Video: The obligatory “Brit advises Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity” clip

posted at 8:38 pm on January 3, 2010 by Allahpundit

Not the first guy I would have thought of if you’d asked me to guess which Fox News anchor would call on Tiger to embrace Jesus, but oh well. I’m as ignorant of Buddhism as I am everything else, but isn’t one of the key teachings that all suffering is caused by, er, desire and that the path to serenity lies through freeing yourself from that desire? In which case, Tige’s problem might not be that he’s got the wrong religion but that the one he’s got hasn’t quite penetrated yet. No pun intended.

Update: A question for Brit from DrewM: What’s your advice for, say, Mark Sanford?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

I’m trying to figure out what Hume means by “recover as a person.” Woods will still be just as much of a sinner after any hypothetical conversion to Christianity as he was before. He won’t be any more likely to control his vices. There are enough counterexamples to make that point dismally clear.

The whole point of Christianity is that one can find grace from God; but that leaves a whole lot of mangled relationships here on Earth up in the air. It disturbs me a little that Hume’s first concern isn’t how Tiger can make amends to his wife and children but where he spends his Sunday mornings.

My advice to Brit: if you really want to win converts, maybe sound bite-sized crosstalk isn’t the best medium to convey the depth and sincerity of your entire religion.

RightOFLeft on January 4, 2010 at 12:33 PM

The fundamental difference between Christianity and all other religions: Other religions are philosophies, Christianity has a Saviour. And no, Judaism doesn’t count, they believe they are still waiting for the Messiah.

Good works in Christianity are a response, by faith, to Jesus dying for us, not a method of earning salvation. Other religions are “works” based, i.e., one rises through the spiritual ranks as a direct result of their “good” (as defined by their particular philosophy) behavior.

“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

pugwriter on January 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM

As for the New Testament — Catholic version or the KJV….I prefer the Greek. Original language. Can be studied. Original intention revealed.
Sweet.

balkanmom2 on January 4, 2010 at 9:57 AM

As for the New Testament — Catholic version or the KJV….I prefer the Greek. Original language. Can be studied. Original intention revealed.

And all you need to conduct a powerful study in the original language is a reverse interlinear Bible and a good lexicon. It’s not quite the same as being fluent in Koine Greek but it’s very strong.

tommyboy on January 4, 2010 at 10:03 AM

\

Unless you understand Koine Greek as well as you do English, all you’re really doing is combining an interlinear text (done by men) and a lexicon (compiled by men) with your own limited understanding of a foreign language as a substitute for a real translation (granted, also done by men).

Far be it from me to tell you not to learn or study Greek, but just remember that there’s no good reason to think the result of all this is a better translation than a thorough translation done by real scholars.

Personally, I believe the best approach is to take the KJV and read it. Compare one part against another. It’s a fairly literal translation, except where a completely literal translation would be clearly wrong.

Besides, the KJV translators deliberately left clues throughout the text, especially in reference to names of God, to indicate the original word. For instance, if you see “LORD” in all capitals in the Old Testament, the word in Hebrew was Jehovah. The word “Lord” with just the first letter capitalized indicates the word was translated from the Hebrew Adonai. And “God” indicates the Hebrew word was Elohim.

The NIV is not so suitable for this purpose, since they do a lot of paraphrasing. (They call it, “dynamic equivalence.”)

None of this takes away the ability to look at the Greek or the Hebrew if you’re so inclined, but the KJV with its committees of over 50 scholars was a greater work of scholarship than the typical lexicon, which was compiled by one or two men.

Unfortunately, I think many of the modern translations are geared more to trying to sell more Bibles than trying to get the greatest accuracy. Zondervan, for instance, has exclusive rights to publish the NIV, and Thomas Nelson has exclusive rights to the New King James Version, which is not actually a new version of the King James at all, simply a translation that aims to stay close to the KJV in spirit. But that’s a whole ‘nother topic.

tom on January 4, 2010 at 1:06 PM

Divorce him and get all his stuff and then off him.

davidk on January 4, 2010 at 9:17 AM

Heh, but no. Just divorced him, that’s all.

I think you’re being facetious but obviously anyone who says or believes such a thing is crazy, no matter their religion.

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Not at all. I was told that by a rabid anti-divorce Christian. I shut her out after that as she clearly is a kook with no credibility.

That’s just crazy.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Yes, I thought she was as well.

ladyingray on January 4, 2010 at 1:17 PM

It’s all a right winged, FOX themed, conspiracy, I tell ya! :-)

See, you can’t make this stuff up!

DanaSmiles on January 4, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Imus mocks and fact-checks Brit Hume on Fox Business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkYqPWJFNPQ

fastestslug on January 4, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Not at all. I was told that by a rabid anti-divorce Christian. I shut her out after that as she clearly is a kook with no credibility.

ladyingray on January 4, 2010 at 1:17 PM

The point of it is, every day you refuse to reconcile with your husband, you’d be faulting him anew. Yes, each separate refusal would be forgiven after you repent, just like a murder.

Chris_Balsz on January 4, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Unless you understand Koine Greek as well as you do English, all you’re really doing is combining an interlinear text (done by men) and a lexicon (compiled by men) with your own limited understanding of a foreign language as a substitute for a real translation (granted, also done by men).
tom on January 4, 2010 at 1:06 PM

I have found “word study” work using a interlinear and lexicon to be very rewarding and productive in Bible study. In addition to providing you with the proper greek word an interlinear provides very helpful etymological information such as tense, gerund, etc. Further, a good lexicon (like the one by Zodiates) provides not only a definition but a wealth of background on the word and its use in both the NT and the LXX. I certainly don’t disreagared the work of trained translators, rather, I try to read at least three different translations of any Bible passage or chapter I am studying. I generally refer to NASB (most literal), ESV (my hands down favorite all around translation for readability and literalness) and the KJV (in order to see if there are any differences between the critical text and majority text for the passage in question). If this sounds like a lot of work….it is. But the rewards reaped are well worth the time sown.

tommyboy on January 4, 2010 at 2:17 PM

I have a paperback copy of the LDS book “Gospel Principles,” which I believe is online at an official LDS site for anyone who wants to read it.
KyMouse on January 4, 2010 at 11:12 AM

The Gospel Principles book is online right here.

