Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
From Brit Hume of Fox News:
"The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith," said Hume. "He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of redemption and forgiveness offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger is, 'Tiger turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."
Yes, turn to a different faith - not because it's true but because it allegedly has more utility. Brilliant advice. Or maybe -- just maybe -- you can find redemption and forgiveness by actually showing real remorse and changing your ways. I don't think any religion is required to do those things, is it?
Maybe if Tiger converts to Christianity, he'll change from cocktail waitresses to hookers like Jimmy Swaggart. Or church secretaries, like Jim Bakker. Or gay prostitutes, like Ted Haggard. Or maybe he'll wait until his wife is in the hospital with cancer to divorce her while cheating with a staffer, like Newt Gingrich.
Politics
Comments
Total recovery from what?
Posted by: Hathor | January 5, 2010 9:29 AM
Have to disagree with you this time Ed. I think that is sound advice.
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 9:30 AM
Sound advice? It's absurd advice. "Become a Christian so we can whip you into shape." Christianity as moral boot camp! Based on the behavior of high-profile Christians, that's the last place I'd turn.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | January 5, 2010 9:34 AM
Re Heddle @ #2
It's rather disappointing to see someone as intelligent as Prof. Heddle making such a dumbass comment. Prof. Heddle illustrates why religion is the root of all evil.
Posted by: SLC | January 5, 2010 9:36 AM
I watched Hume speaking those lines. What caught my attention most was his delivery. Like an automaton. As if a piece of firewood had suddenly been given the power to speak but not the power to persuade. Almost as if something had taken over his mind and his will. Eerie.
Pardon me while I dig a splinter out of my ear . . .
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | January 5, 2010 9:43 AM
Yes, it's so sad how tens of billions of people have never found redemption or forgiveness merely because they were unlucky enough to live in a time in history or in a part of the world where Christianity was known...
It's amazing how ignorant statements like Hume's are. History and literature are replete with stories of redemption and forgiveness from all parts of the world, yet some Christians still believe these innately human qualities are somehow unique to Christianity. Bizarre.
Posted by: tacitus | January 5, 2010 9:46 AM
SLC et. al.,
As a Christian, why would you not expect that I would consider it sound advice for Tiger (or anyone else) to convert to Christianity? I certainly consider it sound advice, for example, for Ed to convert to Christianity.
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 10:00 AM
I think it's a good idea for purely cynical reasons. Does anyone doubt that the public at large and his sponsors would be more forgiving if Tiger came out as saved?
Posted by: penn | January 5, 2010 10:09 AM
I'm not sure I see the dumbassery (dumbassness? dumbassity?). What if Hume's comment had been more along the lines of the following? "Tiger needs to own his actions, show his remorse, and change his ways. I've found Christianity, through its emphasis on redemption and forgiveness, to be very helpful in that regard. As far as I know his current faith of choice, Buddhism, does not offer similar guidance."
I guess I'm trying to ask, is it what he said or how he said it that makes this a Dumbass Quote? Is there any acceptable way a Christian, or any other person of faith, can promote their beliefs?
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 5, 2010 10:15 AM
Heddle: If you, as a private citizen, wish to encourage somebody privately (and without coercion) to adopt your religion, that's one thing. It's a different thing entirely for a public figure like Brit Hume, in the course of his job which is not related to preaching, to publicly call on somebody to adopt his religion. Religion ought to be a private matter. Brit Hume is out of line for making Tiger's religion a public matter.
Posted by: Eric Lund | January 5, 2010 10:15 AM
I hadn't followed this at all and had to look up what it refered to so I may be missing some details but...
My view is you should seek forgiveness from those you have wronged and the only wronged party appears to be Elin Woods, not Jesus, not the general public, not sponsors, just her.
I'm not saying he must seek her forgiveness or that she must offer it, to say that would require more knowledge of the people involved than I have or frankly want. I am saying that, based on the facts I am aware of, if Tiger does want to be forgiven his wife is the only one in a position to do so.
I am aware of the Christian view that everyone has offended God by (basically) being human but even if that were true it seems irrelevant. Does God get more angry because you also upset someone else? What is he going to do, throw you in hell for two eternities?
Posted by: Matty | January 5, 2010 10:22 AM
Mr. Lund @ 10:
I also consider one's own spiritual beliefs to be no one else's business, which is why I feel Hume's comments about Tiger are so inappropriate.
