The God of GW Bush

I suspect a lot of them are just grieving relatives. But it's not like their dead families are real people. They're just Iraqis.

You are a little upside-down on this, pistoff. The god you describe is the Old Testament god, not the benign, well-meaning god of the New Testament, which is most likely the only book Bush ever read.

Psst....hope you caught the irony.

?
I read the bible a long time ago so my memory isn't as astute on the details as I would like them to be.

I do recall that Jesus was a Socialist and said cool things like, "Love your enemey as you love yourself." That is a tall order aint it?

I will look up more things that Jesus supposedly said because I feel that many of them were revolutionary.

I also recall some parabells, such as The Good Samaritin and the Prodigal Son. The Rolling Stones made a cool song with that story on Beggar's Banquet.

Just so I don't have to read the New Testament again how about explaining this different god to me?

Erm, not being Christian, that would be a tall order for me, pistoff. There are plenty of folks here who could give you better insight than I.

Here is one pretty good explanation. Non Christians probably will not relate to the imagery and symbolism in the article, but the thesis pretty well explains how most Christians probably look at the Old Testament and New Testament God of war.

Christianity Today, May 2003

The God of War

The Old Testament contains accounts of one bloody war after another. Christians are often troubled that God is at the center of many of the battles. Perhaps most disturbing of all is the practice of herem, a Hebrew word difficult to translate (often done awkwardly as "things under the ban"). Though hard to translate, herem's meaning for the native inhabitants of the land is clear: the entire enemy must be killed.

How are we to understand this in light of Jesus' statement, "But I say, love your enemies" (Matt. 5:44)? It is no wonder that people come to the conclusion that the Old Testament picture of God is closer to Osama bin Laden than to Jesus Christ.

But there is no disconnect here between the Testaments. The God of the Old Testament is the same as the one we read about in the New. He is a God of love as well as a holy God who judges evil people. As we read from Genesis to Revelation, we see not a character change but an unfolding story of God's great victory over sin, evil, and death. This takes place through mighty acts of justice?-that is, again and again, acts of retributive judgment. Goodness and severity go together in this story.

In the Old Testament, we read stories of conflict as God fights evil in the world. The first time God is called a warrior is in Exodus 15, which celebrates God's rescue of his people from the oppressive Egyptians. Likewise, only because God fought for Israel is Joshua's victory over the Canaanites possible, and the text makes it clear that the Canaanites must die?-not to make room for the Israelites, but because of their sins. In this case, God makes his people his executioners.

Not all of God's warring activity in the Old Testament, however, is directed toward Israel's enemies. God also fights against Israel?-the most notable instance being the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (Lam. 2:1-5).

The Old Testament ends with God's people back in the land, but living under the dominance of a pagan nation. The last prophets of the Old Testament looked to the future for a return of the divine warrior who would come and destroy their enemies, bringing them back their freedom (Dan. 7; Zech. 14).

After a period of prophetic silence, the New Testament picks up the story. The first voice we hear is that of John the Baptist. He is clearly expecting a violent Messiah, the warrior from heaven who would defeat the Romans and punish disobedient Jewish people (Matt. 3:7-12).

Having heard that Jesus is healing people, exorcising demons, and preaching the Good News, John thinks he may have mistakenly baptized the wrong person (Matt. 11:1-19)!

Of course, John did not err. Jesus is the divine warrior, the one whom the Old Testament expected, but he has heightened and intensified the battle. The goal of warfare has now been elevated, and the weapons for this war have changed. Jesus battles spiritual powers and authorities. He directs Peter to put away the sword (Matt. 26:50-56), because winning this battle involves dying rather than killing.

It is, however, a battle?-part of God's plan of warfare against evil, begun in the Old Testament. The military language used to describe Christ's redemptive acts (Eph. 4:7-13; Col. 2:13-15) makes this clear.

But this is just the start of Christ's work. Christ's victory over Satan is definite but not finally realized. The Book of Revelation describes the return of Christ in the cloud chariot (1:7). He is riding a white horse and leading the armies of heaven. Here the final battle, which includes vultures eating dead bodies, is bloodier than anything in the Old Testament (19:11-21). This is a picture of the final judgment, of which the wars of the Old Testament are a foretaste and a warning.

From Genesis to Revelation, God's character remains consistent. He is a loving, powerful, holy judge?-and warrior against evil?-from beginning to end.

Tremper Longman III, Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies at Westmont College, is coauthor of Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and the Canaanite Genocide (Zondervan, 2003).

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/005/30.62.html

Nice post foxfyre.