Conservative Samizdat,

The entire Bible most definitely teaches a trinitarian view. The doctrine of the trinity is an affirmation of the entire revelation from OT to NT.

I can provide links to a very thorough study if you are interested.

aikidoka on January 3, 2010 at 10:15 PM

I’m aware of that the Bible clearly teaches the Trinity.

But there are many different beliefs about the Godhood.

Some people believe that the Bible teaches the concept of the traditional Trinity. Some believe that the Bible teaches Binitarianism while others believe that the Bible teaches non-orthodox trinity (such as the LDS Church), and there are those who believe the Bible teaches Nontrinitarianism. Others believe that the Bible teaches the concept of subordinationism.

So, while the Bible clearly teaches about the Trinity, its clear that there is no consensus among Christians as to which version or theory of the Trinity the Bible actually supports. Which of those theories is correct?

Hence, determining who is a “real” Christian based on their beliefs in the trinity is problematic because there is a wide variety of beliefs about the trinity among Christians.

Hence, the best way to determine who is a Christian or not is whether or not they accept Christ as their personal Savior and follow Him.

Its that simple.

Conservative Samizdat on January 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM

I Hume because he is honest. Christians see themselves as able to do whatever bad act that comes along but yet, so long as they agree to believe in a human being who says he is G_d, then, all is OK. This is why the Christians get so many converts..i.e. you be as evil as you want still get redemption and go to heaven. It is an easy sell. The problem is that it makes for a world full of evil, not as bad as the Islamists, that G_d, but not too swift. This is why I am glad I am Jew. We are actually responsible for what we do here and cannot get relief just by believing in a guy who says he is G_d. But I love the Christians because most of them don’t just commit evil without at least having some guilt about it. But, really, you Christians should covert and become Jews, this is the only religion that offers true redemption. Christianity does not offer true redemption. I hope that Brit will convert to be a Jew very soon

georgealbert on January 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Christians see themselves as able to do whatever bad act that comes along but yet, so long as they agree to believe in a human being who says he is G_d, then, all is OK.
georgealbert on January 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM

I know of no sincere Christian who believes this and the NT specifically teaches that it is not true. Saving belief does not mean intellectual assent. Satan believes in Christ…and shudders. Further, the book of 1 John specifically states that if one is sinning continuously (ie. living in sin) then they are not a Christian and do not have the righteousness of God. period.

tommyboy on January 4, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Good fer Brit.

Akzed on January 4, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Seems to me from my experience of 30 years walking with Jesus that He is the ultimate answer to every major problem in life. Many people (myself included) only looked for Him during a crisis and found that He was there all the time with arms outstretched! God cares about our life on this earth as well as the next in heaven. Why wouldn’t we want to share that with others? Christian Conservative on January 4, 2010 at 12:12 PM

I have friends who have had similar experiences, and it has made them better people. Though Christ might be the answer to every possible problem, a TV analyst can’t suggest conversion every time the camera is on. I wonder why Brit would suggest Christ as the answer for Tiger’s problem but not the other non-Christians who have had public problems. Certainly Tiger’s problems aren’t unique to men in the spotlight.

dedalus on January 4, 2010 at 3:12 PM

We all know nominal Christians who go with the “I like to sin; God likes to forgive” model. Real Christians know that the freedom we receive in God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ is the freedom to serve God and the world in love, to deny ourselves for the honor of God and the good of others.

Good on ya, Brit!

MochaLite on January 4, 2010 at 3:19 PM

In which case, Tige’s problem might not be that he’s got the wrong religion but that the one he’s got hasn’t quite penetrated yet.

But, wouldn’t failure to penetrate be prima facie evidence that you had the wrong religion? And I forgive you for the pun.

JackOfClubs on January 4, 2010 at 3:35 PM

In the early church in Rome, the idea took hold that if God was glorified by forgiving sin, providing more sin for Him to forgive brought more glory to God. (quite convenient, eh?)

Following a discourse on the purpose of the Law and the nature of grace Paul responded to this notion in Romans 6:1-2:

“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?”

skydaddy on January 4, 2010 at 3:39 PM

I wonder why Brit would suggest Christ as the answer for Tiger’s problem but not the other non-Christians who have had public problems. Certainly Tiger’s problems aren’t unique to men in the spotlight.
dedalus on January 4, 2010 at 3:12 PM

Because Tiger was the issue brought up at the round table. If some lesser known person with a similar problem had been the topic I have no doubt Brit would have given the same answer.

tommyboy on January 4, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Update: A question for Brit from DrewM: What’s your advice for, say, Mark Sanford?

For Mark Sanford, same advice – “embrace” Christianity.

As in “don’t profess it, live it”.

