The Theology of President Bush

Oh, I think we should take a look at the conclusion of the writer of the article:

"...Since assuming the presidency, Bush has shown imperialistic hubris to rival ancient Rome, a steadfast aversion to reflection, an utter lack of humility, a preternatural inability to admit fault and an unfailing presumption that God will back him up in any decision his gut tells him to make. He would do well to ask himself whether he is truly serving One greater than himself, or expecting that One to serve him. It makes a difference."

Bush is a Methodist, a mainline denomination attended by people such as Democrats Hillary Clinton.

The so-called inability to admit fault is a failed ploy of the White House Press Corps to trick Bush into confessing his faults to them. They have found a thousand faults and then add that he does admit any faults to make the total that they have found one thousand one. It is too much psychology for the sane to endure this petty charge.

Nor can the press really honestly say that Bush thinks God will back him up in whatever he does. That is a silly charge that Bush is madman who thinks that he commands God or that God serves the US President. If that is the best that the left can do to critize mainline Protestantism, then we can conclude that modernism and modernists have once again gone to schoolclass without doing their homework.

I think that the best explanation of Bush's Christian faith is that he is truly an average Christian.

It is the modernists who cannot cope with the fact that God would allow an average Christian to be President of the USA in spite of the modernists' opposition to such a notion.

 

I am not at all sure that Presidnet Bush has a Theology...

I think he has a very basic knowledge of Christ and attends church...

But, that's about it...

As stated above a very average Christian...

No more... No less...

I wish he were more "connected" to the Word then, maybe, he wouldn't make so many apparent compromises...

Mike Sr.

 

That is a very interesting tactic that liberals have happened upon.

Throw a million and one false accusations at someone... and when they refuse to admit that their guilty of any of them... accuse him of being too proud to admit fault.

People without sound arguments have used similar tactics here. They stand up straw men fashioned according to what they claim you believe... then accuse you of lying when you deny them.

 

Poor Bush barely has a theology. To say that he is leading us into some sort of theocracy because now and then he mumbles something or other about his vague spiritual desires like a Methodist such as Hillary Clinton does when she says that Jesus cares for illegals (not her exact words) is to thrust some sort of theology onto someone who has very little knowledge of doctrine. The left can get away with these statements because most leftists could not state standard Christian doctrine under any circumstances. My advicd to the left is to avoid the Methodist Church if they are scared of going to heaven.

 

Bush has no grand evil designs. He's not evil. He's venial. He's morally weak, and generally takes the path of least resistance.

He has a history of blaming others for his trouble, and of lying about things that are embarassing or troublesome for him.

His record has no serious felonies, just a string of misdemeanors. Contrary to some, I don't think his behavior with regard to lying about Iraq or spying on American citizens merits impeachment.

He's weak, not evil.

 

His theology is irellevant as he was elected president, and not pastor.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The left is silly to charge Bush with even knowing one sentence of systematic theology or to even be able to recite the basic doctrines of the Nicene Creed. The only ones who know less theology than the Bush family are the ones who have made these silly charges that the Bush family has a theology of any kind.

The left must be very rich in order to squander time and money on this imaginary issue. Of course, the left is probably just expressing their historic hatred of Christians and all things that even seem Christian. The left is full of hatreds for anything and everything that they do not control. If the left had their way, they would burn every church down in the United States and burn every copy of The Holy Bible in the world.

 

No one in the entire world feels the attacks of satan like this man does. Fellow Christians call him a "average Christian" ... "morally corrupt"? I personally don't like George Bush, but I would rather Bush over Kerry or Gore or Clinton any day of the week. Does not God place those in Authority above us? Does the bible not say that all authority comes from God? So why do we think we have the right blast this guy for his mistakes?

By the way ... there is no such thing as an average Christian. We are all one body!

 

The meaning that I intended was that Bush had no more training or knowledge or intentions into theology than the average Christian. I see nothing wrong with that term and consider it more polite than pew warmer, for example. Christianity is made up of common people according to the New Testament and Paul.

 

Some samples of Bush theology in his own words:

ABC News

Source

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3770220

 

Thank you, Lady Eagle. I really had forgotten how far Bush strays from Christianity in the name of the GOP. Bush's syncretism is a very good example of how silly the left is with the charge that Bush has a systematic theology or clear Christian doctrine and is headed for some sort of theocracy by Methodists.

Such silliness on the part of the left would not be possible if it were not for their hatred of Christians coupled with their refusal to comprehend basic Christian doctrine.

Very likely the left is really too lazy to study the issue but uses the cry of theocracy just to get money from their Hollywood friends.

I really hope that the average Christian does not think that Allah, or Satan, is the same as God. Should I say that Bush is a Sunday School dropout, Lady Eagle?

 

Yeah, I don't take Bush seriously on religion. I realize that he is a member of the mainline denomination of the Methodist church and that Bush's conversion to Christianity saved him from his alcoholism or his heavy drinking and made him into a decent hard-working citizen who has discharged his responsibilities well.

However, his syncretism has been such an issue here on the board that I have forgotten about him on the religious question and I was glad that Lady Eagle brought that up about his Ramadan dinners at the White House and other disgusting things that he has done.

That syncretism really makes a joke out of the left's silly idea that Bush will establish a theocracy. It is hard to establish a theocracy when one does not have a systematic theology of one sentence in length or when one does not know enough doctrine to know that Allah is just another name for Satan.

I sincerely hope that the next President is an evangelical Protestant who both knows and believes Christian doctrine concerning the birth, death, and resurrection of Our Lord And Saviour Jesus Christ The Lamb Of God.

 

Lomax, you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

You can't say that Bush is trying to establish a theocracy and then question his Christianity.

All we know about him is that he is a Methodist and that he is confused about basic doctrine and has no systematic theology but the idea that he is trying to take over the government in the name of the Methodist Church is silly.