Posted on 12/04/2007 11:44:21 PM PST by Plutarch
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher who has surged in Iowa with evangelical Christian support, bristled Tuesday when asked if creationism should be taught in public schools.
Huckabee — who raised his hand at a debate last May when asked which candidates disbelieved the theory of evolution — asked this time why there is such a fascination with his beliefs.
"I believe God created the heavens and the Earth," he said at a news conference with Iowa pastors who murmured, "Amen."
"I wasn't there when he did it, so how he did it, I don't know," Huckabee said.
But he expressed frustration that he is asked about it so often, arguing with the questioner that it ultimately doesn't matter what his personal views are.
"That's an irrelevant question to ask me — I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states," Huckabee said. "Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are."
The former Arkansas governor pointed out he has advocated for broad public school course lists that include the creative arts and math and science. Why, then, he asked, is evolution such a fascination?
In fact, religion seems to be more of an issue in the GOP Iowa caucuses with one month left before the voting.
In recent weeks, Huckabee has moved from the back of the pack in the state to challenge longtime leader Mitt Romney, who would be the first Mormon president.... Christian evangelicals, by many estimates, make up anywhere from 30 percent to 50 percent of Republicans who will attend caucuses...
Earlier Tuesday in Newton, Iowa, Huckabee wouldn't say whether he thought Mormonism — rival Romney's religion — was a cult...
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
I'm not a Huck fan but I didn't take it that way. I hear him saying I've answered this 1,000 times and I'm proud to answer it again but can't we focus a little bit on some issues that are really relevant to the race and also to people who aren't religious but I'm asking them to vote for me. Huck's got the religion thing going nicely, now he needs to reach out to some other blocks.
Yes, creationism should be taught in schools and yes, sadly Mormonism is a cult.
This could seem to be a tiny question by some, but it was posted as a snide, little comment by a Macroevolutionist freeper on a crevolist thread months ago. And it does seem to be rather big.
The question was basically that if the Bible is taken literally, what about a seed of mustard being the smallest? Looked at Creationist sources, and to be frank, their answers to the question/criticism was infuriating--one more or less just childishly blew off the topic without giving an adequate explanation.
There are a lot of intelligent Creationist freepers on FR. Can one of you give an explanation about the mustard topic? (this is asking Creationists specifically--at least trying to get Creationist comments first before snarky Macroevolutionist ones (and do personal requests have to be fair anyway?)).
His answer was sort of iffy for a “Do you believe the Bible should be taken literally?” question during a debate. Still, it was more straightforward than Romney—and Giuliani’s answer was a load of wishwashiness.
That one is pretty easy. The mustard seed was the smallest seed his audience knew about. Jesus repeatedly uses allegories to make larger incredibly profound spiritual points. By using universal real-life experiences to make larger points I believe he knew that it would be easier to by understood centuries and cultures down the road by even the least educated audience. I think it's pretty obvious Jesus' point was that from something incredibly small can come something great and beautiful. The seed analogy, in a largely agrarian world, is an excellent universal analogy (I consider the mustard seed discourse to be an analogy rather than a parable) to make this point. The seed analogy is used in other context throughout the Gospels. Since the mustard was the smallest seed they knew of that's the one Jesus used for his illustration. It would have defeated the purpose to cite the actual, obscure seed that's actually smallest if no one has ever heard of it.
This is exactly what happens when verses are dissected out of context. The point being made at the time wasn't "what's the smallest seed in the world" it was "Just as something tiny as a mustard seed can grow into a large beautiful thing, even so Heaven (or faith) is something which starts out small and grows into something as glorious as the Kingdom of God." The immediately following analogy of the leaven makes the same point using a different analogy.
LLS
The thing that irks me is that the question, "Do you believe the Bible should be taken literally?" is an invalid question akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" Jesus said "I am the vine," yet obviously he did not believe that he was really a plant. Jewish civil law required stoning adulterers. But Christians do not routinely stone people.
The real question that should be asked is, "Do you believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God?" Asking if one takes the Bible literally either shows incredible spiritual, historical and literary ignorance, or a desire to skirt the real issue and entrap the person. I wish there were a candidate smart enough to see through this ruse.
