Bush says Bible is not literally true

[mswas]

@Lobohan

We’re tangenting, but how about this:

“In the beginning God created the universe. Then the stars in the sky. Then the Sun, and from the Sun he pulled the Earth and from the Earth the Moon. From the Sun and the air he made the waters and from the waters he brought life.”

That’s simpler than the one “God” wrote and it’s actually kind of correct. Instead he lied and created purposely disguised the order of creation. In fact, if Genesis actually said what I just said there, about hydrogen and oxygen making water I’d be in church right now. Instead he said something exactly like a primitive person would come up with.

Why believe it’s divinely inspired if it brings no divine insights?

:smack:

Because…hydrogen…was…not…a…concept…when…it…was…written.

You’re talking about explaining it to people who are still learning light/dark dualisms.

So okay it is a book for dullards, Bryan Ekers made a great point.

I’m not even getting into the divinely inspired argument. Whoever wrote it was a straight genius. It was written for an audience about 5000 years less educated than you.

[Lobohan]

@mswas

:smack:

Because…hydrogen…was…not…a…concept…when…it…was…written.

You’re talking about explaining it to people who are still learning light/dark dualisms.

So okay it is a book for dullards, Bryan Ekers made a great point.

I’m not even getting into the divinely inspired argument. Whoever wrote it was a straight genius. It was written for an audience about 5000 years less educated than you.

I know, but it works on the basic level. And then when humanity learned about the composition of the sun by viewing spectral lines it would have been the shot heard around the world. When the Genesis account actually fell into place click by click with modern physics and cosmology you’d have believers by the bucketload.

I’m not saying that the bronze age men should have known about hydrogen, but they would have accepted it and then when we as a culture did know better it wouldn’t have looked like a document written by primitives, it would be very strong evidence that the book was supernatural in origin… or that aliens wrote it.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@mswas

So okay it is a book for dullards, Bryan Ekers made a great point.

Well, actually, my only “point” was that I didn’t see a significant difference between saying something was written for dullards and that it was written for bronze age herders. The implication is that both groups are too ignorant and primitive to understand concepts more complex than “God did it.”

Whoever wrote it was a straight genius.

I don’t know about that. I’ve seen episodes of Friends that had more substance than the creation chapters of Genesis. What’s the original un-dumbed-down version? I presume we’re mature enough to handle it, what with our 5,000 extra years of education.

[mswas]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, actually, my only “point” was that I didn’t see a significant difference between saying something was written for dullards and that it was written for bronze age herders. The implication is that both groups are too ignorant and primitive to understand concepts more complex than “God did it.”

Sure.

I don’t know about that. I’ve seen episodes of Friends that had more substance than the creation chapters of Genesis. What’s the original un-dumbed-down version? I presume we’re mature enough to handle it, what with our 5,000 extra years of education.

You have trouble judging something in its historical context don’t you?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@mswas

You have trouble judging something in its historical context don’t you?

No, and while Genesis was being written, there were plenty of intelligent people all around the Earth. I don’t doubt more complex creation theories could be and were bandied about. Genesis doesn’t strike me as being particularly compelling, but I guess it’s straightforward enough that it could appeal to people well beyond simple bronze age herders, even people who do have the benefit of an extra 5,000 years of education.

[Bryan_Ekers]

As an incidental note, I might like Genesis more if it didn’t have the message that seeking knowledge is something worthy of punishment.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Shodan

It’s a rhetorical device to expose a false premise.

According to the OP, Bush is pandering to the fundamentalists because the OP believes that he has never stated before that he is not a Bible literalist. Fine - as far as I know, Obama has never stated before that he is not a Bible literalist. So, apparently Obama is pandering to the fundamentalists, or, neither Bush nor Obama is pandering to the fundamentalists. Got it?

Regards,
Shodan

I’m sorry Shodan, you seem to have mis-read my original post. I asked IF bush was pandering to the fundamentalists. It was not a rhetorical question. You are free to answer “why no, he was not, for the following reasons…”

I believe this forum is called “Great Debates”, not “Great Put Words in the OP’s Mouth”
You may wish to lurk a bit before you post if you are new here.

It has already been explained upthread that Republicans such as George Bush tend to rely on fundamentalist votes, and many fundamentalists literally believe the bible. That makes Mr. Bush’s recent interview interesting. Mr. Obama did not give such an interview, or recently make any statements about the literal nature of the bible. Thus he is not relevant to the discussion.

Frankly, the logic of your argument above is seriously flawed and a bit sophomoric. I really hope that you’re just having a bit of fun with us!

[mswas]

@Bryan_Ekers

No, and while Genesis was being written, there were plenty of intelligent people all around the Earth. I don’t doubt more complex creation theories could be and were bandied about. Genesis doesn’t strike me as being particularly compelling, but I guess it’s straightforward enough that it could appeal to people well beyond simple bronze age herders, even people who do have the benefit of an extra 5,000 years of education.

