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

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM

That depends on what you do after your plane lands.

There’s this thing called free will…

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:40 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

One does not become a Chritian because of a Christian education. Stalin was a Marxist, and an atheist.

From Wiki:

Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.

applebutter on January 3, 2010 at 10:40 PM

davidk
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.

Absolutely.

Here, I’m Skydaddy, a politically conservative Christian apologeticist.

At home, I’m Daddy (around the kids) and Hubby (with the wife).

At work, I’m a professional who reviews articles for an international journal.

At church, I help lead our Sunday worship services as a guitarist and singer.

And all these “persons” are just aspects of the same “me”.

skydaddy on January 3, 2010 at 10:40 PM

I had to come to an intellectual understanding first.

skydaddy on January 3, 2010 at 10:31 PM

I’ve known a lot of people who would disagree with you on that being possible. They continually assailed me because I emphasized the intellectual aspect of Christianity.

But Jesus’ closest friend wrote, “In the beginning was the Logos“–the Logic, the Reason.

Following Jesus Christ is intellectually most satisfying.

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 10:42 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.?”

If you demonstrate true repentence, then yes. (Not saying Sandford was repentent, as he sure didn’t seem to be)

tommyboy on January 3, 2010 at 10:42 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…

right2bright on January 3, 2010 at 10:32 PM

It doesn’t matter what I think is right or wrong or I agree with them or not.

When you have a book that holds itself out as an authority on the Bible, such as Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (which is has no affiliation with the LDS Church) and they say the Creeds have no Biblical justification…

…then your problem isn’t with me but the authoritative text I cited. Again, if you think they’re wrong, contact the publishing company.

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:42 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

I’m not trying to argue, but I am confused by your statement.

None of us go back to automatically being saved – we have to ask for forgiveness and reconcile ourselves with God. Does that help?

Branch Rickey on January 3, 2010 at 10:42 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.

ok then..if 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).

then no, you’re not saved…and you sure aren’t a christian…clear enough??

or are you now denying your own faith?

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:42 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

For God to decide, not me.

If Sanford is true, he cannot long go without some major conviction.

PrincipledPilgrim on January 3, 2010 at 10:42 PM

That depends on what you do after your plane lands.

There’s this thing called free will…

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:40 PM

They hyper-Calvinists will freak out now ;)

aikidoka on January 3, 2010 at 10:43 PM

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.

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

Stalin was a Jesuit and persecuted the Orthodox Church. And it wasn’t the “Christian God” of the New Testament that was vengeful and full of wrath.

Deanna on January 3, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Gee that sounds like what pro-choice people say.

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

hubris.

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:44 PM

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

That depends on what you do after your plane lands.

There’s this thing called free will…

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Yes but do you need to receive God’s grace again? Are you under grace in US but not when you slip up and go to Argentina again?

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Yes but do you need to receive God’s grace again? Are you under grace in US but not when you slip up and go to Argentina again?

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:46 PM

The term, “state of grace” is used. And when one sins, on is no longer in a “state of grace”. The word “sin” means “separation”.

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:48 PM

For people claiming the Bible doesn not teach the trinity and that God was a mass murder in the OT go here and spend some time getting informed.

aikidoka on January 3, 2010 at 10:48 PM

Got to go:

Now I lay me down to sleep … .

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Yes but do you need to receive God’s grace again? Are you under grace in US but not when you slip up and go to Argentina again?

Not sure what your point is. The Bible is clear that every Christian still sins sometimes. (although they don’t live in sin). If someone has a “momentary weakness” (your words) then they can confess their sin to God, show sincere repentence and conviction, and they are forgiven. No new grace necessary. You get all the grace you need upon regeneration.

tommyboy on January 3, 2010 at 10:51 PM

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

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Yeah you ask that question now – if it came to fruition it would be a whole different story and the whole country knows it.

You guys are vile smear merchants when you set your sights on someone with a differing opinion.

Own up to it, it’s ok.

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 10:51 PM

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

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

Do I even have to point out the hypocrisy? (and yes, Atheism is a faith because it is a BELIEF that there is no god).

