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 2 3 4 5 6

Rich men do not go to heaven.
PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 9:51 PM

Don’t tell that to Abraham or Zacchaeus.

tommyboy on January 3, 2010 at 10:01 PM

I’ll stick with Bible which makes no mention of the trinity, sola scriptura or creeds.

the Bible is full of the trinity. it clearly states that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and there is one God.

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:02 PM

There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM

ashahadu la ilaha ila allah!

blatantblue on January 3, 2010 at 10:02 PM

The way you worded your comment made it seem like no one should ever get into someone else’s business.

terryannonline on January 3, 2010 at 9:49 PM

The way this Tiger does business it could get rather crowded even in a Queen sized bed.

Cheshire Cat on January 3, 2010 at 10:03 PM

blatantblue on January 3, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Maybe. I’m suggesting that if a person suggests a religious path to redemption, he should suggest a) a single faith and not faith in general, and b) that that faith should be one the suggester knows.

If AP or others feel it inappropriate to suggest any faith to help with recovery, that’s fine. But the complaints I read seemed to suggest that there are other paths that might be as good as Christianity, and seemed to beg the question as to why Brit Hume didn’t suggest them.

applebutter on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

You totally missed the point, moron. It’s OK to believe that your religion is the best, but to say it on national TV, on a program that’s not even religious is STUPID!!!

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Why? Did we wake up in North Korea?

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

@tommyboy

Abraham had to commit to give up his son to prove he was not attached to his riches.

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

devout Christians are utter morons.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 9:44 PM

some

not all

blatantblue on January 3, 2010 at 9:47 PM

I’m with blatantblue on this one. A couple of rounds with C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity tends to seduce the most stubborn intellect. If I were a non-theist, if one were to “invent” a religion, I’d say the fundamentals of a suffering, forgiving and loving worldview is simply sublime. Nothing really touches the Passion in terms of a metaphor for the most vaulted reaches of the human condition. I have yet to discover a more powerful liberation than that of the act of forgiveness.

John the Libertarian on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

You are exactly right and I’m sick to death of people defending him and “pundits” claiming that before long he’ll be back on top with all new endorsements. Why do we allow Madison Avenue to decide our role models for us? What makes Tiger Wood’s endorsement of a watch or a car valuable to anyone?

anniekc on January 3, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Because it makes money for the corporations that pay Madison Ave. They only sell what people ask to buy.

dedalus on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Rich men do not go to heaven. Tiger would have to do a lot to be redeemed.

“For it is by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.”
Ephesians 2: 8,9

Tiger would not have to do anything to be redeemed except by faith, receive the gift of redemption that God offers us all. His grace is something we don’t deserve and cannot earn. It is a gift. The good news about that is, since we can do nothing to earn it, we can do nothing to loose it.

parteagirl on January 3, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Funny. You don’t look Muslim.

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Sure I do, here a pic:
http://www.phonysenator.com/images/obama-muslim.jpg

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Jesus will not save you if you married your wife just for appearance sake and still want to boff other women.

Speedwagon82 on January 3, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Oy … The Eightfold Path doesn’t detail anything about which actions, just to pursue the “right” actions in eight different areas, with “right” being open to interpretation and not canonically specified. What I said in my comment was absolutely true and described the nature of Buddhism.

Buddhist enlightenment is a state of mind, not a prescription of actions.

neurosculptor on January 3, 2010 at 9:25 PM

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Buddhism has an enormous amount to say about actions leading to enlightenment. The Eightfold Path is one thing; there are others.

The idea is, when you begin the journey to enlightenment, obviously you’re not enlightened, so what can you do to help the process along? How should one conduct oneself so as to attain enlightenment? Obviously, Buddhism is big on the mind, so there’s an enormous part of the answer that deals with meditation. Ok, what else? Is that it? Well, no, it turns out. There’s more to it than meditation. You don’t become enlightened by meditation alone. For one thing, there are the “Three Jewels” (the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha) — these are the example of the Buddha’s life (Buddha), the Scriptural/Academic tradition which encompasses a discipline of monastic life and study (Dharma), and the practice of leading one’s life within a community of other Buddhists (Sangha).