Yet recall that according to the evangelical playbook, the religious doctrine of Tiger Woods or that guy crossing the street are your implied responsibility to swing over to Jesus' side of the fence - be it via a national TV forum, or otherwise.
So Hume's statement is just par for the course.
Posted by: CHV | January 5, 2010 10:27 AM
I agree with Hathor - total recovery from what? How is the Christian faith going to help either his injuries or his golf game?
I think the real dumbassery going on here is the public's insistence on thinking sports stars must be good moral role models.
They're athletes. Learn about the value of drive and hard work from them...but don't expect they know any more than you do about marital success. Or investment. Or which brand of cereal is best.
Posted by: eric | January 5, 2010 10:29 AM
Matty wrote:
Awesome comment, Matty. I am so saving that!
~David D.G.
Posted by: David D.G. | January 5, 2010 10:29 AM
Buddhism already had the "purification via confession" gig before Christianity was invented...Chapter 4 of the Exalted Sublime Golden Light (a sutra)is entitled Chapter On Confession.
Idiot Hume didn't realize Christianity stole the concept.
Posted by: healthphysicist | January 5, 2010 10:36 AM
I can't take full credit, the words are mine but I found the idea on the interwebs and after a brief check I now know where.
I will leave who said this to those who care to click the link but I'm quietly pleased with this one.
Posted by: Matty | January 5, 2010 10:41 AM
Converting would be great cover and make a nice story for the faithful. He should do it unless he takes his religion seriously which I'm hopeful that he does not.
Posted by: Audrey | January 5, 2010 10:43 AM
Except the link didn't work, try this
Posted by: Matty | January 5, 2010 10:44 AM
Matty "I will leave who said this to those who care to click the link but I'm quietly pleased with this one."
Luckily I never click links (as the internet is full of viruses and boobies) or I'd know that it was broken.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 5, 2010 10:49 AM
Incidentally, there's an Op-Ed in today's WashPo on Hume's comments. Hope this link works. But you may need to just go to the main page and find it.
But where Ed gives it dumbass quote of the day, Shales goes further: "the remark will probably rank, even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the year."
Posted by: eric | January 5, 2010 10:50 AM
Bingo. He gets paid to swat at little balls with shiny metal rods. What moral authority is he supposed to command, exactly*? I don't think I could care much less about who he's sleeping with.
Oh, and Matty? #11 was great.
*Regardless of how "clean-cut" an image he's cultivated.
Posted by: Josh | January 5, 2010 10:51 AM
Oh for Thor's sake! one more try and I'm going to give up and just post the web address directly.
Posted by: Matty | January 5, 2010 10:52 AM
Tiger fucked up. A lot. It wouldn't have mattered whether he was Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever. He played a game (adultery) and lost.
Adultery isn't a problem for Christians? What?
As matty said above, he needs to ask his wife for forgiveness, not jesus. Heddle can wish him a conversion because heddle gets a great deal from his spiritual life. I believe that may be because heddle puts a lot in. Tiger's faith and how much he puts in and gets out is his affair alone. Tiger knew what he was doing was wrong regardless of which sky fairy he worships. He knew it and did it anyway.
Posted by: MikeMa | January 5, 2010 10:54 AM
It should be noted that Hume is on his second wife and his gay son committed suicide a decade ago. So how is Christ working for you Hume?
Posted by: yoshi | January 5, 2010 10:54 AM
I'm sure it's working out for him fine. After all, when he gets to Heaven he will look down on his gay son suffering the torments of Hell and soberly agree that God's justice is perfect, and that his son deserves every single moment of his exquisite eternal torture.
Posted by: tacitus | January 5, 2010 11:08 AM
Eric @ 20:
Thanks for that link to that Tom Shales column.
It explains Hume's frame of mind somewhat (e.g. his son's suicide), not that I now don't think his comments weren't wrong-headed.
If anything, Hume coming to Christ just after his son's death just demonstrates how religion is often used as a sanity check to ensure oneself (true or not) that God is always in control even if millions of innocents are being slaughtered in Nazi Germany.
Posted by: CHV | January 5, 2010 11:30 AM
The Buddha, as part of his enlightenment, grew disgusted by women. He saw them as the living embodiment of corruption, existing to draw men into a state of desire and thus remain part of the cycle of death and rebirth, Samsāra. He told his followers to go to the chattel fields and meditate on the decomposing bodies of dead prostitutes, in order to go beyond the mask of beauty and see women as they really are-- bloated corpses in training.
