon it's higher among Conservatives who supported Bush and McCain.

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally Posted by mswas

A minority of Christians are biblical literalists. I know it takes the fun out of Christ bashing, but that's the case. It might be a sizable minority but biblical literalists are rarer than you might think.

Well, I doubt that they are *completely* biblical literalists. I don't think any of them think that Eve is literally the "mother of all life." Even they'll admit that the hippopotomi that one sees in zoos today didn't come from Eve.

Zev Steinhardt

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by zev_steinhardt

Well, I doubt that they are *completely* biblical literalists. I don't think any of them think that Eve is literally the "mother of all life." Even they'll admit that the hippopotomi that one sees in zoos today didn't come from Eve.

Zev Steinhardt

I figured the hippos were the reason Eve's curse was "In pain shall you bear children".

[DanBlather]

And belief in Bible literalism is 40% among Protestants and 45% among "other Christians" excluding Catholics. In the south as a whole it's 41%.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

That's what I'm not sure on... did he just say nothing and let people assume? Or what?

And to mswas: I certainly apologize to you for the "Christ bashing" in my OP. It was certainly uncalled for. I wonder if you could answer the original question though; will this harm Bush's legacy among those that are biblical literalists?

I doubt it will matter that much. Biblical literalists are usually considered to be idiots by the religious elite. You're talking about Joe Sixpack, who is as unlikely to even know that Bush said it as he is to have an incredible amount of influence over party politics. Sure you'll get a few people that resent it, but I bet it hit your radar more than theirs.

IMHO

[shallora]

I don't see what the big deal is. Did Bush ever say in the past that he's a Bible literalist? I don't think he ever did.

This is the probem with many Liberals: They don't understand religion(s).

Note to Liberals: You don't have to believe the Bible is literally true in order to be a Christian. Just like you don't have to believe everything Obama or Kennedy says is gospel in order to still call yourself a Democrat.

In fact, most Christians don't believe the Bible is literally true. Just like most Democrats don't believe every word Obama says is gospel, either.

[Frylock]

Can someone here point me to the smartest defense of either biblical innerancy or biblical literalism (or both) that they know of?

Thanks,

-Kris

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

You can easily bash non-literalists. Literalists are utterly unimaginative and dim-witted, while non literalists are hypocrites for picking and choosing what they want to believe in their holy book.

Eh, calling non-literalists hypocrites is a non-starter, it's just a polemical snipe as far as I am concerned, holding up people who don't believe as you do to the standard you expect them to hold. You have counterparts on the other side to be certain.

I find it interesting that Christians have a sense of persecution, considering they are the most powerful religion on the planet. When a Christian is eaten by a lion nowadays it's usually a wealthy, fat, moron at a Safari Park.

I've always found this to be odd as well and have addressed it.

On topic: Bush was presumed to be really evangelical, but I suspect it was like the administration's case for getting into Iraq. Lots of innuendo and people assumed what they wanted to believe.

Well then you just had a misconception about Evangelicals, not all of them are literalists.

1/3 is indeed a minority. Meaning that non-literalists outnumber literalists 2-1.

[yanceylebeef]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I fail to see how this is hypocritical. That's a common charge thrown out against believers and I think it's absolutely intellectually dishonest - as you say, either they're idiots for accepting the literal truth of a contradictory and metaphorical document, or they're hypocrites or somehow dishonest for not believing every word of the story or of their particular religious authority. Members of non-religious groups aren't generally held to that standard and it makes no sense.

I think the hypocrisy charge comes from the habit of (some)Christians to use of the bible as a cite for something, say, homosexuality is a sin, then ignore the other parts of the same book. I assume that most people who are reading this post have some understanding of Leviticus and when you choose one or two of the chapters to prove a point, and then pointedly (Ha!) overlook the other "abominations" you are going to open yourself up for criticism.

[mswas]

New vocab term for you all.