Is there still more? Yep, lots more.

It turns out that one becomes enlightened also by adopting the ethics of an enlightened individual… You conduct yourself in your daily life as if you were enligtened — and this conduct, along with other behaviors, of which meditation is important, but only one — leads to the experience of enlightenment. How does an enlightened individual conduct him or herself? According to the Eightfold Path. You hear the phrase “fake it ’til you make it” in 12-step programs — the Eightfold Path is the same. If you’re not enlightened you act as if you are and this will aid the process.

Further, enlightenment is not solely the attainment of some abstract state of mind with no impact on the wider world. An important consequence of enlightenment is the exercise of profound compassion for all living things — the exercise of actions to help end others’ suffering. This is so important in Buddhist thought that there is a Buddhist “saint” (I guess that’s the best word) called the Boddhisattva who embodies this principle. The Boddhiattva is an enlightened being who deliberately forgoes the entry into Nirvana that he has achieved, choosing instead to incarnate on the earth to demonstrate compassion and help end others’ suffering.

You said in your initial post:

Buddhism has nothing to say about what constitutes enlightened “action”, let alone actions that specifically lead to enlightenment, other than meditation.

As I’ve shown, these statements are wrong — Buddhism has an enormous amount to say about enlightened “action”, and gives specific ethical guidance to followers. Buddhism views compassionate, ethical action as so important to the attainment of enlightenment that it’s embodied in the figure of the Boddhisattva, and reified in scripture as the Three Jewels and the Fourth Noble Truth/Eightfold Path. What you’ve said about Buddhism is completely false and betrays only the shallowest, most superficial knowledge of Buddhism, at best.

Purple Fury on January 3, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Maybe. I’m suggesting that if a person suggests a religious path to redemption, he should suggest a) a single faith and not faith in general, and b) that that faith should be one the suggester knows.

If AP or others feel it inappropriate to suggest any faith to help with recovery, that’s fine. But the complaints I read seemed to suggest that there are other paths that might be as good as Christianity, and seemed to beg the question as to why Brit Hume didn’t suggest them.

applebutter on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

I agree its not super courageous to suggest the generic majority religion of America.

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:06 PM

They only sell what people ask to buy.

dedalus on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

I guess thats the same rational that got us the fool in the Whitehouse.

anniekc on January 3, 2010 at 10:06 PM

For those of you who suspected that I am really a Muslim, you are right.
Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Aspiring pantybomber? Just where is that blizter?

applebutter on January 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Why? Did we wake up in North Korea?

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

I take it you’re so stupid you don’t even know what the word ‘stupid’ means.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM

and that is a typical belief of a cult. that they are the only ones…

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 9:43 PM

Ahh, the “cult” chestnut. Do we meet any of the other typical cult characteristics? Glad to hear you are operating from such under such a big tent by the way. So, does your belief system allow for Mormons to achieve salvation?

The Jesus of the Bible is the only eternally begotten Son of the Eternal God Who was always God and Who has no one (e.g. father) above or before Him.

The Jesus of Mormonism was born, in time, of a god who had a father and mother.
The Jesus of Mormonism has a brother.

Two different Jesuses. Salvation is, according to the Jesus of the Bible, in and through no one but Himself.

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Davidk, I agree with your synopsis of the difference in our beliefs, but not that my interpretation is incorrect. Let us both approach our own salvation with fear and trembling.

Kataklysmic on January 3, 2010 at 10:08 PM

I agree its not super courageous to suggest the generic majority religion of America.

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:06 PM

So, he should have recommended Presbetarianism?

applebutter on January 3, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Yes, the Bible contains no formal doctrines about the Trinity and other doctrines. But those doctrines are derived inductively from the statements therein.

Over the years I’ve heard a lot of people comment that they didn’t need doctrines, commentaries, Bible teachers. They just read the Bible and interpreted it themselves and usually ended up with one or more silly or aberrant doctrines of their own.

