Is George Bush really a Christian?

I think Bush is an exemplary christain, very good with the moral of the day and totally lacking in ethics.

I know many theologians would differ on your opinion here Cyc.

how do you know?

Because that is not how many define what a Christian is.

Feel free to look for yourself.

Now herein lies the rub, yes there are christian theologians, no, there are not protestant theologians. Bush, I believe, claims to be protestant. Paradox? of course not, when you are a protestant you can believe anything you want and create your own theology (Luther was a catholic)

Well then I believe my dick is Gabriels horn and to get to heaven you have to blow it. Line up girls.

McG, from your link:


The second line of the first definition supports what I am saying; that following the teachings of Jesus is essential to the quality of Christianity in a person.

Theologists who disagree are merely playing word games; definitionally, a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Not just one who believes he existed...

Cycloptichorn

But one who does not emulate his life, and professes to be Christian, is a hypocrite.

Of course, everyone has failings; but the attempt must at least be made. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of 'Christians' don't even attempt to do so, they merely pray to Jesus for forgiveness....

Cycloptichorn

I think what I am hearing is the old axiom, "do as I say and not as I do"? referring to George B. I agree with most of the posters who say that George does not walk the walk of a true Christian. Was there an option to going to war? Or was it just revenge? If so, is revenge a Christian response?

I would like to ask a question if I may.

It seems that those that are non-believers, non-Christian, etc., have a very strict definition of what a Christian is supposed to be.

If you are a non-believer, etc., I find it so strange that you would be saying what a Christian is supposed to be like. It's like you don't believe in it but if we do then we'd better believe it the way you think it should be.

This is merely an observation and in no way an accusation. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could explain this to me. I am trying hard to understand some things about non-believers and this is a point I need help with.

Thanx!

Christians seem to have a pretty strict definition of what a Christian is supposed to be, too. And oftimes the various denominations do not agree.

And what makes you think that the posters on this thread are non-believers?

DrewDad,

Please don't get me wrong here. I am not saying any of you in particular are non-believers. I have read some threads where some have posted and it seemed to me they weren't.

And yes, I agree. Too often the denominations do not agree.

I really didn't mean to offend anyone if I did. I honestly am just looking to understand things a bit better.

But if someone superficially appears to be, and says that he is, then you need some evidence that he does not believe in Christ, do you not?

I found another article that may - or may not, help here. If it does not then I apologize!

Published on Monday, October 17, 2005 by the Boston Globe
All God, All the Time
by James Carroll

When they told us in Sunday School that God is everywhere, they could have been talking about the recent news cycle. With Harriet Miers, we see that God lives in the politics of the US Supreme Court nomination process. In a culture defined by the separation of church and state, President Bush and his allies have mastered the use of religious affirmation as a deflection not only of criticism, but of critical thought. God is thus a trump card, a free pass. If the president, senators, and members of Congress can justify their decisions by appeals to God, why not judges?

''Acts of God" is the phrase applied to staggering natural disasters, from Katrina and the Pakistan earthquake to the coming avian flu. At the same time, survivors of such catastrophes credit God for having saved them, as if God callously let all those others die. Humans are perplexed when wanton suffering occurs, especially among children, and assumptions about God are overturned. The question becomes, How could God let this happen? Today, in Pakistan, where fatal disease, hunger, and thirst go unabated, the very ones who praised God last week for sparing them are pleading with God now, to no avail.

In the argument between creationists and scientists, those aiming to defend God make absolute claims about mysteries of the deep past as if they themselves were there. Air Force flyers have thought of God as their co-pilot in the past, but in today's Air Force, God sits atop the chain-of-command. At the US Air Force Academy, which was rocked by sex scandals not long ago, God is now the designated dean of discipline, but this jeopardizes infidel careers. Unit cohesion requires conversion. Indeed, displays of faith can be a prerequisite for promotion throughout a government where the White House itself is a House of God. In Iraq, meanwhile, someone will turn his body into a bomb today, killing others by blowing himself up while saying, ''God is great!"

