Was George Bush a christian?

[moobu2]

[saltpoint]

1. He swore he was but well, maybe it's just me, but there's just something

about torturing people that suggests a disconnect somewhere.

[trotsky]

12. Are you saying that "true" Christians are never wrong and never sin? n/t

[saltpoint]

79. Why no. I'm suggesting that Bush was not especially "Christian,"

in the way the word is commonly understood as the teachings of Jesus of Galilee, insofar as such a person every existed and insofar as any of us knows a damn thing about his actual life and words.

[donheld]

2. Was he in any way Christ like?

Oh hell no!

[Duer 157099]

3. "By their works ye shall know them" n/t

[elleng]

4. Not according to my understanding of the term, fwiw.

[saltpoint]

5. On the other hand, we don't KNOW, clincally KNOW, that Jesus didn't

own a big ranch and brush-clearing machinery.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

16. Prove he didn't n/t.

[saltpoint]

19. I think he might have, actually.

[obliviously]

6. Ask God. I can give you contact information!

[yourout]

7. Maybe in a 12th century kind of way.....Crusades and all.

He would have fit right in back then.

[RandomThoughts]

8. Being a Christian does not mean you are perfect, or even good.

Many Christians are mostly good, many are mostly bad. In my belief Christianity gives you an opportunity to learn teachings that can improve you and make your life happier. But there are still things that try to deceive Christians. If people fall into listening to those things, then they go down the wrong paths in my view. But we all at one time or another make mistakes.

I think many Christians think that being Christian makes you better then other people.

[timeforpeace]

9. Agreed. Closet Muslim. He actually called Islam "The Religion of Peace"!

[Ecumenist]

10. FUCK NO!! And as a Christian, I'm going to have to work

on cleansing myself of reawakened hatred towards that man.

[laconicsax]

31. Since he calls himself a Christian, how can you be so certain?

[laconicsax]

11. By his own self-identification, yes.

Although from the other responses, it looks like he wasn't a true Christian.

[Rob H.]

13. He has identified himself as one publicly and repeatedly, so yes nt

[ZombieHorde]

14. Most likely. His faith seemed sincere.

I don't know a single person who follows the words of Christ, so actions don't seem to matter in present day Christianity.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

15. Yes, trongly so.

It was revealed a couple of months ago that Rumsfeld saw to it that Bush's briefings on the Iraq war included Christian religious imagery. This was intended to reinforce Bush's view that he was on a mission from god to eradicate evil. It lends credibility to the "God and Magog" thing that broke last week.

[JerseygirlCT]

17. While we could certainly argue about whether his behavior fits

standards that Christians ought to strive to reach, we can only go by self-identification. So if he says he is, then we really have to accept that he believes he is.

[laconicsax]

24. What are these standards.

There're some big differences between Catholicism, UCC, and Westboro Baptist.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. Well, not really, if you look at the bottom line:

The golden rule pretty well sums it up. If you want to expand, you can look at Matthew 25:35.

[trotsky]

40. The Golden Rule has nothing to do with Christianity.

Predates it by a couple of millenia, as far as we can tell.

Your bible verse also provides plenty of wiggle room. #1, it's in a chapter that is entirely in parable form. Lots of LIBERAL Christians dismiss messages they don't like in parables by simply stating that's not what Jesus meant - why can't your conservative brethren do the same thing? #2, the key quote being 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' (Emphasis mine.) Christians like Bush, Phelps, etc. are perfectly justified in believing that "brothers" in this case means people who already subscribe to the "right" version of Christianity.

[JerseygirlCT]

44. Oh brother

Really?

Of course the golden rule predates Christianity - it's a basic idea that's been part of most major world religions. That doesn't in the least mean it has nothing to do with Christianity! Why would you make that jump? It makes no sense. Christians don't believe their religion just appeared with Christ, whole-cloth. Of course, we've built on the histories and relationships with God that other people have had.

