I think it’s a parable about the loss of innocence that comes with knowledge.
Candidate George Bush, 2000 on evolution:
1. He doesn’t care about that kind of thing.
and
2. The jury is still out on evolution.
George Bush, 2005:
"The US president told newspaper reporters in Texas that children should be taught about intelligent design so they could better understand the debate about the origins of the universe. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201686.html
Former Senator Rick Santorum, noted homophobe and darling of the religious right in 2005: “I’m not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom.”
Soon to be former President George Bush on evolution, 2008:
Does Bush actually think that the theory of evolution explains how the Earth was formed (the creation of the world)? Or is he just engaging in “confused-speak”?
And what’s with the “I’m just a simple president” schtick? Why am I hearing it in a Slim Pickin’s voice?
Does anyone here know what “Fundamentalism” originally meant? It sure wasn’t absolute Biblical literalism.
It was adherence to these five beliefs as literally true-
The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ’s miracles.
The books “The Fundamentals” had articles which allowed for an Earth far older than 6000 years and even, to an extent, Theistic Evolution. Wm Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Trial conceded to an Old Earth & denied literalism. In my life, I only met one person, a teenage girl, who believed there was a seven-headed monster that would some day emerge from under the seas (Rev 13). Bush’s ‘admission’ is only scandalous to hyper-Fundies who go far beyond the original Fundamentalists and to liberals who have no idea what Fundamentalism/Evangelicalism really means, the same ones who are shocked when they find conservative Christians who enjoy marital sex, use contraception, and have a sense of humor.
Read point #1 again.
I agree with you that there exists a bit of a cardboard cutout caricature of the beliefs of Fundamentalists–one that is especially prevalent among a number of posters to this board, however, that error is in extending the beliefs of one subset of Fundamentalists to the whole, not to attributing something that is wholly made up to Fundamentalists. Back when the SDMB had the skirmish with the Left Behind Message Board, I saw a number of LBMB posters expressing a firm conviction that the bible is, indeed, literally true in the events portrayed in Genesis through Second Kings along with many of the stories and prophecies in Daniel and Ezekiel. And while you may have only encountered one literalist in your life, I would have to say that I have encountered quite a few more than one.
Did the LBMB represent the whole of Fundamentalism? Of course not. However, it is not accurate to claim that literalism has no part of Fundamentalism when some (undetermined) number of Fundamentalists define innerrancy as “literal truth.”
I used to love discussing religion and Revelation was one of my favorite books of the bible, so I can say with 100% confidence that I have met literally dozens of people who believe this. Where I grew up it was the norm, and even here out west it’s not all that rare a belief. It came up not two weeks ago in a discussion of something [that I would think was] unrelated, and the lady was from San Francisco, no less. Maybe if people know up front that you don’t believe that, they’re not going to say anything, but if you keep your mouth shut and let people guess about your beliefs you will hear some crazy shit - - FAR more often than you will hear anything nuanced and rational, at least on the topics of politics and religion, in my experience :).
I live in SE Indiana. That girl is the only person I’ve met who said anything remotely close to that. I’ve also never met a Young-Earth Creationist who denies the existence of dinosaurs. I don’t doubt such people exist, but they are exceedingly rare, even among Fund’ists who call themselves ‘literalists’.
I am convinced that none of the LBMB “literalists” tomndebb mention above believe in a real seven-headed monster from the sea. Nicolae Carpathia only has one head. 
I am a Biblical literalist on a lot of things. When the Bible speaks of something as a historic event, I believe it happened much as the Bible says. There are some areas which may be poetic, even some I don’t realize. Now- I hold Gen 1 & Rev 4-22 and much in between as poetic, but I still believe they are poetry about things that really happened or will happen, and/or about Ultimate Truth. The Gospels & Acts I hold to be literally true- that the teachings & deeds of Jesus & his followers
recorded therein did happen as described, including the miraculous stuff. I believe in a literal Eden, Adam & Eve & Fall into disobedience. The “fruit” and “serpent” may be symbolic of some non-food test and some non-reptilian tempter. Also, while I believe Adam & Eve were the ancestors of all humanity, I don’t hold they were necessarily the only homo sapiens on Earth at the time. They may have been the first homo theologos- the first humans to whom God’s Word came- and their descendants have permeated the human race to the point there is no one now on Earth who isn’t related to them.
Am I a literalist? Not an absolute one. Moreso that many Christians, lessso than many other Christians. I just don’t see that as a useful term.
Thanks for your contribution FriarTed. Yes, there is certainly a difference between many fundamentalists and “literalists” or “hyper-Fundies” (love that term!). I have relatives who I would not call “hyper-Fundies”, but they do not think there are any metaphors, stories or parables in the bible. They believe in a 6 day (24 hour day) creation, an actual flood, and that events in the old testament are 100% accurate.
In your opinion, what proportion of Fundamentalists would also fit the definition of “literalist” (one who believes that the bible is divinely inspired, and is a completely accurate factual historical retelling)?