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 3, 2010 at 10:52 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

“If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins.”
1 John 1:9

Also, check out Paul’s description of his conflict of wanting to do right, but giving in to wrong in Romans 7:14-25. But then Romans 8 beautifully describes the answer to the dilemma.

parteagirl on January 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM

But Jesus’ closest friend wrote, “In the beginning was the Logos“–the Logic, the Reason.

Following Jesus Christ is intellectually most satisfying.

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Amen, amen, amen.

The Logos == The Word

“And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made. Nothing was made without Him.”

The beauty of the Good News is that while a child can comprehend it (“Jesus loves me, this I know”), at the same time it can provide fodder for a lifetime of rigorous academic study (Lewis, Sturgeon, Piper).

I would love to see those who say Christians are “stupid” attempt to offer a cogent intellectual criticism of “Mere Christianity” or “Desiring God”.

skydaddy on January 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 10:51 PM

I’m married to a Jew…

Branch Rickey on January 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM

If you demonstrate true repentence, then yes. (Not saying Sandford was repentent, as he sure didn’t seem to be)

tommyboy on January 3, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Glad to see someone believes in repentance. Grace is only bestowed to those that continually repent for our sins.

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM

Off to say a Rosary before bed.

G’nite Hot Air dudes and dudettes.

Branch Rickey on January 3, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Branch Rickey on January 3, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Say a decade for me.

Nighty night.

atheling on January 3, 2010 at 10:56 PM

Allah is on Hotair just to make sure we NEVER, NEVER, NEVER cheer for the good guys. Geez. Very tired of his anti=cheerleading.

hestrold on January 3, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Tyger, Tyger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

profitsbeard on January 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM

You guys are vile smear merchants when you set your sights on someone with a differing opinion.

Own up to it, it’s ok.

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 10:51 PM

You sure are getting worked up and insulting over hypotheticals. First someone would have to be watching Mr. Blitzer’s show to hear him say anything and then who knows how people would react. Project much?

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Courtesy of Instapundit:

A response to Hume from Buddhist Republican Charles Martin.

Purple Fury on January 3, 2010 at 11:02 PM

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM

I tried the same thing at 10:10 p.m.. Norman insists that he was perfectly clear and then said we read into the comments what we want to see. All of us. It’s good to be Norman.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 11:05 PM

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM

I tried the same thing at 10:10 p.m.. Norman insists that he was perfectly clear and then said we read into the comments what we want to see. All of us. It’s good to be Norman.

Sorry.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 11:05 PM

We are all sinners even Christians are sinners, and we always will be sinners only Christ can live a life free of sin the rest of us cannot. The only difference between a true Christian believer and those who do not believe that Christ is the reconciliation sacrifice of man to God, is that our sins will not be held against us because of the grace of God’s forgiveness free given to those who ask for forgiveness and repent. If Jesus died for our sins that we have committed, he also died for the sins that we have not yet committed. It is impossible to live a life without sin, but the life that Christ lived is an example of how we are to continue to live.

royzer on January 3, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Purple Fury on January 3, 2010 at 11:02 PM

I think Mr. Hume admitted to not knowing much about Buddhism and it seems both faiths or practices have ways to atone.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 11:08 PM

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Again, who in hell cares what Blitzer has to say? Your unemployed welfare queen sister-in-law lounging on the couch eating bon-bons and some Harvard prof?
Big friggin deal.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Glad to see someone believes in repentance. Grace is only bestowed to those that continually repent for our sins.

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:52 PM

You are correct sir. God knows the heart of man and he can certainly tell a non-repentant heart.

royzer on January 3, 2010 at 11:12 PM

I’m agnostic and I have no problem with what Mr. Hume said. Faith in a higher power heals people more often than not and I think Tiger needs that right now. From where that healing derives is irrelevant and, by Mr. Hume suggesting he should find it within Christianity is fair and germane to his point.

Claypigeon on January 3, 2010 at 11:13 PM

Oh this isn’t gonna open up a can of worms.

Coronagold on January 3, 2010 at 11:13 PM

It seems to me the “furor” over this comment springs from the assumption that one should never attempt to proselytize those who don’t share your religious beliefs. Something about “don’t force your beliefs on others” or something seems to be the unstated premise. Religion shouldn’t be treated like ice cream preferences.

