Posted on 12/09/2008 2:39:05 PM PST by My Favorite Headache
President George W. Bush said his belief that God created the world is not incompatible with scientific proof of evolution.
In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on Monday, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that God sent his only son.
About creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."
"You know. Probably not. ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is 'God sent a son,'" Bush said.
"It is hard for me to justify or prove the mystery of the Almighty in my life," he said. "All I can just tell you is that I got back into religion and I quit drinking shortly thereafter and I asked for help. ... I was a one-step program guy."
"I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people,"
Asked whether he thought he would have become president had it not been for his faith, Bush said: "I don't know; it's hard to tell. I do know that I would have been — I would have been a pretty selfish person."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.aol.com ...
How so?
Each translation is different, each interpretation is different. Which is authoritative?
And what of things about which the Bible is silent?
Thanks for clarification on what the appropriate answer should have been.
Since I can't answer any better than the Pres., maybe its best you don't ask me the same questions. Time for me to move on..........
You know its funny but I had a response from a guy about a week and a half ago who claimed to be a personal friend of his pastor who made the following statement: " then the retirees can F’ off. I will tell my paster that and since I know him pretty well he will agree with me. You are a RINO (worlds greatest insult)! Go away,
So it just makes me wonder what it takes to truly be considered a Christian.
What church must you belong to in order to be considered a Christian?
What is the appropriate response to a religious based question that would entitle you to be considered a Christian?
So far I haven't found anyone here capable of answering my questions and all the so-called Christians certainly aren't behaving in a manner that makes me want to attempt to embrace whatever it is they are believing in, you included........
I've been searching for help in trying to find a christian foundation in which to anchor myself but it certainly hasn't been openly available around here.
I'm not sure I understand...do you mean that only the Catholic Church can lead you to salvation?
You have set yourself up as God by taking it upon your own magisterial authority to determine who has "faith" and who doesn't simply based on what YOU believe. You have limited God by stating that the Church has not authority to interpret, basically saying that God can't work through His Church.
As I said, really weak.
a lot of people are trying to pick their own way to heaven even though the Bible says there's only one way.
Evidently you don’t recognize a quote from one of the great saints, Saint Augustine of Hippo.
How do we know who the chosen ones are?
And what is that way?
And exactly what does he take as literal, besides the fact God had a son, and what does he presume isn’t literal?
Clearly not everything is meant to be literal. Parables are meant to teach a lesson. But the key is whether he stays within the obvious confines when making this judgement. It’s my experience when people start making statements like the one he just made, that they go well beyond the common sense articles such as instances in Rev. when the apostle tries to describe what he sees but has to rely on imagery in certain instances.
G.W.B. is walking a very thin line there and could lose what’s left of his approval ratings on this, not that he cares. The evolution response is going to cause screaming as it is.
Not so, I am just stating that belief in the gospel is not dependent on any church, but in the faith that God gives those who would believe. We cannot believe the scripture at all unless God gives us the faith to believe. What is so hard about that?
Hey, whatever works for YOU.
If you want to use a redacted Bible, you might as well have a redacted faith to go along with it.
It’s not a matter of us knowing who “they” are, but rather asking God to reveal himself to us.
No, not being a catholic I didn't know that. I guess I should take my question to the saint.
That’s the premise behind denominations and sects. Contrary to what some people on this board might say, I don’t believe any one church has it all right. I will attend the church that teaches the scripture closest to the way that I believe, and I will base my beliefs on the scriptures, not what some priest or preacher tells me to believe, unless it squares with what I read in scripture.
“Professed belief in evolution is now the new litmus test.”
for what?
That would be a useful step to understanding the fullness of Divine Revelation. I congratulate you.
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.