ETA: Do you think there is a continuum of belief re: the bible: Strict literalist – somewhat literalist — many things taken literally — a few things taken literally — It’s all a fairy tale
Ummmm . . . {reluctantly speaks up} . . . I have at least 3 of them that I know of in my extended family. And they’re not even from the south, they’re from California. And not even rural California. And if you want to go into the bible belt - where I grew up . . . my high school biology teacher brought up dinosaurs one time, argued with the class for about 30 seconds, and then threw his hands up in the air and said “I’m outnumbered, I give up, let’s move on.” And this was not back in the '40s or anything, it was 1995.
Haven’t read the thread, sorry if I repeat anyone.
As much as I hate bush, I now have to think maybe the bible IS literally true.
he has been wrong about Sooo much.
We’ve heard the reaction from liberals and their non-fundamentalis opponents to Bush’s revelation. Now how are Bush’s fundamentalist allies reacting?
Here’s one take on it:
http://www.christianhomekeeping.com/2008/12/president-bush-says-bible-probably-not.html
Here’s a discussion of it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2145756/posts
Yup, he can forget about it now (heh heh)
Well, it was at least an honest answer. Besides, who cares? His beliefs are his own and he has as much right to them as anyone else. We do still at least pay some lip service to freedom of religion, don’t we?
Is this equivalency, or is it a strawman? I’m a little rusty on the fine points. But, the same question applies - who cares either way?
That has nothing to do with religion. That is simply Darwinian selection (working as intended)
Ummmm, okay. Whatever. It looks more to me like so many others, Good Old Pat Robertson gets to decide what applies (to other people) and yet can pick and choose what applies to him. No worries, I always thought he was a piece of garbage anyway.
Still, to get back to the original discussion, Bush can believe or disbelieve whatever he chooses, just like anyone else can. As long as he doesn’t force that on anyone else, there is no problem. It doesn’t matter if it is literalism, flying spaghetti monsters, Cthulhu, or Lord Emperor Flying penguins.
I don’t think anyone ever questioned whether Bush could believe or disbelieve whatever he chooses. Of course he can.
The questions are, did Bush misrepresent (either directly or through omission) his stand on whether or not the bible should be interpreted literally? And, what is the reaction of biblical literalists (who presumably formed a core group of his supporters) to this recent revelation?
I can’t seem to remember him clearly stating it either way. He was most likely doing his best to avoid it altogether (if he had any sense all, he would and should have). Was it maybe a case of people hearing what they want to hear? Possibly.
Still and all, there is something fundamentally (joke) wrong, if a man’s religion is the litmus test for public office. There is a quote about that somewhere.
Wow, these people are fucked up. Here is my favorite:
This follows the statement:
This last quotation doesn’t bother me at all. I’m relieved when churches focus on feeding people and helping the poor. If they say that they are “called” by God to do so, it is not my business to question why they are being of service to their fellow man. That is a little different from a public servant who feels that God calls him to make war.
But Southern Fundamentalist/Evangelical women do not enjoy the premarital sex. No sirree! It isn’t polite to show enjoyment before marriage.
You are missing the point. They were saying that the purpose of a church is NOT to feed and clothe the poor, it’s to convert them to Christianity.
I’ve read all the comments and it bores me. I’m in a preaching mood:
Who cares what he says he believes, actions speak louder than words. He certainly does not give a damn about the sanctity of life. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Bush was at the very least complicit in the 9/11/2001 tragedy; check out 911docs.net, only one of a thousand sites. If I were a criminal of the magnitude he is I would be very pleased that people continue intellectualizing, chattering pros and cons blah blah knowing all their energy is being vented in mere words. He will worry only when we stop talking.
As for the bible originally written in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew, none of whom were earliest civilizations, we should look to the Sumerians for the truth because the best classic Old Testament stories were written by them a few thousand years before but only discovered in 19th and 20th century, and still only partly deciphered … on clay tablets I might add, not papyrus or leather or copper. But every Old Testament story as written in the bible has a spin on it rendering the truth impossible to see unless the original stories from Sumerians are understood. By way of example: Sumerian story of creation was written on six tablets with seventh tablet praising the Lord’s accomplishments vs bible six days with seventh day of rest, clearly a spin. The bible as it stands is the biggest plagiarization in the history of mankind, and even as I speak another and newer edition is being prepared for the masses who believe anything: the bigger the lie, the more they’ll buy. But so I do not mislead you I must state I strongly believe in God’s existence and is real flesh and blood and spirit just as we are all created in his image and likeness. Amen, I have spoken. Thanks, I needed that. If you want to hear the real take on some Old Testament stories please request.
Creationism vs evolution –
I’m a Sitchinite. I say they stand side by side better than alone. My theory is man developed over millions of years through natural selection up to what we call hominids. Then God upgraded them by including his own dna in the mix and made firstly neanderthal, then cromagnon and finally homo sapien, the Adam. From my reading I believe God created man to be smart enough and dextrous as slaves to work the gold mines in Africa which are the oldest probably manmade thing on the planet. Of course the Trilithon foundation of Baalbeck is probably the oldest thing on earth that was made, but I don’t believe man made it but God. As an aside, I always wondered why the Trilithon is not considered one of the wonders of the world.
Ramblin’Man