I see nothing wrong with one religion criticizing another religion or with suggesting that Tiger ought to become Christian. As far why Brit Hume thinks Tiger ought to convert, one can argue the merits of his understanding of theology and of Christianity and Buddhism. But regardless of whether what he said is sound or not, the idea of recommending a person convert isn’t in itself offensive.

I’m not offended by the idea of Atheists telling me I shouldn’t believe in God. It all depends on the way they say it (Calling me an idiot for believing in God differs from arguing that there is no evidence for God, etc.).

darii on January 3, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Again, who in hell cares what Blitzer has to say? Your unemployed welfare queen sister-in-law lounging on the couch eating bon-bons and some Harvard prof?
Big friggin deal.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:11 PM

Here you go – here comes the smears.

My unemployed welfare queen sister-in-law?

You better try again, she’s an very much employed attorney at Kramer Levin here in Manhattan.

I mean where did that come from – you attacking my husband’s sister you have never met?

You really have proved my original point, thanks.

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Again, who in hell cares what Blitzer has to say? Your unemployed welfare queen sister-in-law lounging on the couch eating bon-bons and some Harvard prof?
Big friggin deal.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:11 PM

PS – no one in my family or my hubby’s has ever worked at Harvard.

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Courtesy of Instapundit:

A response to Hume from Buddhist Republican Charles Martin:

Please mention to Brit that his knowledge of Buddhism leaves enough to be desired that he probably shouldn’t opine thereon.

I’ll grant that Buddhism doesn’t provide a transcendental entity which can forgive sin, but then Buddhism doesn’t actually provide the concept of sin either; we replace it with “things which lead to a peaceful life, causing no avoidable harm to others” and, of course, the opposite.

High on that list is “avoid sexual misconduct” which can be translated to “know when to keep your pants zipped.”

Having no concept of transcendent forgiveness, we replace it with the idea that having harmed someone, you should make amends and reconsider your behavior in the future.

You tell me which is more productive: being Forgiven of Sin, or making amends and remedying your faults?

Purple Fury on January 3, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Eh. I bet Brit knew that Buddhism doesn’t encourage or condone adultery.

I think that Charles Martin misrepresents the role of forgiveness of sins in Christianity:

You tell me which is more productive: being Forgiven of Sin, or making amends and remedying your faults?

Those aren’t mutually exclusive. Christianity does not ignore the need for “making amends and remedying your faults.” I agree that Tiger would have been better served by keeping his pants zipped in the first place. However, I feel that Brit’s point was not that all Tiger needs is to be forgiven his sins and nothing else. Rather, Brit

Ultimately, I think Brit seemed to be saying that forgiveness is something which helps individuals to move past their failings and faults. I’m not sure if he was actually stating Tiger needs forgiveness of his sins for the salvation or rather that those who have screwed up feel the need for forgiveness and when it comes to forgiveness, Christianity can hook you up.

darii on January 3, 2010 at 11:32 PM

I mean where did that come from – you attacking my husband’s sister you have never met?

You really have proved my original point, thanks.

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 11:27 PM

That was a euphemism to your collective group, you stupid pariah leech-sucking b!tch. Of course your sil is an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer. Perfect.

Again, who the fcuk cares about whaT Wolf Blitzer says? No one watches that vanilla whitewashed sh!t.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:40 PM

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 11:27 PM

You are upset because OC made disparaging remarks about relatives and school affiliations that aren’t accurate but you don’t see the similarity to referring to others here at HA as “smear merchants” over a hypothetical situation. Logic is not even in your vocabulary is it?

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 11:41 PM

PS – no one in my family or my hubby’s has ever worked at Harvard.

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 11:29 PM

No one gives one sh!t about yer groups credentials.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:45 PM

I’ve always liked Brit Hume, he seems like a good, quality guy. Good for him.

For some reason he reminds me of this.

beachgirlusa on January 3, 2010 at 11:48 PM

It’s the eyes I think.

beachgirlusa on January 3, 2010 at 11:49 PM

That was a euphemism to your collective group, you stupid pariah leech-sucking b!tch. Of course your sil is an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer. Perfect.

Again, who the fcuk cares about whaT Wolf Blitzer says? No one watches that vanilla whitewashed sh!t.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:40 PM

She is not an ambulance chaser you idiot, she does Corporate Law with a focus on the Israel Market.

And your language says it all about what you are and you are not.