The point is that it explains certain fundamental concepts that you take for granted. This is why I don’t see it as a literal telling of the story. Separating light from dark, light from matter, real from unreal. There are lots of things that light and dark represent symbolically. The point is that in the first two days he creates the conceptual division, and the third day he finally gives it a physical form that we recognize as the Earth. My point is that you absolutely cannot view it literally. It is told in such a way that there is nothing literal about it. Everything is metaphorical. The point is to impart a very basic bit of knowledge to all the bronze agers who hear it in order to teach them more complex concepts later. After all, Genesis covers from the dawn of time to Abraham. A lot occurs in there. I don’t think a few thousand words can cover the complexity of what occured in that time, ‘literally’. The book of Genesis is a montage.

[mswas]

@Bryan_Ekers

As an incidental note, I might like Genesis more if it didn’t have the message that seeking knowledge is something worthy of punishment.

That one sticks in my craw too.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@mswas

My point is that you absolutely cannot view it literally. It is told in such a way that there is nothing literal about it. Everything is metaphorical. The point is to impart a very basic bit of knowledge to all the bronze agers who hear it in order to teach them more complex concepts later. After all, Genesis covers from the dawn of time to Abraham. A lot occurs in there. I don’t think a few thousand words can cover the complexity of what occured in that time, ‘literally’. The book of Genesis is a montage.

As much as I totally agree with you, I’m wondering, for that significant number of people who DO take the bible word-for-word literally, and assuming that there is a strong overlap between these people and the 25% or so that still support Bush, is there any possibility of Bush’s legacy being EVEN MORE tarnished? Could he conceivably go down to 15% or so?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@DanBlather

My previous citeshowed that 60% of Americans: believe God created the universe in six days.

Sorry, if I don’t take a “magazine of evangelical conviction” seriously. I don’t mean to put down your religious views, but I think your cite is biased.

[mswas]

@Euphonious_Polemic

As much as I totally agree with you, I’m wondering, for that significant number of people who DO take the bible word-for-word literally, and assuming that there is a strong overlap between these people and the 25% or so that still support Bush, is there any possibility of Bush’s legacy being EVEN MORE tarnished? Could he conceivably go down to 15% or so?

Heh, well they are not likely to see a friendlier President than Bush ever in their lifetimes so I seriously doubt it.

[Lobohan]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Sorry, if I don’t take a “magazine of evangelical conviction” seriously. I don’t mean to put down your religious views, but I think your cite is biased.

The master speaks:

Nearly half the U.S. population believes the earth is less than 10,000 years...

@cecil

Dear Cecil:

I saw an article the other day saying that 45 percent of the U.S. population believes that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. That would certainly explain the election results of the past few years, but I don’t believe it. A near majority of Americans simply cannot be that retarded. I looked on the Web and did find a claim that a 2004 study showed this. But it provided no cite and I haven’t been able to find any such study. Does it exist, or is this just an urban myth being passed witlessly around by the lower grade of media? (Don’t use my name if you publish this, as it could affect my military contracts.)

— Anonymous, via e-mail

Before you start excoriating the numbskulls, bub, you’d better make sure you’ve got the facts straight yourself. Though some percentage of Americans doubtless believes in a “young earth” (i.e., our planet is less than 10,000 years old), as far as I can tell that wasn’t the subject of the 2004 study. Most likely what you heard about was a 2004 Gallup poll that asked about the less bizarre though still pretty out-there belief that humanity is less than 10,000 years old. Gallup first surveyed U.S. adults on this score in 1982 and has asked the same question several times since, most recently in May 2006. Participants can choose one of three answers:

* "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." It's fair to describe this as the creationist view.
* "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." We'll call this the theistic view.
* "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." I'll term this the naturalist view.

Between 1982 and 2006, the number subscribing to the creationist view has ranged from 44 to 47 percent, while those who buy the naturalist take on things account for 9 to 13 percent. The middle-ground theistic position gets 35 to 40 percent of the vote. There’s no clear trend over the 24 years; if anything, the naturalists have gained a few percentage points. Polls by the Pew Research Center and NBC News have found similar support for creationist belief, while surveys by CBS News from 2004 to 2006 and a 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll give it a slim majority, at 51 to 53 percent.

To a degree, survey results reflect how the question is framed. Pew Research notes that its polls have found much wider belief in evolution than Gallup’s, 26 percent versus 13 percent. The reason, Pew speculates, is that it doesn’t mention God in the choices it offers participants, while Gallup does. Not wishing to declare themselves unbelievers, more Gallup respondents opt for the wishy-washy theist choice. The creationist numbers, on the other hand, can’t be so easily explained away. Face it - despite seemingly abundant scientific evidence that humans are part of a primate family tree going back tens of millions of years, roughly half the country isn’t having any of it.