It is a mistake to disregard totally the wisdom of the ages.

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 10:09 PM

For those of you who suspected that I am really a Muslim, you are right.
Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Well I suspected by your arrogance that you were the Red Queen, but now I am more inclined to the opinion that you are The Mad Hatter.

Cheshire Cat on January 3, 2010 at 10:09 PM

I admire Brit Hume tremendously. He retired because he really wanted to spend more time with his family and with his renewed interest in his Christian faith. Brit is a good man and I believe that he is totally sincere in his hopes and advice for Tiger.

mydh12 on January 3, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 9:52 PM

But that’s not what you said Norman. You said this

After reading some of the posts in this thread, one can only conclude that devout Christians are utter morons.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 9:44 PM
So you’ll have to excuse all of us who didn’t immediately interpret it to mean.

It has nothing to do with my beliefs. To go out on national TV as a Fox news/political commentator and say “my religion is better than yours” is stupid. And people who agree with Hume are just as stupid.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 9:52 PM

You know we can’t all call the Psychic Hotline to find out what you meant instead of what you said.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM

I guess thats the same rational that got us the fool in the Whitehouse.

anniekc on January 3, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Democracy and markets have a lot in common. In both cases a herd mentality can generate mistaken adulation, even Nobel Prizes.

dedalus on January 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Tiger will never give up being a “Booty-ist” NEVER!

USBB on January 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM

I take it you’re so stupid you don’t even know what the word ’stupid’ means.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM

You know what, asswipe? I have yet to see you post anything here of any value. Further, the majority of your comments contain spelling and grammatical errors. And you call me stupid? Hell, Mensa has my IQ at 174. What the hell is yours, jackass?

Your head is so far up your ass, you’ve got sh*t for brains, you worthless cretin. Now go slink back under that rock where you came from.

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM

No, they don’t. They believe in a number of Gods, each God has his own world (basically), and each God was once a man.
right2bright on January 3, 2010 at 9:53 PM

I guess the doctrine of Theosis wasn’t taught by the early Christians.

If Athanasius, Augustine, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Cyril, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Clement of Alexandria, and others can teach the doctrine of deification/theosis and still be accepted as Christians, why are Latter-day Saints said to be non-Christian for such beliefs?

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Well I suspected by your arrogance that you were the Red Queen, but now I am more inclined to the opinion that you are The Mad Hatter.

Cheshire Cat on January 3, 2010 at 10:09 PM

My arrogance? Have you actually been reading this thread? I would like someone to obey my order ‘Off with your head’ so we can really find out if you have a brain.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM

I don’t see the problem here.

aikidoka on January 3, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Let he who has no sin cast the first stone…

ted c on January 3, 2010 at 10:12 PM

Where’s Whoopi, with an its just in his pro golf culture excuse, its no actual excuse but at least this time there would be some truth to it.

Speakup on January 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Most of the Creeds are a result of fierce debates followed by a vote on what would make the official doctrine of Christianity. The Nicene Creed as it came to be known has since been amended several times beginning with the Athanasian and Chalcedonian Creeds in 451 AD and, more recently, the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1646 AD.

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:00 PM

I am afraid that you have been fed propaganda…actually as I had stated the creeds actually were from Irenaeus, at around 140BC. The heated debates wasn’t from the “trinity” that you pronounce, but from removing Arianism, a form of Modalism. What it meant was some in power, were no longer in power. No surprise that people fight to retain power…just look at global warming…
The fought over Apollinarianism, in which some believed that Jesus did not have a human spirit…
Regardless, if you like, I have a list of scriptures backing up the trinity.
The small changes were not doctrinal changes, but some was shortening or lengthening the Creeds.
Good try on minimizing…but you need more then just a few minutes of Googling to understand…

right2bright on January 3, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Yes, the Bible contains no formal doctrines about the Trinity and other doctrines. But those doctrines are derived inductively from the statements therein.

Over the years I’ve heard a lot of people comment that they didn’t need doctrines, commentaries, Bible teachers. They just read the Bible and interpreted it themselves and usually ended up with one or more silly or aberrant doctrines of their own.

