Bush says Bible is not literally true

[zev_steinhardt]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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 thinkabout 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]

@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]

@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]

@Ludovic

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

No.

@Bryan Ekers

I thought martyrdom was a key tenet of their faith.

You were wrong. Now you know better.

[DanBlather]

@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]

@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.”

Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate

[Cisco]

@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.