Fundaresentalist

It adequately describes the ideology of resentment that colors a huge portion of the Evangelical community. When someone lives a life from resentment, well that's the reality for them. They are going to resent most things that don't conform to a narrow ideology. These are the people who will resent what Bush said insofar as they are even aware of it.

[Sarahfeena]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

For debate: Is this belief something that Bush essentially kept under wraps for the last 8 years? Was he previously pandering to the fundamentalist community, or have we just been unaware of his non-literalist leanings until now?

I don't think I ever had the impression that Bush was a literalist. Has anyone ever heard him directly asked that question before? I'm not sure that just not saying what his specific beliefs were means he's pandering to anyone. Certainly, I would never just assume a Christian is a literalist if they didn't mention that they were, especially someone who identifies himself as a Methodist (I don't think of them as being a particularly literalist denomination).

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by shallora

Did Bush ever say in the past that he's a Bible literalist? I don't think he ever did.

I believe that's part of the subject for debate.

Note to Liberals: You don't have to believe the Bible is literally true in order to be a Christian.

Everybody here knows that. If the OP is suggesting Bush might've lead people to the unspoken assumption he has a Biblical literalist, that's not an unreasonable position. In addition to the issues I mentioned, he's called for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by yanceylebeef

I think the hypocrisy charge comes from the habit of (some)Christians to use of the bible as a cite for something, say, homosexuality is a sin, then ignore the other parts of the same book. I assume that most people who are reading this post have some understanding of Leviticus and when you choose one or two of the chapters to prove a point, and then pointedly (Ha!) overlook the other "abominations" you are going to open yourself up for criticism.

Well the homosexuality is a sin thing derives from the same place as the masturbation is a sin thing. You are spreading your seed in fallow soil. Christianity is based off of the idea that one is trying to overcome their base hungers, not seek to satisfy them. Sex is purely procreative. So a non-literalist can see it this way without being a hypocrite. Every sperm is sacred you know.

[mswas]

Paul in Corinthians warns against biblical literalism but reminds his flock of their status as neophytes. He also says it is better not to have sex at all, but that if you are going to have sex the least sinful way to do it is in a heterosexual marriage.

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by shallora

I don't see what the big deal is. Did Bush ever say in the past that he's a Bible literalist? I don't think he ever did.

This is the probem with many Liberals: They don't understand religion(s).

Note to Liberals: You don't have to believe the Bible is literally true in order to be a Christian. Just like you don't have to believe everything Obama or Kennedy says is gospel in order to still call yourself a Democrat.

In fact, most Christians don't believe the Bible is literally true. Just like most Democrats don't believe every word Obama says is gospel, either.

As ususal, the facts have a well known liberal bias. Here are what conservatives think about taking key Bible stories literally:

Further, the more skeptical you are about the Bible, the more likely it is that you are a political liberal. On the flip side, the more you take these narratives literally, the more likely you are to be a conservative:

There were very consistent patterns related to people’s political inclinations. Of the six stories examined, just one story (the resurrection of Christ) was considered to be literally true by at least half of all liberals. In contrast, among conservatives, only one of those stories was taken literally by less than 80% (the 76% who embraced the six day creation as absolute truth.) Similarly, the data showed that Republicans were more likely than either Democrats or Independents to accept each of the stories as literally accurate. For all six narratives, Independents were the voting group least likely to hold a literal interpretation, an average of twenty percentage points lower than the norm among Republicans.

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by mswas

Well the homosexuality is a sin thing derives from the same place as the masturbation is a sin thing. You are spreading your seed in fallow soil. Christianity is based off of the idea that one is trying to overcome their base hungers, not seek to satisfy them. Sex is purely procreative. So a non-literalist can see it this way without being a hypocrite. Every sperm is sacred you know.

A better reading of Onan's sin is that he refused to fuck his dead brother's wife as required by Jewish law.

[Sarahfeena]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I believe that's part of the subject for debate.

Everybody here knows that. If the OP is suggesting Bush might've lead people to the unspoken assumption he has a Biblical literalist, that's not an unreasonable position. In addition to the issues I mentioned, he's called for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools.