It is a mistake to disregard totally the wisdom of the ages.

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Well said. If you look back at some cult leaders, you’ll see that they were lone wolves who decided to interpret on their own, disregarding the wisdom of the church fathers. Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, David Korec, even Charles Manson, all succumbed to the temptation of thinking that he alone can figure it all out.

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Conservative Samizda,

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

ou know we can’t all call the Psychic Hotline to find out what you meant instead of what you said.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM

What I said is perfectly clear. The topic is Hume’s comments on Fox News Sunday not Christianity is the best religion. Anyone who believes Hume did the right thing is a moron, anyone who believes Christianity is the best religion is not.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Brit didn’t advise advise Tiger to convert.

blatantblue on January 3, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Abraham had to commit to give up his son to prove he was not attached to his riches.

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

No, God’s covenant was made with Abraham long before agreed to sacrifice Isaac. It was Abraham’s faith in Christ (whom God identified to him as the “offspring” to come) which assured his salvation. The attempted sacrifice of Isaac had nothing to do with Abraham’s riches that the bible reveals. I don’t see how sacrificing his son would show a lack of attachment to his material riches. It did show a faith in God, though, as the NT tells us Abraham was convinced God would raise Isaac from the dead if sacrificed. (end of bible study for benefit of those completely uninterested)

tommyboy on January 3, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Ahh, the “cult” chestnut. Do we meet any of the other typical cult characteristics? Glad to hear you are operating from such under such a big tent by the way. So, does your belief system allow for Mormons to achieve salvation?

its not exactly a chestnut when you call every other denomination of christianity apostate, and you are the only true way…and if you’re the only true way, then what about the rest of us?

don’t know about salvation, its an individual, not a group thing…

why do you mormons even want to be called christians, when the rest of us are apostate?

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:16 PM

I take it you’re so stupid you don’t even know what the word ’stupid’ means.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM

I’ll confess it. You really opened my eyes.

Chris_Balsz on January 3, 2010 at 10:16 PM

For those of you who suspected that I am really a Muslim, you are right.
Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Do you own exploding underpants too?

Branch Rickey on January 3, 2010 at 10:16 PM

obligatory … as in unnecessary …

yawn …

garry on January 3, 2010 at 10:17 PM

the Bible is full of the trinity. it clearly states that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and there is one God.

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Interesting.

So when Stephen was being stoned to death and sees the Son standing on the right hand of God(Acts 7:55), he was actually seeing one person instead of two people?

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Let us both approach our own salvation with fear and trembling.

Kataklysmic on January 3, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Indeed.

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Do you own exploding underpants too?

Branch Rickey on January 3, 2010 at 10:16 PM

No just underoos.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Okay, if you say so. Afterall I am obviously the only one who misunderstood your perfect clarity.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM

@right2bright
Thank you. I try. :-)

@sisterchristian
Thank you for the link. The fact remains that the specific details of Olmec, Toltec, Inca, and Maya remains bear little to no resemblance to the Nephite or Lamanite civilizations described by Smith.

skydaddy on January 3, 2010 at 10:19 PM

My arrogance? Have you actually been reading this thread? I would like someone to obey my order ‘Off with your head’ so we can really find out if you have a brain.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Perhaps you are the illegitimate offspring of a liaison between the Red Queen and the Mad Hatter when they were both overly inebriated.

Cheshire Cat on January 3, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Anyone who believes Hume did the right thing is a moron, anyone who believes Christianity is the best religion is not.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:15 PM

I am impressed by the intellectual depth of your argument.

My apologies if the sarcasm went over your head.

aikidoka on January 3, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Do you own exploding underpants too?

Branch Rickey on January 3, 2010 at 10:16 PM

lol upon quick glance i thought that read

“Do you explode in your underpants, too?”

blatantblue on January 3, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Brit didn’t advise advise Tiger to convert.

blatantblue on January 3, 2010 at 10:15 PM

That is the point. Brit suggested that Tiger find redemption in faith, said he didn’t know if redemption was possible in Buddism but that he knew it was in Christianity.

applebutter on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM

I’ll confess it. You really opened my eyes.