And again, you're working on the assumption that scripture is a take it all or leave it all proposition, and that interpretation has no role. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Even those literalists who would SAY it's all or nothing do plenty of their own interpretation. I assure it's not soley the province of more liberal-minded Christians. We're just see no reason to hide the fact, and actually believe that interpetation is not only part of it, but a most important part - it's the way you learn, and it's the way that scripture remains meaningful over thousands of years.

The only "right" version of Christianity is one that leads a Christian to a fuller relationship with God and with others.

[trotsky]

49. You did a wonderful job dispatching that strawman.

Nicely done. Now if it had anything to do with my point, I'd be even more impressed. But you missed it completely.

interpetation is not only part of it, but a most important part

Which is exactly my point - glad you came around to it. It's the interpretation of your special book that leads to all the problems, and this "good Christian" vs. "bad Christian" silliness. You've been arguing with each other, splitting off, fighting, and killing each other for a couple thousand years now, all over whose INTERPRETATION is correct. And you just can't convince each other, because just about every interpretation can be justified in some way.

The only "right" version of Christianity is one that leads a Christian to a fuller relationship with God and with others.

Bush, Phelps, Robertson et al can say the same thing. They have a different interpretation of what that "fuller relationship" is, is all. Let me know when you've convinced them they're wrong.

[JerseygirlCT]

51. Why in the world would I try?

I think you're missing my point.

I'm not deciding who a real Christian is. I can't judge that and I have no desire to try. We have to assume someone is what he or she says he or she is.

[trotsky]

52. Uh, because you started this subthread by saying...

"While we could certainly argue about whether his behavior fits standards that Christians ought to strive to reach"

So far, the only definition you've given for these "standards" is basically "the standards that *I* think Christians should try to meet".

You're missing the whole point of why this is even a question - if so-and-so is a Christian. Yes, your assumption is correct, and we have to take a person's declaration at face value. But it goes deeper than that - you can't even say with certainty whether someone's actions are "Christian" because none of you can come to an agreement on even what those actions are or should be.

[JerseygirlCT]

54. Well, in the first place, you looked at the first half of that sentence

and discarded the second... looking at the "but..." might have helped.

Secondly, I think the idea that some sort of agreement is necessary is interesting. To what purpose? I certainly have my own interpretation of what sort of behavior I think I'm called to. The next person's might indeed differ, if their understanding of God and what's expected of us is different.

[trotsky]

58. Ah, you see the two halves don't flow very well now, do they?

You are simultaneously saying that a Christian is whoever claims to be one, but also that their behavior can be analyzed to see if it meets certain "standards." (Which you leave unspecified, of course, probably realizing the hole you are beginning to dig.)

To what purpose? I certainly have my own interpretation of what sort of behavior I think I'm called to. The next person's might indeed differ, if their understanding of God and what's expected of us is different.

That's one way of reconciling the two halves of your original statement. A Christian is whoever says they are, because everyone has their own equally valid opinion on what a Christian is. Is that what you wish to state?

[JerseygirlCT]

59. Yes.

A Christian is self-defined, at least for we mere mortals.

And what I said above was that we could certainly argue about Bush's behavior. We could, we do, and undoubtedly we will continue to do so - each from our own perspective, based on our own interpretations. And, frankly, I see nothing wrong with that. The discussions are actually part of that process of learning that involves interpretation and thought.

The alternative, of course, is some extremely authoritarian view, whereby one person or small group of people dictates the meaning of "Christian", and holds everyone else to the standards they have determined. I think that approach leads to a lack of thoughtfulness and a very simplistic way of navigating both faith and life in this world.

[trotsky]

61. So you just want it both ways.

Nothing wrong with that, I suppose!

[JerseygirlCT]

62. What are these "both ways"? nt

[trotsky]

63. You agree we can only know a Christian by self-identification,

but reserve the right to question, for lack of a better term, the "Christian-ness" of their behavior.

[JerseygirlCT]

64. Well, I don't think anyone's behavior is off limits for questioning!

But yes, I think in terms of what they choose to call themselves, we have to take people at their word. Because what they're trying to define is in large part about a relationship between them and God, and certainly, no one else is really party to that distinct relationship.