Thanks Cav. Admittedly Zondervan tends to be on the more conservative Christian side but is not strictly fundamentalist by any means.

The assumed battle in religion (all religion) wears on and on and on, with no common sense. When this nonsense gets involved with global politics and policy, I get extremely irked. Still, excellent insight in that article to explain Dubya's stance.

Thanks
Thanks Foxfire. Notice, that I provided a direct quote from GW Bush about his stand regarding the Almighty and freedom etc.

Of course I believe that he is simple minded nutjob; a dangerous man, indeed!

This is why religious doctrine beliefs should have no part in the decisions that leaders of countries make.

In my own private mind, I deal with the OT (and parts of the NT) in a way that allows me to take the good and ignore the bad. In my own private mind I concluded that more than likely we humans will not know everything about God and heaven, that probably some parts were truly inspired and some parts were probably added in a way to suit whoever was writing it or translating it. However, I have realized long ago that my approach is not something that I can debate about because it is not logical. Which is why when the religious board that i was on ended, I decided that I wasn't going to debate the Bible anymore as I was starting to feel a fake for not being completely honest about how I really feel about parts of the Bible. The whole thing became a big issue within me that caused me to feel upset and confused. I must admit that when I talk about the Bible with those I know I still do not admit that I question parts of the Bible. I will never get the courage to admit that to those offline, but maybe sometime online I will.

In any case, we live by grace and forgiveness in the NT and not by wars and death of the OT, so George Bush if he tries to justify his actions by the Bible should remember that.

Bush is quite the theologian. A few years back he became concerned with the issue of jews going to heaven. He consulted his mommy, who was certain they could, but suggested they call (of all people), Rev. Billy Graham, who said they could not.

Bush, concluded the anti-semite Graham was right.

I'm sure you have documentation for that Infowarrior? I would like to see a quote from anything Bush has ever said that would suggest he holds that view. I'm not even sure Billy Graham held that view.

But back to the thesis of the thread:

Every U.S. President in my lifetime has been a professed Christian and, at various times, have included statements re God, Christianity, the Bible, etc. in their speeches and commentary.

Consider the following which is just a tiny sampling of religion-based quotes from Bill Clinton's speeches of which nobody, including me, thought untoward in any way:

"I don't think I could do my job as President," Clinton said, "much less continue to try to grow as a person in the absence of my faith in God and my attempt to learn more about what it should be and grow. It provides a solace and support in the face of all these problems that I am not smart enough to solve."
(ABC Interview by Peggy Wehmeyer, "American Agenda", March 22, 1994.)

The children of this country can learn in a profound way that integrity is important and selfishness is wrong, but God can change us and make us strong at the broken places. I want to embody those lessons for the children of this country -- for that little boy in Florida who came up to me and said that he wanted to grow up and be President and to be just like me. I want the parents of all the children in America to be able to say that to their children. -- Bill Clinton at National Prayer Breakfast 9/11/98

During the speech, President Clinton drew on the Gospel of Matthew and Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians.42 In the concluding portion of his speech, the President defined the close relationship he saw between religion and politics:
So I say to you, we believe that our politics should be guided by what our Lord said was the first and most important commandment and the second is like unto it. First we must try to love the Lord, our God, with all our heart. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.43
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?63+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+391+(Winter&Spring+2000)

To pluck a line re God or faith out of a speech and declare that this is proof positive that George Bush is somehow improperly using religion to establish policy flies in the face of the evidence.

Bush doesn't just claim faith in god. He claims outright that god speaks to him directly.

Proof
The quote that I provided is ample proof the W justifies his political actions upon his version of what his god is. Ignoring it doesn't change it.

Saint George

Ah, yes, the disingenuity between the old and new testament is one of my favorite sources of amusement.

And you think Bush is the only President to believe that freedom is a gift from the allmighty?
Then explain these quotes,from a DEMOCRAT President...
"we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom?-symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning?-signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago. 1
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe?-the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. "

Notice the last line.."from the hand of God".
Or try this quote..." Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah?-to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

Here we have a President actually using a bible verse as a command to the world.

Try this..."Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

Now this president is saying that we are to do Gods work.How did he ever get elected with beliefs like that,and why wasnt he hammered for thes statements?
He was applauded,and hailed as a visionary leader.
Who was this President,you ask?
JOHN F KENNEDY,and these words are from his inaugural address.

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html

Nice
Kudos for the research.

Did J. Kennedy fuse his belief with the spreading of democracy by pre-emptive invasion of sovereign countries?