No one gives one sh!t about yer groups credentials.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Yer?

Is that hillbilly for your?

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 11:53 PM

There is a world of difference between forgiveness and making amends.

For the one-who-has-offended to make amends, the one-who-was-offended must accept the apology / retribution / offer / whatever.

If the offering-in-token-of-was-taken is not accepted, then there is no amends. If the offering is accepted, though, then the offense is set aside. Most social and religious laws (Hammurabi, Levitical, Sha’ria) are based on this principal. IOW, you do the crime, you do the time, it’s all good. Do-over, restart.

This presupposes that the offender has the means to make good on his debt.

Forgiveness is a whole ‘nuther thing.

Forgiveness says, You don’t have to try to make it up to me. You don’t have to give me a sheep in exchange for the one you stole. Forgiveness assumes that you CAN’T make good on the debt. In fact, it’s not required that you even want to make good. I can forgive you even if you never repent of the wrong you did me. And I feel better for it.

But that’s the human side of forgiveness. With God, there’s a slight difference. We need to ask for it.

skydaddy on January 3, 2010 at 11:53 PM

You are upset because OC made disparaging remarks about relatives and school affiliations that aren’t accurate but you don’t see the similarity to referring to others here at HA as “smear merchants” over a hypothetical situation. Logic is not even in your vocabulary is it?

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 11:41 PM

Ahem, I didn’t use profanity.

AprilOrit on January 3, 2010 at 11:57 PM

Yer?

Is that hillbilly for your?

Even irony seems to be lost on you. Pariah.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:57 PM

My advise for Mr. Sanford would be the same as for Tiger: Embrace Christianity. Or, perhaps more correctly: Embrace Christ.

29Victor on January 3, 2010 at 11:58 PM

You are upset because OC made disparaging remarks about relatives and school affiliations that aren’t accurate but you don’t see the similarity to referring to others here at HA as “smear merchants” over a hypothetical situation. Logic is not even in your vocabulary is it?

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 11:41 PM

I was initially pointing out the intolerance of the Far Right.

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Even irony seems to be lost on you. Pariah.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:57 PM

Again, I was pointing out the intolerance of the Far Right.

You proved my point, again I thank you.

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 12:02 AM

You don’t need to be a Christian to understand it’s wrong to double time your wife fifty times.

blatantblue on January 3, 2010 at 8:45 PM

And where would that understanding come from?

David2.0 on January 4, 2010 at 12:04 AM

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 12:02 AM

Oh shut up, you smug little twit.

atheling on January 4, 2010 at 12:05 AM

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 12:01 AM

You can rationalize insulting a large number of people and then be shocked and amazed when the insults are thrown right back at you. I don’t condone OC’s use of profanity but nor do I appreciate being called a “smear merchant” over some fantasy you and Norman managed to dream up. I also thought that the “Own up to it, it’s ok” was a particularly lovely sentiment. Slandering people and then demanding that they admit to the slander is a nice touch. But you keep acting surprised when people treat you in kind or worse. Victim looks good on you.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 12:12 AM

You can rationalize insulting a large number of people and then be shocked and amazed when the insults are thrown right back at you. I don’t condone OC’s use of profanity but nor do I appreciate being called a “smear merchant” over some fantasy you and Norman managed to dream up. I also thought that the “Own up to it, it’s ok” was a particularly lovely sentiment. Slandering people and then demanding that they admit to the slander is a nice touch. But you keep acting surprised when people treat you in kind or worse. Victim looks good on you.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 12:12 AM

Norman was merely pointing out the intolerance of the Far Right and you guys fell deep into the trap – you proved his thesis and my point.

Moreover it only reflects on this website, and that’s the unfortunate thing.

When people scan and see the name calling, the profanity – it only makes HotAir look intolerant.

And for as long as I have been posting here – through my personal trials and tribulations, my illness and my remissions etc, you know I am hardly a victim.

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Wait, what’s the difference? Don’t Mormon’s believe in Jesus Christ?