Chris_Balsz on January 3, 2010 at 10:16 PM

At the risk of hurting Norman’s feelings. Hahahahahahahaha!

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Next time Brit, tell Tiger to look to the Muslim faith instead of Christianity for comfort and and all the lefties will find everything just hunky-dory.

Goodale on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM

What I said is perfectly clear. The topic is Hume’s comments on Fox News Sunday not Christianity is the best religion. Anyone who believes Hume did the right thing is a moron, anyone who believes Christianity is the best religion is not.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:15 PM

Why? I am serious. What was so moronic about Brit’s comments?

Babino on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM

So when Stephen was being stoned to death and sees the Son standing on the right hand of God(Acts 7:55), he was actually seeing one person instead of two people?

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Because that is the only verse in the Bible and it is meant to teach the entirety of God’s nature to us?

aikidoka on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Okay, if you say so. Afterall I am obviously the only one who misunderstood your perfect clarity.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM

On the internet, people tend to read what they think is there but not what’s actually there.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM

So when Stephen was being stoned to death and sees the Son standing on the right hand of God(Acts 7:55), he was actually seeing one person instead of two people?

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM

where do you come up with that at?

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM

why are Latter-day Saints said to be non-Christian for such beliefs?

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Because there is a difference in reading and analyzing 12,000 documents (most written at the time of Jesus or withing decades), over 2,000 years…and believing in a document pulled out of a hat, read off of stones that have disappeared…by a man who claimed to have specific hieroglyphics that turned out to be Egyptian burial rites, and where none, not one shred of evidence, have ever been found that the “tribes” of North America that he said were here have never been found. All stated by a man who took child brides and married other men’s wives…other then that, go ahead and believe that 160 year old religion.
And, just for kicks, you keep stating that the creeds were wrong, so outline where they are “wrong” and substitute your “right”…using only the bible.

right2bright on January 3, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Tiger would not have to do anything to be redeemed except by faith, receive the gift of redemption that God offers us all. His grace is something we don’t deserve and cannot earn. It is a gift. The good news about that is, since we can do nothing to earn it, we can do nothing to loose it.

parteagirl on January 3, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Jesus has paid the price for all of our sins, but he requires obedience not just faith or lip-service to bestoy this gift.

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:22 PM

So when Stephen was being stoned to death and sees the Son standing on the right hand of God(Acts 7:55), he was actually seeing one person instead of two people?

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:18 PM

No, he was seeing two people and one God. (“I and the father are one” John 10:30; “The Word was God” John 1:1)

tommyboy on January 3, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Why? I am serious. What was so moronic about Brit’s comments?

Babino on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Well, you see, in Norm’s world, everyone else is stupid or moronic. But not him. *wink, wink*

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:22 PM

I will say this, there are more people attempting to educate on Buddhism on this thread then the headlines. Too bad some of the participants are here, they really had some good questions.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 10:23 PM

No, he was seeing two people and one God. (”I and the father are one” John 10:30; “The Word was God” John 1:1)

tommyboy on January 3, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Persons would be a better word. Three persons, one God.

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

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

Well, Sanford’s Episcopalian, so he should convert to Christianity, too. ;-)

Damian G. on January 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Why? I am serious. What was so moronic about Brit’s comments?

Babino on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM

It’s that he said it on Fox News Sunday and he put down Buddhism doing it. What if Wolf Blitzer on CNN Sunday said that the only way for America to beat terrorism is to convert to Judaism from Christianity because one believes in an eye for an eye and the other believes in turn the other cheek and love your enemies?

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

On the internet, people tend to read what they think is there but not what’s actually there.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM

Mass delusion, interesting concept.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

No, he was seeing two people and one God. (”I and the father are one” John 10:30; “The Word was God” John 1:1)

tommyboy on January 3, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Hmm….he was seeing two people but only one of them is God.

Between the two people standing side by side, one of them has to be God. Who is it: Jesus or God?