BD57 on January 4, 2010 at 4:05 PM

tommyboy on January 4, 2010 at 2:17 PM

A thorough study, no doubt, congratulations…but after a couple of years at Fuller Seminary, and a couple of decades of milling around Hebrew, Greek, etc. I personally just enjoy a simple study bible…I really enjoy the Life Application Study Bible (red letter because that is what my grandmother over 50 years ago taught with), NIV version. Is it “perfect”? Close enough, and I have read the rest so what minor differences there are, makes up for an enjoyable and easy read with great cross references. I like that they heavily cross referenced the dead sea scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch, Masoretic text, and others. Text that the KJV (except for the Masoretic text), I don’t think, cross referenced. They get the YHWH (Tetragrammaton), and they distinguish it from Adonai…yada, yada, yada…you can get caught up with details and miss the most important points.
Regardless, most modern bibles are pretty darn accurate and do not mess much with basic doctrine. The only times it becomes meaningful is in an apologetics class or when someone comes knocking on your door, and they are trying to sell you on something that doesn’t exist.
Good for you for taking it so serious, and it keeps you prepared and in the word…

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Did Mr. Hume just stick his foot in it? First, unless he knows Buddhism, who is Hume to deliver Buddha’s advice to someone rumored to be Buddhist? Brit Hume sounds evangelical to imply that all anyone need do is declare Jesus Christ one’s personal savior, and all is swept under the rug right with the world. I just don’t think it’s anyone’s place to give Tiger Woods via television a magic formula for making his self destruction disappear as if it never happened, just because he never should have let himself make/let it happen. There’s moral character, trust and respect to build that Tiger completely lacks at present, and a declaration of faith in Jesus isn’t going to instantly make Woods into anyone other than himself, a great golfer and exposed cur.

maverick muse on January 4, 2010 at 4:57 PM

I have found that Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words is the tool I use moist in Bible study. The only drawback is that is uses the King James, but that is more of an annoyance than a hindrance.

Here is Vine’s online. (I just discovered it, so I don’t know how easy it is to use.) http://www.antioch.com.sg/bible/vines/

I prefer the New American Standard Update for both study and meditative reading.

The NIV was produced by some “Holiness Tradition” scholars and, in my opinion, reflects some of their doctrinal biases.

davidk on January 4, 2010 at 5:07 PM

if God was glorified by forgiving sin, providing more sin for Him to forgive brought more glory to God.

As if anything makes omnipotence more potent, except as perceived when understood via mortal experience.

Christ acknowledged that the more which is forgiven, the more the forgiven person loves the forgiving God in gratitude.

But the rationalization quoted above is repugnant, a perverted fraud contrary to scriptural references. Yes, Rome “preserved” Christianity in its own way, terminating all that stubbornly predated Constantine’s conversion of Christianity into his own game plan to concentrate power and preserve his empire. As our modern experience proved again, the best faithful GWBush intention to deliver democratic “freedom” to Islam has succeeded in terminating the indigenous Christian populations in the Middle East. Politics have a way of forcing the worst things to happen while trying so hard to do something “good”–like passing EugeniCare, spreading the wealth, or “granting amnesty” to terrorists, organized criminals, illegal aliens and illiterates.

maverick muse on January 4, 2010 at 5:21 PM

Good advice for us all.

Sanford’s hasn’t penetrated yet. Or he didn’t have it to begin with.

I think Hume’s point is that Christianity uniquely is based on undeserved forgiveness and grace that is bestowed on sinners by a loving God rather than something that is earned. This requires surrender to God and faith in him for salvation, rather than the “you must work yourself through this and accomplish this on your own” mentality of Buddhism (and every other world religion, for that matter.)

Beo on January 4, 2010 at 5:36 PM

The NIV was produced by some “Holiness Tradition” scholars and, in my opinion, reflects some of their doctrinal biases.

davidk on January 4, 2010 at 5:07 PM

Excellent choices, the “doctrinal” biases are so minimal and insignificant that it would take a doctrinal thesis to weed them out…I like what

Voter from WA State on January 4, 2010 at 5:36 PM

stated….but it is great for just letting God’s Word seep into your mind and take root.
That’s what it is all about…unless you are preparing for a debate or answering the knock at the door…

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Because Tiger was the issue brought up at the round table. If some lesser known person with a similar problem had been the topic I have no doubt Brit would have given the same answer.

tommyboy on January 4, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Then Brit’s point is really that everyone should convert to Christianity, or at least people facing difficulties. It might generally be good advice, like eating well or getting enough sleep, but insight from a media expert like Brit on the unique challenges Tiger faces would be more specific.

dedalus on January 4, 2010 at 5:43 PM

There are two things I believe strongly concerning religion: You cannot live on a borrowed revelation and you have to walk in the light you are given, even if that means you are given no light.

I am a Christian not because I believe every word in the Bible is the Truth. How could I possibly KNOW with certainty what any Truth is, much less manuscripts written a thousand, or even hundreds of years ago? I believe because I LIKE the Christ story the best. I WANT it to be true. I am well aware of how short I fall of the glory of God, or even the virtuous person of the Greek philosophical Ideal, and I anguish over it. I LIKE the idea of a God that sacrificed for me, because I am His creation and he loves me in all of my imperfection – instead of all the other god ideas that require continual sacrifice and appeasement from us. Christianity reconciles all with God – all in all. Makes clean all that is unclean.

Queen0fCups on January 4, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Wait a minute. You mean the United States is and was and will be a C h r i s t i a n country? OMG! Got to love Brit! God Bless you Brit!

Cinday Blackburn on January 4, 2010 at 12:04 PM

It’s actually a Judeo-Christian country.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2010 at 6:06 PM

I think Hume’s point is that Christianity uniquely is based on undeserved forgiveness and grace that is bestowed on sinners by a loving God rather than something that is earned. This requires surrender to God and faith in him for salvation, rather than the “you must work yourself through this and accomplish this on your own” mentality of Buddhism (and every other world religion, for that matter.)