Kataklysmic on January 3, 2010 at 8:53 PM

http://www.irr.org/MIT/is-mormonism-christian.html

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 8:55 PM

How about trying the actual source? It has everything you need to know to answer this question.

http://www.lds.org

Scouter on January 4, 2010 at 12:30 AM

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Save it. I know as long as you have been posting you never do anything but chastise others and name call. You never make a cogent argument but play the endless gotcha game. You are not the only person on this site who has seen illness and disabilities so that song won’t move me. If you are indeed a proud survivor be a positive force and be thankful for the opportunity.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 12:30 AM

pointing out the intolerance of the Far Right and you guys fell deep into the trap – you proved his thesis and my point.

We’re not the “far right”, we’re the average conservative right, as most of this country still is. Libs love to label reasonable conservatives as “right-wing nutjobs”.

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 12:42 AM

Save it. I know as long as you have been posting you never do anything but chastise others and name call. You never make a cogent argument but play the endless gotcha game. You are not the only person on this site who has seen illness and disabilities so that song won’t move me. If you are indeed a proud survivor be a positive force and be thankful for the opportunity.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 12:30 AM

And as I have shared before – I am extremely thankful for all that God has given me.

And no Cindy I do not believe the rigorous knee jerk unhinged name calling and profanity language on a leading Conservative blog is a positive force, nor is the name caller’s entitlement that comes along with it.

Wingnut and smear merchant – to describe what lengths one will go to – to get even with their opponent – is just not up to par with smug little twit and stupid pariah leech-sucking b!tch.

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 12:45 AM

That was a euphemism to your collective group, you stupid pariah leech-sucking b!tch. Of course your sil is an ambulance-chasing trial lawyer. Perfect.OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:40

What an idiotic explanation from an idiot!

Again, who the fcuk cares about whaT Wolf Blitzer says? No one watches that vanilla whitewashed sh!t.

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:40 PM

But Christians would care if he said something anti-Christian you stupid dumbass.

I know as long as you have been posting you never do anything but chastise others and name call. You never make a cogent argument but play the endless gotcha game.
Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 12:30 AM

AprilOrit is doing a fantastic job. She’s not only making cogent arguments but also making your ilk look like the stupid savages that they are.

Norman Blizter on January 4, 2010 at 12:47 AM

Oh shut up, you smug little twit.

atheling on January 4, 2010 at 12:05 AM

Why don’t you take your own advice and shove it in your pie hole you pompous ass!

Norman Blizter on January 4, 2010 at 12:49 AM

Norman was merely pointing out the intolerance of the Far Right and you guys fell deep into the trap – you proved his thesis and my point.

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 12:23 AM

Convicted with your own words and your own choice of company. You and “Norman” thrive on juvenile name-calling and what your limited intellectual abilities consider “trap-setting” which apparently brings you some kind of childish delusion of “victory”.

I really wonder why you and others like you haven’t tired of the endless nastiness toward others; if you haven’t noticed, unkindness, mean remarks and teen-age commentary will never convert anyone, so why haven’t you grown out of it yet?

tigerlily on January 4, 2010 at 12:52 AM

Good job Brit!

We’re going to need a lot more of these type of bold statements since the gospel of Jesus Christ is the only way the world will get through the times ahead.

scotash on January 4, 2010 at 12:53 AM

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

Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen.
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.”

Mark 16:14/15

Who are you calling a moron? Do you know who “He” is in these two verses?

capitalist piglet on January 4, 2010 at 1:00 AM

Name calling, I don’t condone it by O.C. but I won’t ignore it you. Norman, you couldn’t write a comment without calling someone an idiot, a moron, stupid and now a savage, if your life depended on it. I don’t know why I waste my time replying to either of you, I know better. You two can continue to feed off of each other I am done, neither of you are worthy of any further replies. I suggest you expand on your Wolf Blitzer fantasy, it was a real winner.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 1:00 AM

I’m an atheist heathen and yet I have full control over my peni…..oh wait.

Sharke on January 4, 2010 at 1:01 AM

Norman was merely pointing out the intolerance of the Far Right and you guys fell deep into the trap – you proved his thesis and my point.

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 12:23 AM

There’s intolerance in the air, all right.

capitalist piglet on January 4, 2010 at 1:01 AM

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

Persons (from greek persona) not personalities.