Maybe Tiger should try that.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 5, 2010 11:31 AM
Have to disagree with you this time Ed. I think that is sound advice.
We can agree to disagree on whether it's "sound advice," but it's certainly bad manners and inappropriate behavior.
Posted by: CJColucci | January 5, 2010 11:40 AM
In general I would agree with this, but not so much in this particular instance. Tiger deliberately marketed himself as a brand symbolizing not just hard-work and dedication, but an all-american image including dedication to his family. He profited from that brand -- his golf winnings are a tiny part of his estimated $1Billion earnings, and the brand image was deliberate, he has been long known for how tightly he manages his appearance in the media. When that brand that he deliberately created and sold turns out to be a lie, I think its a bit inaccurate to simply blame a societal gestalt, even if that gestalt is misplaced and afforded him the opportunity to market his brand.
Posted by: Dave | January 5, 2010 11:42 AM
No matter what Tiger Woods' personal behavior, I think most of us can agree that after he returns to the circuit, and starts racking up wins again that all his personal foibles will be forgotten almost overnight...especially by the TV networks and other bodies which profit from Tiger's success.
In other words, once Tiger starts priming the media's cash pump again, his personal miscues will become a distant memory.
Posted by: CHV | January 5, 2010 11:48 AM
Re Heddle @ #7
Prof. Heddle reinforces the notion that religion is the root of all evil by his comment. Just for his information, Mr. Woods religious beliefs are none of his damn business, any more then they are Mr. Humes' damn business.
Posted by: SLC | January 5, 2010 11:51 AM
Abby N.--
The dumbassery here is that any boob with an internet connection could find out 100 times more information about Buddhism than Brit Hume exhibited in those few sentences. To encourage someone to adopt ANY faith is the height of arrogance but to recommend without even knowing the basics about the person's religion you're criticizing is just, well, dumb.
I can get minds like Brit Hume's any time I want down at the local Waffle House or redneck bar. Who needs it? But Mr. Hume is supposedly intelligent and has a staff that supports him. And yet he couldn't be troubled to even get a staffer to look something up for him that would take only a few minutes.
So the only possible conclusion is that he's talking out his ass, 'cause his mouth knows better. And that's the definition of 'dumbassery'.
Posted by: T. Hunt | January 5, 2010 11:52 AM
Now wait a moment & think of the hilarity that could ensue if Tiger chose to convert to the wrong Christianity like Gnosticism or Arianism or if he proclaimed himself a Skopsist or Cathar.
Be fun to watch Hume squirm explaining why only his brand of Christiness is the right one.
Posted by: Rob Jase | January 5, 2010 12:11 PM
As arrogant and moronic as Hume's advice is, I can't say I'm surprised by it. Buddhism is a faith that is at odds with an authoritarian personality: the quest for inner peace, acceptance, going with the flow? Such pursuits are probably looked down upon by many, probably most, conservatives.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 5, 2010 12:15 PM
Dave @29: I disagree. I have not been aware of Tiger marketing himself in ads as anything more than a good & highly successful golf player. I've never seen an ad with him for a car, watch, razor, or whatever that involves his wife or family. Can you point me to one?
Second, I am not sure why he owes any consumer anything if he doesn't live up to some moral expectation implied in by his publicists. Are golf clubs with his name on them going to work worse because he cheated? Is a wheaties box with his face on it going to have less nutrients because he cheated? And are we going to sue every role model for damages for not living up to their own hype? What damages does he owe us, the consumers? I'd argue the answer is: none.
Posted by: eric | January 5, 2010 12:29 PM
And this is why anybody who ever uses the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" is an asshole. To be a "fundamentalist atheist", you don't even have to want to convert people; you just have to think you might be right and mention it in public. But you can be a Xian and want to convert people right in the ass, and you still aren't necessarily a fundamentalist. Fuck that shit.
Note that I'm not endorsing Buddhism here, any more than I would endorse any religion (Zen Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, and other forms of Buddhism are just as laden with pointless dogma as anything else)... but it's interesting that it was Buddhism he chose to criticize, because if anything Buddhism allows people to put their past mistakes behind them even more easily than Christianity. Hume's comment is just bizarre.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 5, 2010 12:30 PM
Tiger's legal infraction in this case is adultery. Tiger's moral crime (visible to most Americans) is a violation of marriage and family commitments.