Beo on January 4, 2010 at 5:36 PM
===============================================

Are you kidding?? Like I said, Christianity is an easy sell because you don’t have to do anything to get to heaven. You can just say something…but the fallacy is that G_d actually knows what is in your heart therefore pretending to take a saviour (besides being a clear violation of the First Commandment) will not actually work, and in fact if you do it sincerely, then you are sincerely violating the First Commandment. You Christians should do what Jesus did and live your lives as Orthodox Jews and then let G_d decide. If it was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for you. Come home to Judaism and leave the idolotry and paganism behind

georgealbert on January 4, 2010 at 6:11 PM

“Like I said, Christianity is an easy sell because you don’t have to do anything to get to heaven. You can just say something”
georgealbert on January 4, 2010 at 6:11 PM

That’s not true at all. You have not basis for the statement other than your own imagination. Please, try reading the NT and then comment on Christianity. You say live our lives as Orthodox Jews but Christ said if one lived their life as the most Orthodox Jews of the time did
then they would go straight to hell. I’ll pass.

tommyboy on January 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM

This whole story is obviously just an Alinsky type diversion. Surely Rahm called Hume say this to get attention off their attempts to ramp up the Amnesty debate. Rahm we’re on to you. Sarcasm off/

PappyD61 on January 4, 2010 at 6:23 PM

The point of it is, every day you refuse to reconcile with your husband, you’d be faulting him anew. Yes, each separate refusal would be forgiven after you repent, just like a murder.

Chris_Balsz on January 4, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Show me the Scripture that says I have to reconcile to abuse…

…betcha can’t!!!!

ladyingray on January 4, 2010 at 6:23 PM

After seeing the crashed Escalade, with ‘rims’, I think Tiger should just go with his inner NBA. Personally, I’d love to see him be pimpin’ on them greens: neck tattoo, grill, chains and a pimp cup with diamond encrusted pimp cup holder on his knock-off Louis Vuitton golf bag.

It doesn’t matter how much a Roy Hobbs makes; he’s still Roy Hobbs.

Doorgunner on January 4, 2010 at 6:27 PM

Not ture at all. Mormons have http://www.lds.org, and http://www.mormons.org and many other websites.

If you are looking for false information about Mormons then by all means go to the people who hate us and spread all the same old lies and distortions over and over again although they have been disproved over and over.

But if you want to know who we are and what we believe all our lesson books are online, all our scriptures, all our doctrine. Go to the source, http://www.lds.org. Our doctrine is our doctrine and it is all online.

The haters are on the internet and have quite a few organizations… and they are off the internet as well. And yet we still stand as a witness of Jesus Christ and his divinity.

And we have no “robes” at Baptisms. But traditionally we do use white clothes as a symbolism for purity and cleanliness. I suppose that is offensive although I have no idea why.

People just like to be offended I suppose.

petunia on January 4, 2010 at 9:36 AM

I spent the day off since I was reading this am; now I read your post and it seems you are offended. Here’s the deal: Years ago my husband and I welcomed missionaries to our home. I am Catholic, my husband Methodist. Our doors are open to anybody who wants and wishes to anybody that brings the word of God. Why not?

Very nice girls, we learned the basics of Mormonism and they were very kind to provide me The Book Of Mormons in Spanish, and a copy in English for my husband. I am fully bilingual but Biblespeak is hard for me; therefore, I have a bilingual Bible and a Spanish KJV Bible. (I went thru my library which is big, they gave me also a VHS tape on binding spiritual marriage–after death) and a very nice book more children-oriented with the main stories of the Book of Mormon.

I am aware of family values, unity, I found the book I bought after Elizabeth Smart that her dad wrote, and there was one book or pamphlet they lent us.

I am aware of Internet LDS websites, of orgs. that don’t operate online I bet there are many. I take your word for it. I respect the religion and had a special experience at home, that I will NOT share here. Like I stated first, spiritual/religion change is a BIG and HARD change; imagine a Methodist and a Catholic becoming Mormons! He goes to Catholic mass, and I go to Methodist service. No problems.

Why tell me to NOT go online? This is something I don’t see any other belief system/religion state in person, because all are under scrutiny and diverse opinions. I mean, the best example is THIS blog.

I not only have here Catholic and Mormon books, I have psychic/spiritual books, beautiful books about angels, and “The Book Of Spirits” in a three-course for seances for mediumship.

Keep in mind, I was “pulled away” in different directions religionwise thru my life, then came back full circle. While looking for LDS material, I found my old Baptist school hymn book! I apologize if I hurt your feelings! yeah the baptism part to me is still odd. I was told of some paranormal experiences at the church before or during this service.

Also, baptisms under Catholic church have strict requirements, Methodist baptisms are different (haven’t witnessed any), and Mormon baptisms I just found odd, even though I see it seems to emulate as best as possible baptisms performed by St. John The Baptist.

I enjoy reading the back-and-forth posts here, though. It keeps things in perspective. BTW I haven’t seen missionaries in a long, long time. And you know what? I’d still welcome them in my home if they came over.

ProudPalinFan on January 4, 2010 at 6:28 PM

You Christians should do what Jesus did and live your lives as Orthodox Jews and then let G_d decide. If it was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for you. Come home to Judaism and leave the idolotry and paganism behind

georgealbert on January 4, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Jesus is God, He is the One who decides.

right4life on January 4, 2010 at 6:31 PM

Good for Brit. And re this:

“A question for Brit from DrewM: What’s your advice for, say, Mark Sanford?”