And as I've said elsewhere, to me "Christian" is less about a club of some sort you join, than about a set of obligations you take on. People often use the word, hoping it will define them, when really, they define it (as it applies to them) by their behavior.

[trotsky]

65. And around and around we go

And as I've said elsewhere, to me "Christian" is less about a club of some sort you join, than about a set of obligations you take on.

And what are those obligations? Upthread you acknowledged that they're dependent on what each Christian thinks they are. So the measure of a Christian is how good of a Christian each Christian thinks they themselves are? In that case, George W. Bush was one of the finest Christians who ever lived. Fred Phelps, too, and Pat Robertson, and the whole gang. You too!

[JerseygirlCT]

66. No, my point was that

it's less about the label and more about how a person chooses to live. The "deciderer" of how good a Christian any one is isn't you or me, or George Bush or Fred Phelps.

[trotsky]

68. Right, you've said the "deciderer" is the Christian him or herself.

No matter who that is.

[JerseygirlCT]

69. Nope

the person saying he or she is a Christian must be taken at his or her word.

The *deciderer* about behavior is divine. Though we humans will undoubtedly continue to weigh both our own and others' behavior.

[trotsky]

70. In other words, god will sort 'em out in the end!

'Til then, you're all Christians, because you all define it differently and as you admit, are equally justified in doing so. So much for theology!

[Betty Karlson]

18. Bush failed to understand one very basic Christian value

And one that has crossed the Lord in many ways.

When Mr Bush reacted to the events of 9/11, he stated: "if you are not for us, you are against us."

This means he relegated the entire grey area in one category with the proverbial black, reserving white for what he thinks qualifies as "with us".

Jesus Christ always took the bright reverse point of biew. See for instance Mathew 19: 26: "All those who are not against us, are for us" - translation: grey is white with a few extra specs.

Likewise, we are advised to let God sort out between the weed and the sowlings, because it is still premature to judge matters.

This "I'll determine what white is and anything else is black"- attitude of Mr Bush has permeated all his doings. The idea that anything gay is wrong and as such must be outlawed, banned, even if the constitution haas to be changed to achieve that, the idea that anything 'too left', like Mr Chavez, must be removed at the shortest possible notion, it is all equally short-sighted.

Short-sighted, because it often achieved the bright reverse of its aim: undecided allies and their citizens have been alienated by the boldness and brutality of the US foreign policy, gay rights are determinedly on the move (although their advocates will agree with me that a lot still has to be achieved), and Mr Chavez' popularity has risen after that botched coup.

Apart from this, I think important, notion, we may wonder if Mr Bush was perhaps a little to prone to follow the Mammon, not God.

[trotsky]

21. Wait, which one is the "very basic Christian value"?

Matthew 12:30 - "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."

Guess who said that?

See, that's the problem here, and one which most Christians don't even fully understand. Your bible is so riddled with blatant contradictions, passages that could be taken literally or figuratively, that it pretty much opens itself up to ANY interpretation. And none of you is really any more justified than the other - because otherwise you wouldn't have the hundreds of divisions, synods, sects, and cults that you do.

George Bush is a Christian, because he said so. He's just as much of a Christian as you are.

[Betty Karlson]

26. No, NO, NO. Will you look at the context please?

For in Mathew 12, Jesus discusses spiritual kingdoms. Earlier quotes from this same chapter is: "A kingdom divided against itself will fall"/ "If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself"

In Mathew 19, however, Jesus discusses the grey area.

So while he calls for unity among Christians, he calls for tolerance to those who are neither for nor against us. Which leaves Mr Bush a self-proclaimed Christian MAYBE, but a failing one CERTAINLY.

[trotsky]

27. And you are just as insistent as he is that YOU have interpreted it correctly.

And the other one is wrong. Yup, you're both Christians. Hard to get more alike.

[Betty Karlson]

28. Well, if your aim is to hit below the belt...

... allow me to kick you back in the same area.

You, Mr Trotsky, are just as insistent as "evolution-decriers", "global warming deniers", and Bush's last science advisor, that all theories can be juxtaposed to their counter-theories, without evaluating the coherence or reasoning of said theories.