Who is this ''God" in whose name so many diverse and troubling things take place? Why is it assumed to be good to affirm one's faith in such an entity? Why is it thought to be wicked to deny its existence? Most striking about so much talk of ''God," both to affirm and to deny, is the way in which many who use this language seem to know exactly to what and/or whom it refers. God is spoken of as if God is the Wizard of Oz or the great CEO in the sky or Grampa or the Grand Inquisitor. God is the clock-maker, the puppeteer, the author. God is the light, the mother, the wind across the sea, the breath in every set of lungs. God is the horizon. God is all of these things.

But what if God is none of them? What if every possible affirmation that can be made of God, even by the so-called religions of revelation, falls so far short of the truth of God as to be false? Who is the atheist then? The glib God-talk that infuses public discourse in contemporary America descends from an anthropomorphic habit of mind, dating to the Bible and beyond, that treats God like an intimate friend or well-known enemy, depending on the weather and the outcome of battles. But there is another strain in the Biblical tradition that insists on the radical otherness of God, an otherness so complete that even the use of the word ''God" as a name for this Other One is forbidden. According to this understanding, God is God precisely in escaping and transcending comprehension by human beings. This can seem to mean that God is simply unknowable. If so, humans are better off not bothering about it. Atheism, agnosticism, or childish anthropomorphism -- all the same.

But here is where it gets tricky. What if God's unknowability is the most illuminating profundity humans can know about God? That would mean that religious language, instead of opening into the absolute certitude on which all forms of triumphal superiority are based, would open into true modesty. The closed creation, in which every question has an answer, would be replaced by an infinite cosmos where every answer sparks a new question. If what we mean by ''God" is the living pulse of such open-endedness, then God is of no use in systems of dominance, censorship, power. God is everywhere, yes. But, also, God is nowhere. And that, too, shows in America, especially in its fake religiosity.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe. His most recent book is "Crusade: Chronicles of an Unjust War."

Copyright 2005 Boston Globe
***************

I think we are talking about proof that someone is a Christian, or not, based upon not just what they say, but what they do. Like I said, I am Christian, but am having a very hard time seeing George Bush in the same way. His actions belie his words. What do you think?

I found another article that may - or may not, help here. If it does not then I apologize!

Published on Monday, October 17, 2005 by the Boston Globe
All God, All the Time
by James Carroll

When they told us in Sunday School that God is everywhere, they could have been talking about the recent news cycle. With Harriet Miers, we see that God lives in the politics of the US Supreme Court nomination process. In a culture defined by the separation of church and state, President Bush and his allies have mastered the use of religious affirmation as a deflection not only of criticism, but of critical thought. God is thus a trump card, a free pass. If the president, senators, and members of Congress can justify their decisions by appeals to God, why not judges?

''Acts of God" is the phrase applied to staggering natural disasters, from Katrina and the Pakistan earthquake to the coming avian flu. At the same time, survivors of such catastrophes credit God for having saved them, as if God callously let all those others die. Humans are perplexed when wanton suffering occurs, especially among children, and assumptions about God are overturned. The question becomes, How could God let this happen? Today, in Pakistan, where fatal disease, hunger, and thirst go unabated, the very ones who praised God last week for sparing them are pleading with God now, to no avail.

In the argument between creationists and scientists, those aiming to defend God make absolute claims about mysteries of the deep past as if they themselves were there. Air Force flyers have thought of God as their co-pilot in the past, but in today's Air Force, God sits atop the chain-of-command. At the US Air Force Academy, which was rocked by sex scandals not long ago, God is now the designated dean of discipline, but this jeopardizes infidel careers. Unit cohesion requires conversion. Indeed, displays of faith can be a prerequisite for promotion throughout a government where the White House itself is a House of God. In Iraq, meanwhile, someone will turn his body into a bomb today, killing others by blowing himself up while saying, ''God is great!"

Who is this ''God" in whose name so many diverse and troubling things take place? Why is it assumed to be good to affirm one's faith in such an entity? Why is it thought to be wicked to deny its existence? Most striking about so much talk of ''God," both to affirm and to deny, is the way in which many who use this language seem to know exactly to what and/or whom it refers. God is spoken of as if God is the Wizard of Oz or the great CEO in the sky or Grampa or the Grand Inquisitor. God is the clock-maker, the puppeteer, the author. God is the light, the mother, the wind across the sea, the breath in every set of lungs. God is the horizon. God is all of these things.