Mark Sanford is just a GINORMOUS example of someone not doing the work that belongs to a Christian. All of us who are Christians succumb to this from time to time., We just always hope to not do it in such a determined, prolonged, blatant, harmful and misguided fashion. Once understanding our need for salvation, we have work to do in living each day seeking to get to know God better (through His Word, prayer and just keeping a listening heart as we go about our day). Some days we shut Him out. Some people don’t read the Bible. Some people are just determined to do things their own way, and yes, use grace as a cover. That doesn’t make salvation false, or Christianity hypocritical. Just means people are people. We are flawed. No surprise. But, He’s NOT! And He’s our hope!

Minorcan Maven on January 4, 2010 at 6:31 PM

So, while the Bible clearly teaches about the Trinity, its clear that there is no consensus among Christians as to which version or theory of the Trinity the Bible actually supports. Which of those theories is correct?

Hence, determining who is a “real” Christian based on their beliefs in the trinity is problematic because there is a wide variety of beliefs about the trinity among Christians.

Hence, the best way to determine who is a Christian or not is whether or not they accept Christ as their personal Savior and follow Him.

Its that simple.

Conservative Samizdat on January 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM

hate to tell you, but yeah there is. its simple, the trinity as taught by the historic christian church, embraced by catholics, orthodox, and protestant…the other ‘variations’ are heresy.

do you believe the following:

“One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation,” (Miracle of Forgiveness, by Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206).

Jesus’ sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247).

There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 188).

“As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements — ‘obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,’” (Articles of Faith, p. 79).

right4life on January 4, 2010 at 6:36 PM

Not the first guy I would have thought of if you’d asked me to guess which Fox News anchor would call on Tiger to embrace Jesus, but oh well.
–Hume was clearly expressing his opinion. If Fox don`t like it, I guess it will take it up with Hume, but oh well.

I’m as ignorant of Buddhism as I am everything else, but isn’t one of the key teachings that all suffering is caused by, er, desire and that the path to serenity lies through freeing yourself from that desire?
–Nice to see someone clearly admit a gap in knowledge. Most people don`t have the strength to do that. But don`t be so hard on yourself allah for you have the Buddhist thing down pretty well, I think.

In which case, Tige’s problem might not be that he’s got the wrong religion but that the one he’s got hasn’t quite penetrated yet. No pun intended.
–Riggght. No pun intended.
–All in all a pretty nasty piece of work you have here allah. Not very becoming.
–That is my opinion, oh well.
–If, IF, I had a blog, I wouldn`t allow my employees to waste too much space on such minor commentary. But of course Hotair ain`t my blog.

Sherman1864 on January 4, 2010 at 6:55 PM

I love you folks that call yourself Christians, but, wow, you are really messed up. Lets see, you tell me that if I live as an orthodox Jew I am going straignt to hell; you defile my religion by using the term “completed Jew”, etc etc… Really, it is OK to have your faith, but don’t think for a minute that your faith is the ultimate truth, if it was, you would not need faith now would you.

Again, I urge each of you Christian to come back to G_d and live your lives as Orthodox Jews, that way when the Moshiach comes your Christian family and friend can grab your shirt a go with you to Heaven

georgealbert on January 4, 2010 at 7:08 PM

I congratulate and admire all of you for standing up for what you believe in. Reading all of your wisdom and knowledge (besides military jargon), is incredible.

ProudPalinFan on January 4, 2010 at 7:10 PM

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 5:41 PM

When I suggested to some Wesleyans that they write in “flesh” where the NIV had “sin nature” (for the Koiné Greek sarx), they chided me for “changing God’s Word.”

davidk on January 4, 2010 at 7:35 PM

George, Yeshua Hamashia has come.

davidk on January 4, 2010 at 7:52 PM

One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation,” (Miracle of Forgiveness, by Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206).

Jesus’ sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247).

There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 188).

“As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements — ‘obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,’” (Articles of Faith, p. 79).

right4life on January 4, 2010 at 6:36 PM

The problem with those quotes is that Articles of Faith, Doctrines of Salvation, Journal of Discourses and Miracle of Forgiveness are materials that are not officially used by the LDS Church in Sunday School, Sermons or for proselyting purposes.

Those books are secondary sources. They’re not endorsed or authorized by the LDS Church as publications that contain the official Church doctrine.

The Journal of Discourses and Doctrine of Salvation are NOT official doctrines of the Church because many of the statements made by the early leaders of the Church cannot be authenticated, they come from second hand sources or they were recorded years after the statement was made which leads one to question the accuracy of the quoted statement.

The Articles of Faith used to be a part of the Official LDS cannon but was later dropped from the Doctrine and Covenants after it was determined through historical research that statements made in that book could not be independently verified or authenticated.

Finally, although Miracle of Forgiveness was written by Spencer W. Kimball, who used to be the Prophet of the LDS Church until he passed away, it is also not an official publication used by the Church and its not part of the LDS approved literature that represent the official doctrinal positions of the LDS Church.

So, none of those books represent the official doctrinal positions of the Church and are not taught in Sunday School or missionary lessons.

They’re secondary sources that are interesting to read but have no doctrinal weight or value in the Church.

Conservative Samizdat on January 4, 2010 at 8:35 PM

Kudos to Brit,s interview on the O’Reilly factor

royzer on January 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM

So, none of those books represent the official doctrinal positions of the Church and are not taught in Sunday School or missionary lessons.

They’re secondary sources that are interesting to read but have no doctrinal weight or value in the Church.

Conservative Samizdat on January 4, 2010 at 8:35 PM

so all of these people, including the former head of the church are wrong? I find this difficult to believe.

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
Article 3 of the Articles of Faith

you can deny it all you want, but mormon salvation is by faith AND WORKS.

right4life on January 4, 2010 at 8:47 PM

tom on January 4, 2010 at 1:06 PM -
“if you see “LORD” in all capitals in the Old Testament, the word in Hebrew was Jehovah.”