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Athanasian Creed

Whoever will be saved shall, above all else,
hold the catholic faith.
Which faith, except everyone keeps whole and undefiled,
without doubt he will perish eternally.
And the catholic faith is this,
that we worship one God in three persons
and three persons in one God,
neither confusing the persons
nor dividing the substance.
For there is one person of the Father,
another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one:
the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
The Father uncreated,
the Son uncreated,
and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
The Father incomprehensible,
the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal,
the Son eternal,
and the Holy Spirit eternal.
And yet there are not three eternals
but one eternal.
As there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles
but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is almighty,
the Son almighty,
and the Holy Spirit almighty.
And yet they are not three almighties
but one almighty.
So the Father is God,
the Son is God,
and the Holy Spirit is God.
And yet there are not three gods;
but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord,
the Son Lord,
and the Holy Spirit Lord.
And yet they are not three lords
but one Lord.
For as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge every person by himself
to be both God and Lord,
So we cannot by the catholic faith
say that there are three Gods or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created;
but begotten.
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten
but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers;
one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
And in this trinity none is before or after another;
none is greater or less than another;
But the whole three persons
are coeternal together and coequal,
so that in all things, as is aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity
and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped..
He, therefore, that will be saved is compelled thus to think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation
that he also believe faithfully the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right faith is
that we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
is God and man;
God of the substance of the Father,
begotten before the worlds;
and man of the substance of his mother,
born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect man,
of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead,
and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood;
Who, although he is God and man,
yet he is not two but one Christ.
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh,
but by taking the manhood into God;.
One altogether,
not by confusion of substance,
but by unity of person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man,
so God and man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation;
descended into hell;
rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven;
he sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty,
from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead.
At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies
and will give an account of their own works.
And they that have done good will go into life everlasting;
and they that have done evil,
into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith which
except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM

skydaddy on January 3, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Excellent post skydaddy, with the worlds information at our fingertips it is fairly easy to locate the truth regarding what mormans stand for along with any other religion. Unfortunately these days the term “Christianity” is misused frequently to represent ideals that Christ himself opposed. The Bible speaks the truth, and by faith, either you accept that or you don’t.

royzer on January 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Have no fear Allahpundit, Tiger is about as likely to follow Brit’s suggestion as you are…

doriangrey on January 3, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Thank God and Praise Jesus on that one….

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Hmm….he was seeing two people but only one of them is God.

Between the two people standing side by side, one of them has to be God. Who is it: Jesus or God?

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:25 PM

What makes you think that Godhood is limited to one person?

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM

It’s that he said it on Fox News Sunday and he put down Buddhism doing it. What if Wolf Blitzer on CNN Sunday said that the only way for America to beat terrorism is to convert to Judaism from Christianity because one believes in an eye for an eye and the other believes in turn the other cheek and love your enemies?

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

One can disagree with the view without freaking out that it was said, unlike you.

aikidoka on January 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Well, Sanford’s Episcopalian, so he should convert to Christianity, too. ;-)

Damian G. on January 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

+1
LOL!

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM

And, just for kicks, you keep stating that the creeds were wrong, so outline where they are “wrong” and substitute your “right”…using only the bible.

right2bright on January 3, 2010 at 10:21 PM

I didn’t state they were wrong. The Harper’s Bible Dictionary that I quoted stated that the creeds have no New Testament basis.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Harper’s Bible Dictionary, not me.

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Hmm….he was seeing two people but only one of them is God.

Between the two people standing side by side, one of them has to be God. Who is it: Jesus or God?

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Why can’t they both be one God?

Best think before you say that would be a contradiction, you don’t want to put your foot in your mouth.

aikidoka on January 3, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Jesus has paid the price for all of our sins, but he requires obedience not just faith or lip-service to bestoy this gift.

“Faith without works is dead.” James 2:26

I think we’re saying the same thing. After we receive God’s saving grace, our lives become a living “thank you” for what has ALREADY done for us, not for what we hope He WILL do.

parteagirl on January 3, 2010 at 10:29 PM

One can disagree with the view without freaking out that it was said, unlike you.

aikidoka on January 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM

C’mon, you don’t think the switchboards at CNN would light up if Wolf Blitzer said Judaism is a better religion than Christianity?