But what if God is none of them? What if every possible affirmation that can be made of God, even by the so-called religions of revelation, falls so far short of the truth of God as to be false? Who is the atheist then? The glib God-talk that infuses public discourse in contemporary America descends from an anthropomorphic habit of mind, dating to the Bible and beyond, that treats God like an intimate friend or well-known enemy, depending on the weather and the outcome of battles. But there is another strain in the Biblical tradition that insists on the radical otherness of God, an otherness so complete that even the use of the word ''God" as a name for this Other One is forbidden. According to this understanding, God is God precisely in escaping and transcending comprehension by human beings. This can seem to mean that God is simply unknowable. If so, humans are better off not bothering about it. Atheism, agnosticism, or childish anthropomorphism -- all the same.

But here is where it gets tricky. What if God's unknowability is the most illuminating profundity humans can know about God? That would mean that religious language, instead of opening into the absolute certitude on which all forms of triumphal superiority are based, would open into true modesty. The closed creation, in which every question has an answer, would be replaced by an infinite cosmos where every answer sparks a new question. If what we mean by ''God" is the living pulse of such open-endedness, then God is of no use in systems of dominance, censorship, power. God is everywhere, yes. But, also, God is nowhere. And that, too, shows in America, especially in its fake religiosity.

James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe. His most recent book is "Crusade: Chronicles of an Unjust War."

Copyright 2005 Boston Globe
***************

I think we are talking about proof that someone is a Christian, or not, based upon not just what they say, but what they do. Like I said, I am Christian, but am having a very hard time seeing George Bush in the same way. His actions belie his words. What do you think?

I was considering a response for this thread and then it didn't work out. I was going to be a smartie and list the Ten Commandments and then explain why a politician in a liberal democracy would have to break at least one of those Commandments on a regular basis as part of their work.

Then I read this explanation of the Ten Commandments

Ten Commandments on Wikipedia

and my smart little argument fell apart.

So I posted this instead. Now I have to think what it all means.

Does it mean that a person can be a politician and a Christian in that they don't need to breach any of the Ten Commandments as part of their everyday duties? (Off duty personal options such as adultery are not part of their duty statement).

Does it mean that relgion is a private matter and politics is a public matter?

And, finally, does it matter if George Bush is a person who has thoroughly internalised Christianity and all of its precepts and lives his professional and private life according to those precepts or if he is merely mouthing those precepts and is just another hypocrite?

Shouldn't we judge a politician by their policies and actions rather than their spiritual beliefs?

GF wrote "Does it mean that relgion is a private matter and politics is a public matter?"........................



GWB certainly likes to combine the two, especially when potential voters may be listening.

The supposed statement that he made re. "God told me to invade Iraq" is a classic example. If one does not believe that he said this, then further evidence can be found in the many TV and Press interviews that he has held, where he mentions God in virtually every sentence.

Why the "God told me to invade Iraq" statement caused such a fuss, I shall never know, as God talks to most people all of the time, doesn't he?

Surely everyone here can think of a good two way chat with God over the past couple of weeks, so what is it with all the fuss?

The Leader of the most powerful nation on earth, hearing direct messages from God, comforts me somehow, knowing that GWB is just the same as us.....an ordinary God hearing person.

Only last night in actual fact, there I was, just about to take a reasonably comfortable shot on the blue ball during a snooker match, when God said " Ellpus, you must invade Syria".

I stopped what I was doing, thought about it for a minute or so, and replied "But God, do you think that it would be wise for me to initiate further regime change in such an unstable part of the world at THIS moment in time?....and besides, I don't think that I have the military might to carry out such an operation"

It was silent for a while, as God was obviously mulling it over, and then he spoke once more "Oh, you're probably right, Ellpus. Maybe I'll leave Syria alone for now.....and by the way, if you go for the more difficult shot to the black ball, you will sink it and clinch the match"

I looked back at the table, and realised that he was indeed correct. I won the match last night, as God told me I would.

Yes, I feel truly safe and secure, knowing that the USA is in such good hands..........

Point taken.

Re your snooker coach Lord E - clears up the mystery of where He was during the "missing years" :wink:

George hardly has a monopoly on combining those. How many church services did Clinton Attend? He was never far from the pulpit...Same with Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, etc...

Don't think Bill had godly voices telling him to invade people and all....