Tom, I hope your NT Greek is better than your OT Hebrew; “Jehovah” is not a Hebrew word, it is a Christian invention (via Latin, circa the 1400s).

whatcat on January 4, 2010 at 8:56 PM

The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church. That is because the official writings of Mormonism deny fundamental teachings of orthodox Christianity. For example, the Nicene Creed confesses the clear biblical truth that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, is “of one substance with the Father.” This central article of the Christian faith is expressly rejected by Mormon teaching — thus undermining the very heart of the scriptural Gospel itself. In a chapter titled “Jesus Christ, the Son of God: Are Mormons Christian?” the president of Brigham Young University (Rex Lee, What Do Mormons Believe? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992] summarizes Mormon teaching by stating that the three persons of the Trinity are “not… one being” (21), but are “separate individuals.” In addition, the Father is regarded as having a body “of flesh and bone” (22). Such teaching is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, destructive to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and indicative of the fact that Mormon teaching is not Christian.

link

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), declares allegiance to Jesus. Latter-day Saints and Presbyterians share use of the Bible as scripture, and members of both churches use common theological terms. Nevertheless, Mormonism is a new and emerging religious tradition distinct from the historic apostolic tradition of the Christian Church, of which Presbyterians are a part.

Latter-day Saints understand themselves to be separate from the continuous witness to Jesus Christ, from the apostles to the present, affirmed by churches of the “catholic” tradition.

Latter-day Saints and the historic churches view the canon of scriptures and interpret shared scriptures in radically different ways. They use the same words with dissimilar meanings. When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints speaks of the Trinity, Christ’s death and resurrection, and salvation, the theology and practices related to these set it apart from the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches.

link

the Christian churches aren’t buying mormonism…

right4life on January 4, 2010 at 9:01 PM

So we have established a Mormon is not a Catholic or Protestant. And a Protestant is not a Jew. Of course doctrines are going to vary between religious denominations.

The litmus test for Christianity is faith, repentance, baptism, the Holy Spirit and following the word of Jesus Christ.

Interpretations of the Word are found to vary from church to church. But any follower of Jesus Christ can be called Christian in the most basic sense.

The bottom line – if a person declares themselves a Christian, and they strive to abide by a Christian philosophy, then it is so. If that is what they believe, you cannot argue it.

Play semantics all you want, no man can stand in judgment of anyone else over matters of faith.

You absolutely cannot judge a Mormon or a Jew or a Catholic and still adhere to your own Christian faith. But we all judge one another because we are all jerks. Humans are jerks. We all know this. It cannot be denied. None of us are any good…

Especially liberals.

*wink*

nitzsche on January 4, 2010 at 9:25 PM

so all of these people, including the former head of the church are wrong? I find this difficult to believe.
right4life on January 4, 2010 at 8:47 PM

It isn’t about “right” or “wrong” but accuracy and validity. If you can’t verify that a statement was made and corroborate it with other historical evidence to give it accuracy, the quote is meaningless and has no value.

This is true regardless of what subject we’re dealing with. If there’s no facts to back up the accuracy or validity of the statement, then it can’t be trusted even if it appears that the statement is right or true.

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.-Article 3 of the Articles of Faith

you can deny it all you want, but mormon salvation is by faith AND WORKS.

right4life on January 4, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Since Mormons consider works separate from faith, many Evangelicals assume that Mormons don’t believe faith is important for salvation. The implication here is that the atonement is not necessary since a “righteous” enough person can make it to heaven without it.

However, this misconception fails to account that the LDS believe that the Bible and Book of Mormon teach that belief and faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely essential for salvation.

However, the Bible clearly teaches that faith and works go hand in hand and are inextricably connected to each other. You can’t have one without the other. “Faith without works is dead” and inversely, “works without faith is likewise dead.” (See James 2)

Our works will definitely be taken into account during Judgment Day:

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and Hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. (Revelation 20: 12-13)

Ultimately, faith and works isn’t enough to get one into Heaven: Grace is what gets us in.

But God did call on men, in the name of his Son, (this being the plan of redemption which was laid) saying: If ye will repent and harden not your hearts, then will I have mercy upon you, through mine Only Begotten Son;

Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my rest.

Alma 12:33-34

Thus, it doesn’t matter if you have all the faith in the world or have done all the great works in the world. Its God’s grace that will save us.

Conservative Samizdat on January 4, 2010 at 9:40 PM

nitzsche on January 4, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Thanks for the giggle during a very serious and studious read. What a great thread this is!

Yellowdog12 on January 4, 2010 at 9:42 PM

For those talking about “completed Jews” etc.-though I am an apostate-raised reformed Jewish-when I left I left all the way. “Messianic” Jews are apostates like myself who are trying to have it both ways-and in the process flipping the bird at real Jews. It wasn’t Messianic Jews that continued to be faithful during the Inquisition and the Shoah, it was the orthodoxy.
If I had been raised Orthodox I would probably still be Jewish-but being reformed my Jewish identity was cultural rather than religious. I’m looking forward to being a Catholic but I haven’t forgotten where I’m from.
Due to that my concept of hell does NOT involve fire and brimstone, nor do I witness to Jews.
Their G-d is my G-d.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM

There are two things I believe strongly concerning religion: You cannot live on a borrowed revelation and you have to walk in the light you are given, even if that means you are given no light.

Queen0fCups on January 4, 2010 at 6:05 PM

Possibly the deepest wisdom in this entire 500+ comment thread…

Thank you for this.

Purple Fury on January 4, 2010 at 10:45 PM

I could never understand how a Buddhist can desire to free him/herself from desire…

Marconi on January 5, 2010 at 12:15 AM

tom on January 4, 2010 at 1:06 PM -
“if you see “LORD” in all capitals in the Old Testament, the word in Hebrew was Jehovah.”