Here, I’m Skydaddy, a politically conservative Christian apologeticist.
At home, I’m Daddy (around the kids) and Hubby (with the wife).
At work, I’m a professional who reviews articles for an international journal.
At church, I help lead our Sunday worship services as a guitarist and singer.
And all these “persons” are just aspects of the same “me”.
skydaddy on January 3, 2010 at 10:40 PM

And it has nothing to do with “roles” like those we take on(or aspects). Just sayin’.

kcewa on January 4, 2010 at 1:06 AM

Norman, you couldn’t write a comment without calling someone an idiot, a moron, stupid and now a savage, if your life depended on it.
Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 1:00 AM

Wrong again.

I don’t know why I waste my time replying to either of you,

Because you really, really like me.

I suggest you expand on your Wolf Blitzer fantasy, it was a real winner.

Good Night Cindy. Pleasant Dreams.
XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX

Norman Blizter on January 4, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Norman was merely pointing out the intolerance of the Far Right and you guys fell deep into the trap – you proved his thesis and my point.

Thesis? You call what Blitzer writes a thesis?

Moreover it only reflects on this website, and that’s the unfortunate thing.

When people scan and see the name calling, the profanity – it only makes HotAir look intolerant.

You bloody hypocritical oaf. I guess you didn’t notice Blitzer’s name-calling. The guy’s “thesis” consisted of sweeping generalizations, calling all devout Christians names like “morons” and “stupid”.

And for as long as I have been posting here – through my personal trials and tribulations, my illness and my remissions etc, you know I am hardly a victim.

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 12:23 AM

No, you’re not. You’re just a garden variety libtard. Your “trials and tribulations” have taught you nothing.

atheling on January 4, 2010 at 1:10 AM

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

.

And, with all due respect, that is the problem. How is a human able to achieve this enlightenment? Even with the help of a Boddhisattva and endless lives it seems like the negative karma would accumulate without a radical (no requirements) redemption like that shown in xianity

kcewa on January 4, 2010 at 1:23 AM

Norman – they are certainly self imploding all over the place.

It’s pretty tragic to watch them undermine Michelle’s blog – doing exactly what she calls out the Far Left for.

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 1:40 AM

No, you’re not. You’re just a garden variety libtard. Your “trials and tribulations” have taught you nothing.

atheling on January 4, 2010 at 1:10 AM

Hmmm, and let me guess – you believe you are an expert because you are on the ahem…right side of the argument?

Hilarious….

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 1:42 AM

Don’t reply to the trolls, they aren’t looking for honest discussion, only attention. Besides, it’s an exercise in futilty to try to deal reasonably and rationally with those who are unreasonable and irrational. At best they’re immature and at worst mentally ill, don’t be a party to it.

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 1:51 AM

futilty

futility rather

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 1:52 AM

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 1:51 AM

Or it gets boring and never seems to go anywhere. There’s that too.

darii on January 4, 2010 at 1:52 AM

Laudable.

Heroic.

Brit Hume is a real Christian man that follows the honorable footsteps of Jesus Christ & His greatest Apostle, Paul. Like Paul, he is unashamed of the Gospel, and he’s not hiding behind his job to acknowledge that Jesus said ‘if you’re ashamed of Him, He’ll be ashamed to bring you before God the Father’. Brit Hume is unafraid of athiests, unafraid of Hollywood, unafraid of liberals, unafraid of lawyers.

Why?

Because greater is He that is within him, than that which in the world, and Brit Hume knows it.

Virus-X on January 4, 2010 at 1:52 AM

My two cents since the matter was brought up.

The Christian religions definition of Christ, if you want a “basic form” is summarized in any one of the Christian Creeds, which has defined Christianity for over 1500 years (Irenaeus was 115-202BC).
Here is a summary of all the creeds.
The Creed of Nicaea basically answered one question, who is Jesus…the answer God.
right2bright on January 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM

This type of declaration required a prophet or apostle to have authority. Those attending Nicaea disagreed on the nature of the Trinity. There is ample scripture in the Bible to support a counter view, a serious scholar would also note the Bible has large pieces removed from it since some text seems to come out of nowhere and is without context. The creed was a simple majority vote, no matter how well intentioned.

That is why the truth was restored in our times through a prophet and apostles. http://www.lds.org

scotash on January 4, 2010 at 1:53 AM

Virus-X

Well said.

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 1:54 AM

scotash

Respectfully, not true.