Yes, Mr Bush insisted on a lot of issues that he was right. However, I think it is fair to assume that on many issues, his insistence had little to do with viable justifications.

Incidentally, Mr Bush has been - or so I understood - addicted to narcotic substances. It is customary for former addicts to embrace a new faith with an almost addictive - and abusive - vigour. Now there is something that cannot be said about me, thank God.

B.K.

[trotsky]

30. I eagerly await your successful efforts...

to convince all Christians who disagree with you that they are wrong. Until you bring them all around, however, they are EQUALLY justified in using the term to describe themselves as you are, whether they be Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, or Fred Phelps.

Good day.

[Betty Karlson]

36. That, sir, entirely fails to address my point. N/T

[trotsky]

38. On the contrary, it hammers it flush with the surface.

that all theories can be juxtaposed to their counter-theories, without evaluating the coherence or reasoning of said theories.

Explain to me the precise methods that REAL Christians use to evaluate theology, and demonstrate their effectiveness by convincing all Christians who disagree with you (which would number in the what, 800 million+ range?) that you are correct.

Should be painfully easy since you are so convinced that you know what a Christian is.

[Ecumenist]

29. Betty, welcome to DU

I'm right proud to have ya here and may I be the first one to give you something your post sincerely and deservedly has earned you:
:applause: "and let the Church say, 'AMEN'."

[Betty Karlson]

37. You are being most kind. Thank you. N/T

[rd_kent]

56. That is your opinion, Betty, but I disagree

I think pretty much ALL christians fail to understand the one basic christian value : Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

What makes your interpretation of the christian values any more right than bush's?

(and I will keep a civil tone, ok?)

[Igel]

20. Define your term.

Otherwise there's no basis for discussion.

I can answer "yes" with absolute certainty, based upon what he said. I can also answer "no" with absolute certainty, based upon what I believe Xianity to be.

By the first definition, most of the people here calling themselves Xians are Xian. By the second definition, I'd guess maybe a handful of people who have ever signed up for DU are Xians. Of course, I could adopt a mixed definition to include or exclude pretty much anybody I wanted to, if I felt the need to make myself feel superior (which is such a Xian trait, or not--again depending on your definition of "Xian").

[laconicsax]

23. So you're the decider?

Hypothetical question:

Person A believes they are Christian. They go to church regularly and believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. They insist that whole groups of people are wicked and will go straight to hell to suffer an eternity of torture. They believe that they themselves, upon death will go to heaven and enjoy an eternity of singing God's praises.

Person B believes that they are Christian. They sometimes go to church and believe that the Bible is a metaphorical guide that reveals a truth about God. They believe that anyone who submits to Christ before death will go to heaven and the rest, regrettably will go to hell.

Person C believes that they are Christian. They don't go to church and believe that the Bible is an antiquated text containing some positive messages that offer a good way to conduct oneself. They believe that good people, regardless of their religious affiliation will go to heaven and only truly evil people will go to hell.

Person D is spiritual but not religious. They don't go to church or know anything about the Bible, but live their life exactly as person C. They aren't sure of the afterlife, but don't think that there's a hell.

Who among these is Christian?

[Meshuga]

22. Well, I thought he was a born again

And he says he is a Christian. So I would find it bizarre to say he is not.

[PassingFair]

53. He is a Methodist....as far as I know.

The Methodists were against the war, and as I
recall, they sent a high-ranking delegation to
the White House to try to dissuade Boosh from
attacking Iraq.

He wouldn't see them.

Later, 95 bishops apologized for not protesting enough:
(sorry for the Fox link)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175245,00.html

Methodists are known for their pacifism,
Boosh was a FAKE Methodist.

His family basically doled out their religious
affiliations so that
they could spread hell all across the country.

Don't forget, Daddy's an Episcopalian and
Jebby's a Catholic.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Not if being a Christian means following Christ's teachings

But a lot of people who run around saying, "I'm a Christian" think that it means being a conventional Middle American who attends a megachurch.