Calling for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools is pandering to his evangelical base, for sure...but it doesn't necessarily indicate that he, himself, is a creationist or a literalist.

Also, did he "call for" the teaching of creationism in the sense of "I believe all schools should teach creationism," or was it more in the sense of "if parents want creationism taught in their local schools, they should be allowed to." There's a world of difference there, both in terms of religious and poltical philosophy.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

You forgot to mention the war on christmas. Isn't that important to you?

No.

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I thought martyrdom was a key tenet of their faith.

You were wrong. Now you know better.

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Quote: Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers
I thought martyrdom was a key tenet of their faith.

You were wrong. Now you know better.

Someone should tell Jesus then.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Sarahfeena

Also, did he "call for" the teaching of creationism in the sense of "I believe all schools should teach creationism," or was it more in the sense of "if parents want creationism taught in their local schools, they should be allowed to." There's a world of difference there, both in terms of religious and poltical philosophy.

He's said a bunch of different things, obviously. From this 2005 Washington Post article:

In comments published last year in Science magazine, Bush said that the federal government should not tell states or school boards what to teach but that "scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the science curriculum.". . .

Although he said that curriculum decisions should be made by school districts rather than the federal government, Bush told Texas newspaper reporters in a group interview at the White House on Monday that he believes that intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.
"Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0201686_2.html

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by mswas

A minority of Christians are biblical literalists. I know it takes the fun out of Christ bashing, but that's the case. It might be a sizable minority but biblical literalists are rarer than you might think.

You know, I read this a lot online, but . . . what exactly do you mean by "literalist"? If you mean people who pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe - EVERY Christian does that, from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to Barack Obama. If you mean willing to say "Jesus was just a man", well, I've never met anyone who self-describes as a Christian willing to say that. Come across a lot of them online, but never met one in the wild.

[Knorf]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

I'm sure that the thousands of Christians who have been starved to death in Sudan, shot in North Korea, imprisoned in Cuba, sent for "re-education" in China, and murdered or abused at other places around the world take great comfort from your interest.

And if Sudan, North Korea, or Cuba were super powers in any way comparable to the U.S. you might have a point. You get a token point for China, but that's stretching things.

Christianity dominates the nation with the most powerful economic and military forces on the planet.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Cisco

You know, I read this a lot online, but . . . what exactly do you mean by "literalist"? If you mean people who pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe - EVERY Christian does that, from Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to Barack Obama. If you mean willing to say "Jesus was just a man", well, I've never met anyone who self-describes as a Christian willing to say that. Come across a lot of them online, but never met one in the wild.

That one essential point is taken as integral to making one a Christian.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Sarahfeena

Calling for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in schools is pandering to his evangelical base, for sure...but it doesn't necessarily indicate that he, himself, is a creationist or a literalist.

Saying creationism should be taught with evolution does not make him a literalist, but you can see where it would make people wonder if he is one. Like I said above, I never believed he was one because I didn't think about it, but there was ample reason to think it was possible.

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

He's said a bunch of different things, obviously. From this 2005 Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0201686_2.html

From seeing Bush's latest interview it seems that he does not understand what creationism and intelligent design are. I suspect that he thinks God created the Universe and set up the environment for life to evolve. Many people confuse parthenogenesis with evolution and it makes it hard to have an intelligent discussion.

I don't care if schools say somethkng like "Some people believe that God created the Universe and others think that it just happened, but that has no bearing on what we are studying".

What's important to me is that people leave school understanding that the prevailing scientific view is that the earth and universe are billions of years old, life has existed on earth for billions of years, and that complex forms of life evolved from simpler forms through mutation and natural selection.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by mswas

That one essential point is taken as integral to making one a Christian.

Right, which is why I think if you believe Jesus = God is literally true, then you are a biblical literalist. EVERYBODY picks and chooses which other parts to believe, no matter how liberal or conservative they are.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by shallora

Note to Liberals: You don't have to believe the Bible is literally true in order to be a Christian. J

I guess I owe an apology to you as well then, for my horrible OP that says all Christians believe the bible is literally true.