I'm sure there are proponents of the Christian faith that are unsure if Buddhism espouses the same set of family values that they think are inherent in their own faith, and think that if Tiger turned to the Christian faith it instill in him some greater family security or something. On the other hand, I almost made a logical argument for this person. Whatever mystical mumbo-jumbo Hume is spewing, I'm not buying it. Forgiveness? waa waaaaaaa
When you just stepped in twenty pounds of horse manure, changing your hat doesn't make you clean.
Posted by: Buffoon | January 5, 2010 12:32 PM
Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.
Translation: "You pretend to believe in our god, and we'll pretend you're being redeemed and becoming a better person."
This is nothing but a crass and obvious attempt to use Tiger's marital troubles to serve one religious leader's political/PR agenda. If Tiger converts, Hume and others will support him and use him as proof that their religion made him a better man. If he doesn't convert, they'll treat him like shit and pretend it's their god who's punishing him.
And heddle is showing a huge degree of stupidity, shallowness, and cynicism by supporting this scam.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 12:44 PM
heddle @7, using your own logic, you should renounce all your belief in God and 'convert' to atheism. As an atheist, why would you not expect that I would consider it sound advice for you (or anyone else) to 'convert' to atheism? I certainly consider it sound advice, for example, for all Christians to 'convert' to atheism.
Using your logic, then the argument is a valid one for any religious or spiritual belief, personal philosophy, or social moral code. Therefore, what's the point of your first statement @2, other than to show that you're a Christian, and want someone else to (for no logical reason) join your social club?
Posted by: mercurianferret | January 5, 2010 12:47 PM
Imagine the uproar that would have occured had Tiger Woods been a Jew. There is no way that Hume would still have a job if he told a Jew to give up his faith for Christianity..
Or, imagine further if Hume was a Muslim and Tiger was a Christian.. would Hume still have a job if he told Tiger to give up Christianity and become a Muslim? No. Not a chance.
Posted by: Donalbain | January 5, 2010 12:50 PM
heddle's recommendation that Tiger turn to Christianity is pretty silly, considering heddle's a Calvinist. Tiger's either going to heaven or not, and his turning to Christianity has nothing to do with it. And given what heddle's said in the past about (his bizarre version of) free will, if Tiger was going to heaven God would probably already have made Tiger's desire to follow God. Since he isn't, then he's pretty obviously one of the damned. Or God's going to make it Tiger's desire when he's good and ready to make it Tiger's desire, and then Tiger will turn to Christianity. Either way, encouraging someone to do so is quite beside the point.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 5, 2010 12:52 PM
Buffoon @37: it is illegal in Florida to live in "an open state of Adultery" (Statute 798.01). It is not clear to me whether that statute has ever been enforced, and if it has, it is very doubtful that attempting to meet secretly with your lover and hide your activities from your wife, kids, and all the paparazzi that Tiger drags around counts as "an open state."
Is he going to pay for it in the divorce? Yes. Get drawn up on criminal charges for it? Almost certainly not.
Posted by: eric | January 5, 2010 12:55 PM
@T. Hunt
Thanks for your comment. But I still don't see it. Hume said of Buddhism:
He’s not saying that the concepts of redemption and forgiveness don’t exist in Buddhism, just that the Christian interpretation is superior. That a Christian thinks his religion is superior is hardly surprising. It may be arrogant. But if that’s all it takes to be a dumbass I think everyone commenting qualifies. Aren’t we all arrogantly voicing our opinions as if others might care?
Ed is now the fifth media sources I’ve seen pointing and laughing at this quote. I just don’t get why people seem so surprised that a Christian thinks Christianity is good for you and is willing to say so. To me it seems rather like a porcupine saying Tiger just needs to stick them with quills. Being a non-Christian and a non-porcupine I’m dubious that either is really a good idea. But I can’t fault them for voicing their belief.
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 5, 2010 12:56 PM
In any case, I'm pretty sure the statute would be null and void as per Lawrence v. Texas.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 5, 2010 12:58 PM
Donalbain, if you're in the US, you can see the segment that John Stewart did about your point (or, rather, a funny take on it) on the Daily Show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-4-2010/the-best-f--king-news-team-ever---tiger-woods--faith
Posted by: mercurianferret | January 5, 2010 1:03 PM
Re eric
From the media reports, it appears that Mr. Woods' transgressions occurred in Las Vegas and California. How would a Florida court be able to try a crime committed in Las Vegas and/or California (AFAIK, adultery is not a crime in those two places)?