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Wow, I was surprised to hear Brit say this. I always liked him, but now I really admire him for speaking up. I didn’t know he was a man of faith.

Rosmerta on January 3, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:29 PM

It’s true. Ever since you came here, I have learned the true meaning of stupidity.

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:31 PM

@royzer

Thanks. The irony is, my faith that the Bible is God’s Word was not the starting point of my faith journey. (For a long time, earnest Christians tried to get me start there. I just couldn’t.)

I had to come to an intellectual understanding first.

skydaddy on January 3, 2010 at 10:31 PM

What makes you think that Godhood is limited to one person?

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:27 PM

No, you said that there were two people and one God. Lets go back to what you said:

No, he was seeing two people and one God. (”I and the father are one” John 10:30; “The Word was God” John 1:1)

tommyboy on January 3, 2010 at 10:22 PM

So, you weren’t originally talking about the Godhood. You were talking Jesus and God were two people but one God.

I’m asking you which one of the two is the one God.

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:31 PM

It’s that he said it on Fox News Sunday and he put down Buddhism doing it. What if Wolf Blitzer on CNN Sunday said that the only way for America to beat terrorism is to convert to Judaism from Christianity because one believes in an eye for an eye and the other believes in turn the other cheek and love your enemies?

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Well, first off, Brit isn’t a news anchor or even a reporter any more. So he was giving his opinion and I think he was entitled to do so. And second, I didn’t think he was “putting down Buddhism.” He was simply stating the differences between the two religions.

Actually, I find it interesting that Tiger would be a Buddhist and then be a serial adulterer. I guess he doesn’t follow the 5 Precepts and isn’t interested in truly following the Path. So it appears he doesn’t take his religion very seriously.

Deanna on January 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Hmm….he was seeing two people but only one of them is God.

Between the two people standing side by side, one of them has to be God. Who is it: Jesus or God?

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:25 PM

why is that? the bible clearly states Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Spirit is God, how hard is this?

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Harper’s Bible Dictionary, not me.

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:28 PM

So you restate things that you have no idea whether they are right or wrong?
At least man up and admit that you agree…
Your snarky come back shows who you are…you quote someone as authority and when challenged you feign innocence…

right2bright on January 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM

C’mon, you don’t think the switchboards at CNN would light up if Wolf Blitzer said Judaism is a better religion than Christianity?

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Sure it would be lit up, if you had enough time on your hands.

aikidoka on January 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM

I can see we are going to get into the “how can God be One and Three.”

Answer: God is One Essence with Three Personalities. No, it does not conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction.

How can God be One Essence with Three Personalities? I don’t know.

But just because someone doesn’t know how something is doesn’t mean he/she cannot know that somthing is.

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Was away for a while and found this gem.

What is funny is that the Christian god in the bible was the most unforgiving of them all. He killed millions upon millions of people, and the reasoning behind most of them were faulty at best.

thphilli on January 3, 2010 at 9:09 PM

You mean like the atheist Stalin regime?

Let’s not forget the most infamous school shooting of all time, Columbine. The killers were atheists (”do you believe in god?” “yes” *blam*).

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 3, 2010 at 9:14 PM

Stalin was an Orthodox Catholic and was educated in a seminary, but that is neither here nor their. Stalin and those kids here human. What was your God’s excuse for being a mass murderer?

Blarg the Destroyer on January 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM

@parteagirl
well said, sister, well said.

skydaddy on January 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM

So, you weren’t originally talking about the Godhood. You were talking Jesus and God were two people but one God.

I’m asking you which one of the two is the one God.

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:31 PM

maybe you should try reading the bible before making such inane statements….

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:33 PM

C’mon, you don’t think the switchboards at CNN would light up if Wolf Blitzer said Judaism is a better religion than Christianity?