Tom, I hope your NT Greek is better than your OT Hebrew; “Jehovah” is not a Hebrew word, it is a Christian invention (via Latin, circa the 1400s).

whatcat on January 4, 2010 at 8:56 PM

“Jehovah” is based on the Hebrew word YHWH, also called the tetragrammatron. Hebrew has no vowels, so Jehovah was an attempt to pronounce the Hebrew word by putting vowels in it. Of course, our modern English pronunciation of J is different from the Y sound almost certainly used by the Hebrews. But this is a difference that appears just as much in the way we pronounce Jesus, which is a word transliterated from the Greek, where it actually starts with the letter iota, corresponding to our letter I.

Jehovah is the same word as Yahweh, in much the same way that Jesus is a Hellenized version of the Hebrew Joshua, which was almost certainly pronounced more like “Yeshua” than the way we pronounce it.

When you take a word from one language into another, it’s going to go through a few alterations. It amazes me how big a deal some people try to make of minor pronunciation and spelling differences. I had a Muslim once who tried to put me in my place, so to speak, by telling me that I didn’t even know the “real” name of God, or of Jesus — by which he meant “Yahweh” and “Yeshua, respectively.” It’s not a compelling argument.

tom on January 5, 2010 at 12:36 AM

I am really, really late to this thread, but I did want to make a comment.I saw Brit on O’Reilly tonight and I have to say I was proud that he didn’t back down from his previous statement.While everyone here will not agree with what he said, they should agree that it was refreshing to see him stand up for what he believes.Yes it is politically incorrect to speak about your Christianity, but he stood his ground. I for one have new respect for him

sandee on January 5, 2010 at 12:50 AM

Tiger’s problem isn’t his lack of faith, but of character.

Having girlfriends in every town is one thing if you are single. It isn’t a good idea in any situation, but at least it isn’t a betrayal of the sacred vows of marriage and what should be one’s principles.

If Tiger can’t keep it in his pants then he never should have gotten married in the first place.

The guy is a schmuck. The only thing worse than what he did is the media circus that has formed around it. What he did was wrong, and that is news because he is famous, but all of the hype and sensationalism is most definitely NOT news.

Tiger should stop trying to spin this and accept responsibility for his choices.

leereyno on January 5, 2010 at 12:53 AM

Political correctness is MORAL COWARDICE. That is not something that any decent person aspires to. When someone chooses to be politically incorrect they are taking a stand for the truth.

leereyno on January 5, 2010 at 12:57 AM

I could never understand how a Buddhist can desire to free him/herself from desire…

Marconi on January 5, 2010 at 12:15 AM

Buddhists make distinctions between types of desire. What’s poison for the mind of a Buddhist is the desire that’s narrow and selfish, more in the sense of grasping or craving or coveting — the desire of an addict for a fix, for example. Buddhists distinguish that type of toxic, egocentric desire (which is to be conquered) and the more altruistic desire for enlightenment (which is to be cultivated).

Purple Fury on January 5, 2010 at 1:32 AM

Tiger cannot just give lip-service to Christianity and be saved. Faith without works is dead.

PrezHussein on January 5, 2010 at 2:43 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM

=========================

Come back to being a Jew. Find a good Chabad Rabbi and start praying.

georgealbert on January 5, 2010 at 4:41 AM

It isn’t about “right” or “wrong” but accuracy and validity. If you can’t verify that a statement was made and corroborate it with other historical evidence to give it accuracy, the quote is meaningless and has no value.

This is true regardless of what subject we’re dealing with. If there’s no facts to back up the accuracy or validity of the statement, then it can’t be trusted even if it appears that the statement is right or true.

so the former head of your own church says something, and you can’t ‘validate it’?? come on. again this is beyond belief.

you know you’re beginning to sound like Obama, whatever you say today is right. black people used to not be able to be priests in your church, now they can, etc.

here’s some more stuff you can deny..

The Plan of Salvation reveals that we have always existed, first as intelligences in the eternities, then as organized spirits, actual spirit-children of our Father in Heaven. The period during which we lived with God as spirits is called the “pre-existence” or “premortal life.”


But learn that he who doeth the works of righteousness shall receive his reward, even peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come (Doctrine and Covenants 59:23).

link

its rather obvious why christianity does not consider the mormons part of the church.

Ultimately, faith and works isn’t enough to get one into Heaven: Grace is what gets us in.

really??

Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

right4life on January 5, 2010 at 7:27 AM

Tiger should stop trying to spin this and accept responsibility for his choices.

leereyno on January 5, 2010 at 12:53 AM

I’m not sure he really spun this. He made vague statements about making bad choices. What I haven’t heard is any sense of contrition, shame, or real desire to change his life. That’s one of those things that faith can help with.

highhopes on January 5, 2010 at 7:39 AM

It isn’t about “right” or “wrong” but accuracy and validity. If you can’t verify that a statement was made and corroborate it with other historical evidence to give it accuracy, the quote is meaningless and has no value.

Conservative Samizdat on January 4, 2010 at 9:40 PM

Then by your argument, Joseph Smith’s prophecy’s are not valid, they can’t be corroborated? His reading of the stones has no other historical evidence, besides him saying it is. In fact some of his original leaders left because they thought him a false prophet.
Interesting that you choose the least corroborated of his acts, and the ones that are his sermon’s, that are well documented in your archives you reject?
You have a lot of reconciling in your faith…which do you believe? What has the most evidence?
We know he proclaimed ancient writings as being one thing, and it turned out to be something totally different.
You are denying the Doctrine and Covenants? So you deny the Book of Mormon as being anything accurate?
Try and say that to your bishop…I don’t think you will be around the stake for very long….

right2bright on January 5, 2010 at 7:54 AM

The point lost on so many was that it appears that Tiger Woods could use some “forgiveness and redemption”. Hume suggested Christianity, but if he could get it elsewhere .. fine.