Posted by: SLC | January 5, 2010 1:08 PM
I just don’t get why people seem so surprised that a Christian thinks Christianity is good for you and is willing to say so.
I just don't get why some people just don't get that there's a time and a place for everything. I came not too long ago from my father's funeral. Virtually alone among those attending, I don't believe that some vestige of the cancer-ridden husk that used to be my father is in a place where he will experience some kind of score-settling bliss to make up for the torment he suffered. The best I can imagine is that, being dead, he no longer suffers. Did I make a point of saying what I think is true? Did I do anything other than mumble polite thanks when folks nattered on and on about his being in a better place? Of course not. There's a time and a place for eveything. Hume is just badly socialized.
Posted by: CJColucci | January 5, 2010 1:12 PM
James Hanley,
That doesn't follow. Calvinism teaches that people are regenerated apart from their own free will. That's it. Everything else--from choosing to accept Christ to choosing to follow the teachings of Christ is a free-will choice. It's true that I don't think that Tiger (or anyone else) will choose Christ unless he is/was first regenerated--but the advice still stands: pick up your cross and follow Jesus.
This is rather obvious--after all people gave me precisely the same advice and ultimately I followed it. The fact that only some will be capable of following the advice does not mean that it is meaningless.
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 1:29 PM
Well, there are many problems with it. For one, it's a naked assertion. Is Hume going to back it up with an explanation? It's Fox News, so just saying what the Fox News audience wants to hear is sufficient with no further explanation needed. This can be irritating to those who disagree.
And as pointed out by another commenter above, what if Tiger Woods was Jewish? What would the Fox News audience reaction be if he said he didn't think Judaism offered the kind of forgiveness and redemption that Christianity did?
What it boils down to is that Hume said what he said because he knew it would go unchallenged. What those of us who critically point at this are doing is saying, no, it's not going to go unchalleneged, here is the challenge.
Posted by: AL | January 5, 2010 1:34 PM
heddle @48: This is rather obvious--after all people gave me precisely the same advice and ultimately I followed it. The fact that only some will be capable of following the advice does not mean that it is meaningless.
Again, you make statements that are disconnected from any substantive truth, and the "This" in your paragraph above could be ascribed to not only Buddhism, but also Islam, Sikhism, Jainism, Shintoism, Shamanism, Wicca, and - yes - atheism. So... what is your point other than saying, "I'm belong to a nifty-keen social club called Christianity, and I want Tiger to join my social club, too, because I think it's just so nifty-keen and because I think he'll somehow benefit from all that nifty-keenness," (i.e., kinda what Abby Normal was saying @ #43)?
Posted by: mercurianferret | January 5, 2010 1:39 PM
Do you believe that Tiger can choose Christ if he isn't first "regenerated"? Is it possible he won't choose Christ if he is?
Posted by: DaveL | January 5, 2010 1:39 PM
"He told his followers to go ..meditate on the decomposing bodies of dead prostitutes, in order to go beyond the mask of beauty and see women as they really are-- bloated corpses in training."
wow! as one starting the final legs of a divorce... this seems.. comforting...somehow.
maybe I should become a Buddhist?
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | January 5, 2010 1:45 PM
The religionist notion of "converting" from one religion to another is some evidence that they don't really care about the truth of their religions, I think.
Posted by: spike | January 5, 2010 1:47 PM
I don't know, Kevin, but you may find this helpful.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 5, 2010 1:48 PM
SLC @46: From the media reports, it appears that Mr. Woods' transgressions occurred in Las Vegas and California. How would a Florida court be able to try a crime committed in Las Vegas and/or California (AFAIK, adultery is not a crime in those two places)?
SLC, thanks for the correction. I thought his legal residence was in FL? If not and its NV or CA, Buffoon@37 is still wrong in saying he did something illegal.