[laconicsax]

32. Not true Christians?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Not according to what Jesus said

:shrug:

[trotsky]

41. But Christians can't even agree on what Jesus said, and what he meant.

Thus the problem. Even liberal Christians disagree on whether homosexuality is OK, abortion, etc.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. We have no record of Jesus ever saying a word on either of those topics

as it happens.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. But we do know that he was against oppression of the poor,

violence, child abuse, and ethnic discrimination and for taking care of the needy, the sick, the imprisoned, ignoring human social distinctions, concentrating on being a good person rather than on being rich, and meeting human needs even in defiance of society's conventions (healing on the Sabbath).

[JerseygirlCT]

48. Yup. And always willing to care for the people

other people preferred to look down on.

[laconicsax]

57. Really?

Could you direct me to the passages where Jesus said or showed that he was against violence, child abuse, and ethnic discrimination?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. The parable of the Good Samaritan, the conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well,

and the healing of the Syro-Phoenician woman's daughter were in defiance of the ethnic purity rules of his time, not to mention the rules of sexual propriety in the latter two cases.

Ever heard of "turn the other cheek"? "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword"? Direct quotes from Jesus.

Don't have time to look for the passages on child abuse. Perhaps someone else can help me there.

[trotsky]

50. Nope, you sure don't.

So opinions on either side of the issues find pretty much equal support. And the disagreements continue. Pity, Jesus could have set the record straight on so many things and simply declined to.

[Evoman]

34. Who cares. It's not like deciding whether he is or not makes Christianity any less full of shit.

[olegramps]

39. If he is an example of a Christian, then I will remain an agnostic.

The PNAC neo-cons were intent on invading Iraq long before they captured the White House. Bush's use of 9/11 to launch a war in which thousands of innocent people died is clearly immoral in my thinking. I can hardly imagine the Jesus would have condoned such brutality as a example of the brotherhood of all mankind.

[dmallind]

42. Surely - and doubtless still is.

Some execrable pieces of humanity, yes even worse than Bush, have been and are Christians.

So have some of the most genuinely altruistic and wonderful people the planet has ever known.

There is no behavioral or ideological or moral standard which objectively defines a Christian, regardless of the hapless grasping for one in pre-emptive self-defense that some insecure Christians so desperately strive for. If you eliminate people from the faith for "non-Christ-like" (or rather non-nice bits of the Christ story that is all followers want to pretend exists-like) actions or beliefs then there would be fewer Christians than people who honestly believe in following Jedi as a religion.

In the absence of verifiable and repeatable mind-reading technology we must accept subjective affirmation for subjective beliefs.

[Realityhack]

43. Yes. Now is there a point to this question? n/t

[SidneyCarton]

47. According to him, yes.

According to their own statements Mao, Stalin and PolPot were all Atheists. Every group has its distasteful bastards.

[rd_kent]

55. No. He was (is) a douchebag

[feedthephishes]

75. ?

So, being high and mighty and christian means you can't be a douchebag? Aren't many of the groups who oppose women's rights, kill abortion doctors, and threaten and degrade gays, Christian? On a related note, is professing belief in a book and then picking and choosing only the parts that 'suit your fancy' kind of a douchebag thing to do?

[libguy9560]

67. Yeah, he was

A wacko, fundamentalist Christian, that is.

[Crunchy Frog]

71. He didn't follow the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Bible.

A lot of people who call themselves Christians seem not to think that matters.

[rd_kent]

73. Pretty much most of them dont follow the teachings

[trotsky]

78. And that includes most liberal Christians, too. n/t

[rd_kent]

72. Only one thing we know for sure......

He is an idiot and a criminal. (OK, thats two things)

[feedthephishes]

74. Ugh.

I'm sorry, but how thick can you be? If this is a question of in action, then the answer would be a resounding no. But as the man is listed as a member of the Christian faith, is a right-wing conservative, and frequently addressed issues of faith, such as opposition to abortion, then quite obviously, he was.

[centristgrandpa]

76. gwb = abbie normal

If we are to categorize “gorge evil bush”, why not classify him as an idiot.

[ZombieHorde]

77. Christian and idiot are not mutually exclusive labels. nt

[centristgrandpa]

80. Too funny! n/t