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 1:55 AM

This type of declaration required a prophet or apostle to have authority. Those attending Nicaea disagreed on the nature of the Trinity.

scotash on January 4, 2010 at 1:53 AM

Guidance of the Holy Spirit sound like enough authority? Or does one have to claim that they were directly contacted by God in order for their pronouncements to have weight?

darii on January 4, 2010 at 1:58 AM

CLEANUP IN AISLE FIVE!!!

Shy Guy on January 4, 2010 at 1:59 AM

Those attending Nicaea disagreed on the nature of the Trinity Those attending Nicaea disagreed on the nature of the Trinity. The creed was a simple majority vote, no matter how well intentioned.

Those attending the council of jerusalem recorded in the book of acts also disagreed, yet the results of their vote is accepted.

kcewa on January 4, 2010 at 2:03 AM

kcewa on January 4, 2010 at 2:03 AM

Good point.

darii on January 4, 2010 at 2:04 AM

This type of declaration required a prophet or apostle to have authority

How about the successors to the apostles, i.e. the Bishops of the church.

kcewa on January 4, 2010 at 2:06 AM

As a religious traveler-born Jewish, baptized protestant, back to Judaism,back to Nazarenes, being reconciled to the
Catholic Church this spring-I understand where Mr. Hume was coming from. I also understand that Mr. Kristol-who was sitting next to him- is a practicing Jew and that there is redemption to be found in traditional Judaism. It was an awkward moment and wasn’t really an appropriate time for Mr. Hume to “witness”.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2010 at 2:08 AM

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

Oh my I never saw that coming — NOT!
Simple answer: The advice that should be given to Sanford or ANYChristian (especially me) who puts aside God’s clear directions for our lives — “Get back to where you know you should be” IOW: Repent!

least1 on January 4, 2010 at 2:12 AM

there is redemption to be found in traditional Judaism.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2010 at 2:08 AM

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, explain please? As a fellow Catholic, could you point out where the Church said this?

darii on January 4, 2010 at 2:14 AM

Don’t reply to the trolls, they aren’t looking for honest discussion, only attention. Besides, it’s an exercise in futilty to try to deal reasonably and rationally with those who are unreasonable and irrational. At best they’re immature and at worst mentally ill, don’t be a party to it.

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 1:51 AM

It’s hard to ignore them when they are summoning and baiting you with inappropriate name-calling and taking a high-hatted and hate-filled approach to claiming this self righteous position while adamantly admitting to knowing your relatives/family members, assuming they are on welfare, unemployed or liberal with judgmental and self righteous aplomb.

What really gives them this right other than being able to throw their weight around anon on a blog?

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 2:16 AM

It was an awkward moment and wasn’t really an appropriate time for Mr. Hume to “witness”.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2010 at 2:08 AM

At least Kristol isn’t a Buddhist. Now that would have been awkward.

darii on January 4, 2010 at 2:17 AM

As a religious traveler-born Jewish, baptized protestant, back to Judaism,back to Nazarenes, being reconciled to the
Catholic Church this spring-I understand where Mr. Hume was coming from. I also understand that Mr. Kristol-who was sitting next to him- is a practicing Jew and that there is redemption to be found in traditional Judaism. It was an awkward moment and wasn’t really an appropriate time for Mr. Hume to “witness”.

As a Jew, I agree, well put.

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 2:18 AM

What really gives them this right other than being able to throw their weight around anon on a blog?

AprilOrit on January 4, 2010 at 2:16 AM

Well anonymity isn’t a “right.” But it is an explanation of stuff like

OmahaConservative on January 3, 2010 at 11:40 PM

.

On the other hand, I really didn’t follow your exchange.

darii on January 4, 2010 at 2:20 AM

AprilOrit

Why do you care? They’re sad and to be pitied but not responded to imo.

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 2:21 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on January 4, 2010 at 2:08 AM

It’s funny that you should mention that, I did feel discomfort from Mr. Kristol. I am sure he knows his friend well and hopefully wasn’t offended.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 2:22 AM

there is redemption to be found in traditional Judaism

Respectfully, no there isn’t. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 2:22 AM

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 2:21 AM

I thought you were referring to her. Too funny.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 2:23 AM

I thought you were referring to her.

Cindy Munford

I was :)

beachgirlusa on January 4, 2010 at 2:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6