If you’ve a mind to put a blue state/red state, slicks/yokels spin on matters, the polls offer lots of ammunition. A 2005 Harris poll reported that 73 percent of Republicans believed in creationism as opposed to 58 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents. (The numbers are higher across the board likely because of phrasing that, again, seemed to equate creationism with belief in God.) This poll also found that people in the northeast and west were much less likely to believe in creationism than those in the south and midwest, and that people over age 55 were much more likely to believe than those under. A 1991 Gallup survey found that college graduates were less than half as likely to believe in creationism as those lacking a high school diploma. Likewise, those with an income greater than $50,000 per year were half as likely to be creationists as those with an income under $20,000. In 1997 Gallup reported that 5 percent of scientists believed in creationism, which depending on how you look at it is either alarming or a relief.

How does the U.S. compare with other countries in terms of belief in evolution? Not so hot. A study of attitudes in 34 countries published in Science in 2006 shows that the United States ranks last in popular acceptance of evolution except for Turkey. Almost 40 percent of Americans in this study flatly rejected evolution, whereas the comparable numbers in European countries and Japan ranged from 7 to 15 percent. That may partly reflect U.S. high school kids’ dismal math and science scores relative to other developed countries, which to my mind underscores a home truth: the more you know, the less you take on faith.

— Cecil Adams

I assume I can put an entire article from this website up, right? If not, please modsmack it away.

[magellan01]

Lobohan,

You’ve been called on this already, but you simply seem intent on being insulting. mswas pointed out why the each of the “days” of creation shouldn’t be taken literally, but you pooh-pooh it like a twelve-year-old wise ass in catechism class.

Is it really beyond your abilities to discuss this topic without the inanity of “lice-infested”, “magic book”, “so the sky is a physical dome”, blah, blah? It got old at thirteen.

And before you jump to some erroneous conclusion, no, I don’t practice any religion.

[Lobohan]

@magellan01

Lobohan,

You’ve been called on this already, but you simply seem intent on being insulting. mswas pointed out why the each of the “days” of creation shouldn’t be taken literally, but you pooh-pooh it like a twelve-year-old wise ass in catechism class.

Is it really beyond your abilities to discuss this topic without the inanity of “lice-infested”, “magic book”, “so the sky is a physical dome”, blah, blah? It got old at thirteen.

And before you jump to some erroneous conclusion, no, I don’t practice any religion.

I don’t generally jump to erroneous conclusions, thanks. I don’t hold any special respect for religious beliefs, so I can’t see as why I should pretend that the stupid things they say aren’t stupid. Sorry.

As for my intent, I’m not trying to be insulting. I’m trying to have a discussion. Why not join in and take the spotlight off of me? I’m not nearly as interesting as the millions of American morons who think the world is younger than any given mastodon.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

Really, we’re not trying to compete here for “how much is the bible not true”.

Lobohan, do you think the average “literalist” will know or care about Bush’s recent statement that he does not take the bible literally?

[Lobohan]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Really, we’re not trying to compete here for “how much is the bible not true”.

Lobohan, do you think the average “literalist” will know or care about Bush’s recent statement that he does not take the bible literally?

I think they’ll take it like he slapped them in the face with the back of his hand.

I would think that the average literalist finds someone saying that the genesis account is incorrect to be an attack on their beliefs. I hope this is so, because I’d like Bush’s approval rating to hit single digits.

[mswas]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Really, we’re not trying to compete here for “how much is the bible not true”.

Lobohan, do you think the average “literalist” will know or care about Bush’s recent statement that he does not take the bible literally?

Yeah the average literalist is an uinformed moron. I think we can all pretty much agree on that one. Lo-info people like that are lo-info because they miss the info. It’ll be coffee table grumbling and maybe the scandal of the Skyline trailer park for a week. I don’t think the type of people to be truly offended like this are quite the political junkie some amongst us here may be fairly called.

[Captain_Haddock]

@mswas

@Bryan_Ekers

As an incidental note, I might like Genesis more if it didn’t have the message that seeking knowledge is something worthy of punishment.

That one sticks in my craw too.

I don’t want to take this off on a tangent, but could you expand on this please. How is God justified in punishing someone for an action where they had no moral comprehension of the act or the outcome of the act? The pursuit of knowledge is not of itself something I consider to be entwined with morality anyway, much like science. So why is it worth of punishment?

[DanBlather]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

Sorry, if I don’t take a “magazine of evangelical conviction” seriously. I don’t mean to put down your religious views, but I think your cite is biased.

My religious views? I’m a devout non-believer. Or am I being whooshed?