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.
That one essential point is taken as integral to making one a Christian.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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):
My bold. So, at least to the NY Times, he’s said all along that he doesn’t believe in a literal interpretation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
OMG! Bush says the Bible is not literally true? You know what that means? It means the Bible probably is literally true. This is scary!
Can’t the guy speak without sounding mentally retarded?
It sounds like a meaningless label because every Christian is going to believe some of this and no Christian is going to believe all of it. Last time I checked, Pat Robertson cuts the hair on the sides of his face. Or, for a NT example, he prays in public.
He has paid lip service to teaching creationism/ID next to evolution/big bang in public science classes (Google search terms: Bush Intelligent Design) and he also told the National Park Service to include in their literature claims that the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood (Google search terms: Grand Canyon Noah Bush). This gives me an indication he is a Biblical literalist. But maybe I just don’t understand religion.
Note to evangelical conservatives: You don’t have to assume that all Liberals don’t understand religion, after all this country is overwhelmingly Christian and has more liberals than conservatives. Thus if you do the math (smacks of science I know, which you guys don’t like), you will find that most liberals are Christians. Also, I think fewer people on the left take what Obama and Kennedy say as gospel than people on the right take what G.W. says as gospel. Just look at the percentage of right-wing true believers who still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and had WMDs. Finally, if you want to discuss your broad brush opinions of liberals further, I will open another thread (not in this forum) and we can debate it…
What chapter/verse do you have in mind here?
-FrL-
Looks like he has one opinion in terms of policy (local schools should decide, not the Feds), and another, personal, opinion (that both should be taught).
Yes, it might make me think he could be, but it wouldn’t make me assume that he was.
No, I think you’re misunderstanding me. Pat Robertson does shave and pray in public, sure, but he does believe that God gave the commandment “Don’t cut the hair on the sides of your face”, for instance. He doesn’t believe that’s a commandment God expects him to keep, but he does believe that God gave it to the Jews at Sinai. He doesn’t believe, for instance, that the commandments in Leviticus were created by the ancient Jews themselves for societal reasons.
Likewise, he believes Jesus actually said to his disciples, “Don’t pray in public, like the Pharisees”. He wouldn’t agree with a group like the Jesus Seminar that those aren’t the authentic words of Jesus but were introduced by the gospel writer in response to x,y, and x (For instance. I don’t know what the Jesus Seminar actually had to say about that verse). He just thinks, for various reasons, it doesn’t apply to him today.
This seems like a straight exhortation against literalism to me. That the ideas presented thus far are as milk and they are not ready for meat, ie not ready for the literal truth.
^I thought he was simply preparing a grocery list :smack:
I wonder whether anyone in this thread cares that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and most other Senate Democrats have paid similar lip service. They voted for an amendment to th NCLB Act (proposed by Rick Santorum, no less) supporting the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Are they also undercover biblical literalists?
No Bush, no flood, no Park Service literature.
I googled those terms and all that came up was this, which does not say what you claim it says. Firstly, it only says that the gift shop had to include a book that endorsed a young earth; no mention of Noah’s flood. Also no mention of President Bush. The article is rather sloppy; it’s unclear what “its” refers to in the first sentence, so we don’t know who ordered it, but there’s certainly no verification of the claim that Bush was involved.
I expect people to think about their beliefs, not hold them unexamined. So yeah, I’d say that someone who obeys 2% of the rules listed in a magic book he thinks is the only communication from God is if not a hypocrite, at the least not thinking very hard about it.
Yes, and some Evangelicals are Literalists. So when I said really evangelical, I meant of the especially devout wingnuts who think that the Bible is the court record of creation.