Of course, the huffy misogynists on the Left would rather claim something else, rendering them on par with the “birthers.”

J_Crater on January 5, 2010 at 8:41 AM

Brit seems so completely inappropriate that I can’t imagine what’s going on with him.

This is just not any business of news media and is intolerant.

It’s a real gaffe, in my opinion.

AnninCA on January 5, 2010 at 8:56 AM

It amazes me how big a deal some people try to make of minor pronunciation and spelling differences.
tom on January 5, 2010 at 12:36 AM

Ain’t that the truth.

davidk on January 5, 2010 at 10:31 AM

nitzsche on January 4, 2010 at 9:25 PM

No we cannot judge a man’s heart. But if he says he believe’s “X” and “X” is contrary to the Bible, one can and should question his salvation.

If he says he is a Biblical Christian and lives a live contrary to Its teachings, one can and should question his salvation.

If he says he is a follower of Jesus Christ but follows a Jesus that is not the One in the Bible, one can and should question his salvation.

The Jesus of the Bible is the Eternally Only Begotten Son of God, before Whom there was no other and after Whom there will be no other.

The Mormon Jesus, the Watchtower Jesus, the Modalist Jesus, the “Binitarianist” Jesus, the “Tolerant” Jesus, the “Liberationist” Jesus, the “Man Upstairs” Jesus, the “Good Ol’ Boy” Jesus, the “Historical” Jesus, the “Legacy” Jesus, the Muslim Jesus, the list goes on and on; these Jesus’ cannot save you and if someone is following one of these, he/she does not posses the salvation that leads to the Father.

This is non-negotiable.

davidk on January 5, 2010 at 10:54 AM

georgealbert on January 4, 2010 at 7:08 PM

I think you have some valid points concerning Christianity, but I have some things to address – drop me an email so we can take the discussion off this board.

queen0fcups@sbcglobal.net – the o is a zero, not a letter.

Queen0fCups on January 5, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Come back to being a Jew. Find a good Chabad Rabbi and start praying.

georgealbert on January 5, 2010 at 4:41 AM

I’ve tried-but with all it’s religious legalisms it never works for me. I feel empty when I’m not in Church. Neither my ex-husband or husband are Jewish and my son is a devout Christian. That said my Christian theology is a bit more on the liberal side. I believe in intelligent design rather than biblical creation, I think many of the stories in Bible are analogies , and while I believe that my late father may be lonely-he’s not burning or in torment. I like Catholicism because their faith is tempered with reason-rather than just demanding unquestioning belief. My patron saint-Edith Stein-was a Jewish philosopher turned Carmelite nun. Her reason informed her faith and vice versa.
George: I will never be a practicing Jew again BUT I will always defend Judaism-not because of Christianity-but because my father was a Jew, my mother is a Jew, and though I don’t identify with it religiously anymore-part of me will ALWAYS be a Jew.
-Barb

annoyinglittletwerp on January 5, 2010 at 11:49 AM

No we cannot judge a man’s heart. But if he says he believe’s “X” and “X” is contrary to the Bible, one can and should question his salvation.

If he says he is a Biblical Christian and lives a live contrary to Its teachings, one can and should question his salvation.

If he says he is a follower of Jesus Christ but follows a Jesus that is not the One in the Bible, one can and should question his salvation.

The Jesus of the Bible is the Eternally Only Begotten Son of God, before Whom there was no other and after Whom there will be no other.

davidk on January 5, 2010 at 10:54 AM

There are two things about people’s faith I NEVER question.

First, I don’t question their belief or devotion of Christ. If they say they believe in Christ, I am not one to question or judge that. Their relationship is between the person and Christ and I’m in no position to comment on that. That is their walk with Jesus and its a highly personal one.

I might have doctrinal disagreements with people but I will never question their personal relationship with Jesus. I’m in no position to question the authenticity of that relationship.

Secondly, No one is in the position to determine who is saved or not. That decision is up to God and God alone. Only God, who is all knowing and all seeing, is able to judge a person and see ALL that he is and has become and make a determination.

Conservative Samizdat on January 5, 2010 at 5:40 PM

so the former head of your own church says something, and you can’t ‘validate it’?? come on. again this is beyond belief.

There are some things we can validate with historical accuracy and somethings we cannot. I would think that the Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church or any Church would want to make sure that whatever was said by historical leaders are accurate and correct.

I am confident that ANY church wouldn’t accept any statement supposedly made by a historical religious leader unless it could be independently verified.

That is…unless you’re fine with people attaching quotes to religious leaders that may never have been said by them, or is false, inaccurate or made up and people will accept it as what the Church teachers.

What if I started using quotes by an a historical Pope or an famous historical pastor that wasn’t historically accurate, how would people feel about that?

I would think people would want historical accuracy of statements made by their religious leaders…

really??

Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

right4life on January 5, 2010 at 7:27 AM

Given that Christ atoned for all mankind by dying on the Cross, I think he’s a good position to declare who is saved and who isn’t.

Besides, Christ also said, If you love me, keep my commandments. So clearly, faith and works are important but again, Christ, as the Savior of the world is the only person who can offer grace to a repentant sinner.

Conservative Samizdat on January 5, 2010 at 5:52 PM

Allah, and Ed
Maximus Confessor really needs the Ban Hammer!
Do I hear a second?!!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 5, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Thanks Allah!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 5, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6