[Bayard]

Who knows what Bush believes or believed in his heart? Here's what the NY Times had to say about Bush's religious beliefs during the 2000 campaign (registration required):

Originally Posted by NYTimes

Like some kind of religious Rorschach, Mr. Bush has managed to allow spiritual leaders to see in him whatever image of Christianity they prefer. His mainline Methodist minister says he is a nondogmatic moderate. Conservative Southern Baptists see in him a fellow believer in moral absolutes. Charles W. Colson, a Watergate felon turned born-again evangelist, said in an interview that Mr. Bush was ''one of us.''

If it is difficult to hear the true timbre of Mr. Bush's Christian faith, it may be because he has a gift for emphasizing the universals and avoiding the potentially divisive particulars about what he believes.

<snip>

Asked whether he regards the Bible as the literal and inerrant word of God, Mr. Bush said in the earlier interview: ''From Scripture you can gain a lot of strength and solace and learn life's lessons. That's what I believe, and I don't necessarily believe every single word is literally true.

''I think that, for example, on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth,'' he said, a position that separates him from the fundamentalists. ''I don't use the Bible as necessarily a way to predict the findings of science.''

My bold. So, at least to the NY Times, he's said all along that he doesn't believe in a literal interpretation.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by DanBlather

From seeing Bush's latest interview it seems that he does not understand what creationism and intelligent design are. I suspect that he thinks God created the Universe and set up the environment for life to evolve. Many people confuse parthenogenesis with evolution and it makes it hard to have an intelligent discussion.

Quite true, especially the parthenogenesis/evolution confusion (which Bush has in spades, as per Bayard's quote above).

It sounds like Bush was pretty much confused about exactly WHAT he believes/believed. In the past, he did not come right out and say "every single word in the bible is completely factual", but he certainly did not come right out and say what he just stated in his recent interview either. My guess is he just kept quiet and let people assume whatever they wanted to assume. Politics as normal.

Do others agree with mwas that, for the most part, fundamentalists will either never find out about this and/or not care if they do?

ETA: Bush as "religious Rorschach" : That's a good turn of phrase! Thanks for finding that Bayard.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Cisco

You know, I read this a lot online, but . . . what exactly do you mean by "literalist"?

Generally, a literalist believes that the events described in the bible, with the exception of things that are explicitly described as fictional, like Jesus's parables, or obviously metaphorical ("The Lord is my Shepherd" doesn't mean that God goes around herding sheep) actually happened the way as described in the bible.

So, God actually did create the bible in 6 days, there was a real Abraham who really was commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac, the Jews were really brought out of slavery by Moses, etc. All that stuff happened, much as the bible said it did....they were historical happenings.

Along with that, the prophecies in the bible, like in Daniel and Revelation, although many of them are confusing at first glance and require interpretation, reference actual events that will happen sometime in the future.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

For debate: Is this belief something that Bush essentially kept under wraps for the last 8 years?

I thought Shodans reply was on point, and using a debate technique often applied in this forum when criticism of Muslims is put forward only to result in negative comparisons to Christianity.
To answer this question, I have to ask why you ask. Do you hold negative prejudice against conservative Christians ? No one suggests that Obama may be a literalist Christian. You can be pro-choice and still be a literalist. Or the other way around.

Was he previously pandering to the fundamentalist community, or have we just been unaware of his non-literalist leanings until now?

Why do you ask. Both Bush and Obama have pandered to the fundamentalists.may I suggest that you have been merely unaware of Bush's position on literalism. Its never been a political issue you know.

Another question - will this harm his "legacy" among the fundamentalists, or will they just go "meh".

His legacy is already fucked. Period.

One further note. In this day and age I have a hard time believing that anyone, educated beyond high school believes in 6 day creation. I can understand however that there are many who believe that to actively oppose the belief is simply anti-biblical, uneccessary and should be avoided.