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:29 PM

The Wingnuts would be out for blood and his head…and we all know it. They would be asking for his resignation while sending him hate mail and threatening him and CNN all over Fox News.

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 10:33 PM

What was your God’s excuse for being a mass murderer?

Blarg the Destroyer on January 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM

so you think the One who gives life can’t take it back?

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:34 PM

I’m asking you which one of the two is the one God.

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Let’s clear up some things.

1. I did not post what tommyboy posted. tommyboy and I are two different people.

2. You don’t seem to understand that there are three persons and one God, hence they all share “godhood”.

3. So your question is nonsensical, or you are adhering to a heresy.

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Brit is correct. Buddhism can’t replace Christianity in regards to the redemption or much of anything else.

Buddhism seeks to cut yourself off from the world of the Creator, whereas Christianity is red meat for the soul. It most closely fits the God-hole in a person.

Buddhism has some good stuff, but falls far short of redemptive Christianity.

Brit is reaching out to Tiger to tell him to not be afraid to take the first step in the journey.

It’s tough, but there is a first step to everything.

Besides, he needs to hurry up and get his life back in order so he can win the Masters again.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 10:34 PM

The Wingnuts would be out for blood and his head…and we all know it. They would be asking for his resignation while sending him hate mail and threatening him and CNN all over Fox News.

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 10:33 PM

what BS.

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:35 PM

So, you weren’t originally talking about the Godhood. You were talking Jesus and God were two people but one God.

I’m asking you which one of the two is the one God.

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Pay attention this time.

There is one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

God is one in essence and three in person.

aikidoka on January 3, 2010 at 10:36 PM

so you think the One who gives life can’t take it back?

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:34 PM

Gee that sounds like what pro-choice people say.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:37 PM

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Who in hell cares what Wolf Blitzer has to say???

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM

its not exactly a chestnut when you call every other denomination of christianity apostate, and you are the only true way…and if you’re the only true way, then what about the rest of us?

don’t know about salvation, its an individual, not a group thing…

why do you mormons even want to be called christians, when the rest of us are apostate?

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Nice dodge. I agree with you that salvation is a personal thing between one and God, but it still doesn’t answer my question “Based on right4life’s belief system, can someone who is a Mormon be saved and go to heaven”? As I was pondering how you might answer, I read your response to conservative samizdat at 10:21 and figured it out for myself.

As far as why we want to be called Chritians? Because we glory in Christ. Based on the Christlike love I feel eminating from you, trust me, I’m fine if you cool kids don’t want to invite me to your birthday party. However, that doesn’t change the fact that I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

As far as the answer to your question, “what about the rest of us”, I assume you already know what Mormons believe, or a distorted version of it, but I’ll humor you nonetheless. Click here, and then on the “additional information” tab.

Kataklysmic on January 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Jesus has paid the price for all of our sins, but he requires obedience not just lip-service to bestow this gift.

“Faith without works is dead.” James 2:26

I think we’re saying the same thing. After we receive God’s saving grace, our lives become a living “thank you” for what has ALREADY done for us, not for what we hope He WILL do.
parteagirl on January 3, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Well saying it like you did is confusing because what if we are a living “thank you” for twenty years an then go to Argentina to cheat on our wife in a moment of weakness. Do you automatically go back to saving grace when your plane lands back in the U.S.?

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM

therightscoop on January 3, 2010 at 8:48 PM

Correctamundo.

Only through Jesus Christ can we reach the Father ultimately, although there are some cases where someone who has never been exposed during their earthly life to the formal Christian religion can be saved.

The reason is that Christ IS God the Son. Connect the dots.

Sapwolf on January 3, 2010 at 10:39 PM

Tiger will never give up being a “Booty-ist” NEVER!

USBB on January 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Yeah, I guess I could understand if pimps got mad that Brit Hume said Tiger needs Jesus.

Maybe if Buddhists were mad that Brit Hume said Tiger needs Jesus.

I just don’t get atheists, and Jews, getting mad, on behalf of Buddhists, that Brit Hume said Tiger needs Jesus.

Chris_Balsz on January 3, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6