Extremely spot on explanation. You should teach the scriptures, if you don’t already.
Shows you things haven't much changed in the past 2,000 years. I'm not comparing the Huckster to Jesus but the alleged wisemen and religious leaders of His time tried the same thing. Trying to trip Him up with made-up scenarios. I think the ones smart enough to see through this do not get involved in politics but are more involved in hands-on helphing people.
There is nothing new under the sun!
Last night, I was at a party where I talked to a lady I hadn't seen in a long while. She told me she couldn't imagine ever voting for a Republican, but then she saw Huckabee speak and was amazed to find herself actually liking him. She said, "I don't agree with most of his policies, but I got the feeling that he's genuine and quick-witted and respects other people. He wouldn't try to put me in jail for disagreeing with him," which is probably her opinion of most Republicans. She said, "I couldn't believe it, but I could actually see myself voting for him." In other words, Independents who are generally hostile to Republicans find him appealing enough that we might actually have a chance of winning.
But no, having p*ssed away the House and the Senate, we need to rip to shreds the one broadly-appealing candidate we have. We've got to cherry-pick out-of-context quotes and votes from 20 years ago, put the most nefarious spin possible on them, and destroy this guy so that we can get a true-blue, 100% right-wing puritan who'll go out there, scowl at Americans like Fred Thompson does, tell them all the things they're wrong about, and haul in an impressive 32% of the vote, which is about the number that are still willing to call themselves Republicans. And if we don't nominate someone like that, why, they'll sit home in a huff, refuse to vote, and let Hillary or Obama or Edwards become president, just so they can maintain their purity. This is why the GOP has the nickname, "The Stupid Party."
It's usually an entrapment technique used to try to discredit Christians and creationists.
The distinction between *true* and *literal* is always being blurred in that kind of argument, being treated as the same thing. They aren't. Any reading of the definition in any reputable dictionary will demonstrate the difference.
The other tactic is to accuse that if one accepts the creation account as being literal, then one MUST accept the WHOLE Bible as *literally true* (whatever that means), and if one doesn't, one is accused of being a hypocrite or liar.
That’s what I suspected, but I don’t suppose it’s an adequate enough answer for the Pharisees amoung us.
ping
Just take the literal parts literally, and the figurative parts figuratively!
Your interpretation of Jesus' use of the mustard seed is in error because he is teaching the seed is the least DESIRABLE among plants yet outproduces all others even in the most harsh of climates. The Mid-eastern mustard specie as would have been known to him is a very prolific reproducer.
"In 1976 Indian farmers plowed the ground then broadcast the seeds by hand, others used seed drills. By sowing 2 kgs. per hectare they were getting an average yield of 547 kgs per hectare. Record wheat harvests in the US sometimes exceeded 100 bushels per acre, and most of the highest yields were probably in the range of 125-150 bushels per acre with few reports of higher yields. Standard wheat sowing rates were usually 1-1.5 bushels per acre. A species of brown mustard produced on average more than 250 times what was sown in India with the world record not known."
Jesus is teaching that if we had the faith of even one of the least desirable mustard seeds, it would grow and outproduce beyond our wildest imaginations.
Regards,
Feel better?
I disagree with your analysis as most people I’ve spoken to don’t want anything to do with Huck. People see a big gov’t, soft on borders politician wearing his religion on his sleeve. We already have one of those in the White House and people are not lining up for another. Huck even loses there with his recent Gitmo statements. Most people I’m talking to have two major issues this election cycle: keep us safe and fix the illegal immigration problem (I’d add in taxes, but that’s my own priority). Huck is soft on both fronts. He’s coasted until now and he hasn’t impressed much since actually being challenged on some issues.
Well said. Think of the “heavyweight” democrats who have been nominated over the past few decades and ask if Dukakis, McGovern, Gore, Kerry or the current crop of dem hopefuls shine brighter than any of our candidates? I say no. How about those who actually got elected? Carter? Clinton?
Why can’t we adjust our thinking to reality? One republican out of the field will get the nomination. One democrat will as well. Which one do we want to win?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.