Posted by: eric | January 5, 2010 1:53 PM
Just because it's unsurprising, perhaps even expected, doesn't mean that we shouldn't mock the statement for its arrogance, stupidity, and erroneousness. Tiger Woods' religious beliefs aren't in any way, shape, or form Brit Hume's business, and the fact that Hume has tried to pump up his ego in such a public manner by invoking Woods' religious faith is grounds for loud rebuke in my opinion.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 5, 2010 2:03 PM
On January 5, 2010 12:56 PM, Abby Normal posted:
Ed is now the fifth media sources I’ve seen pointing and laughing at this quote. I just don’t get why people seem so surprised that a Christian thinks Christianity is good for you and is willing to say so. To me it seems rather like a porcupine saying Tiger just needs to stick them with quills. Being a non-Christian and a non-porcupine I’m dubious that either is really a good idea. But I can’t fault them for voicing their belief.
Christians always fault us for expressing our opinions. Why can't we fault them for theirs? Did Jesus supposedly say "Live by the sword, die by the sword"? Or maybe he really said, "Thou shalt disheth our, but never be able to taketh."
Posted by: Blue Nine | January 5, 2010 2:28 PM
mercurianferret #50,
Qualitatively no difference. That is precisely what I am saying. This is a good thing for me, and I believe it is a good thing for you. I claimed nothing more.
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 2:29 PM
"As a Christian, why would you not expect that I would consider it sound advice for Tiger (or anyone else) to convert to Christianity?"
Why on earth would a Buddhist trade the risk of (at worst) a temporary stay in hell, for the Christian offer of an eternity of hell if you're not one of the 144,000 elect who get to go to heaven? (At least, that's what Revelation says if taken literally.)
And if a Buddhist isn't bad enough to merit hell, he or she gets to spend time in a less-nasty place. And a good Buddhist gets to spend time in a heaven realm. (Of course the enlightened Buddhist skips out on the whole cycle or rebirths.)
Posted by: Jon H | January 5, 2010 2:44 PM
heddle - This is a good thing for me, and I believe it is a good thing for you.
This fits in with your other comments, which seem to say that it's good advice for Hume to encourage Woods to convert to Christianity because that's always good advice. But Hume said more than convert - he implied that god would grant forgiveness if Tiger converted (or at least be more likely to), and might not if he didn't. Do you agree with that?
Posted by: Taz | January 5, 2010 2:46 PM
That is precisely what I am saying. This is a good thing for me, and I believe it is a good thing for you. I claimed nothing more.
On what information do you base your claim? Do you, or Hume, have any specific information about Woods himself to justify your belief that your religion, and not, say, Islam or Asatru, would be the best one for Woods to embrace?
Or are you, like most god-botherers, simply offering your religion as "THE Answer" because it's the only one you have and you really don't want to make any effort to understand the people you claim you're trying to help?
Do you even CARE about Tiger Woods' personal life or welfare? Do you have ANY understanding of his life specifically? Does Hume?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 2:49 PM
I think what Hume really wants is the public "come-to-Jesus" moment. He wants Tiger to prostrate himself before the Christian public and beg for Hume's forgiveness. It has nothing to do with Jesus forgiving Tiger.
Posted by: Jon H | January 5, 2010 2:53 PM
heddle,
Precisely, Tiger can't be saved unless God regenerates him. If God does, Tiger will be saved and will turn to Christianity, yes?
But if Tiger turns to Christianity and God doesn't regenerate him, then what's the point? What does Tiger actually get out of it then? It seems to me that if God is going to regenerate Tigger, your advice is unnecessary. If God is not going to regenerate him, then your advice is pointless.
So if your advice can only be either unnecessary or pointless, why expend caloric energy better utilized lifting a beer?
(OK, I know this isn't going to go anywhere, and we're not going to agree. But evangelical Calvinism still doesn't make any sense to me.)
Posted by: James Hanley | January 5, 2010 2:58 PM
James Hanley,
Yes, but the advice still stands. For example, I am saved. If I fall into grievous sin then sound advice to me would be: stop sinning and start imitating Christ. Even though I am already saved. You think Calvinists are not evangelistic, when in fact they are very evangelistic. God ordains the means as well as the ends--and, unlikely as it may be, Hume might be the means.
If you are actually interested in "Calvinism and Evangelism" I'd recommend this book. Them there Anglicans can sure turn a phrase.
Raging Bee,
It is independent of Woods. The advice is for anyone. Christianity is exclusive -- No one comes to the Father except by the son. Christianity holds there is only one path to God. Hence my advice to anyone: give up whatever religion you have, or your atheism, and become a Christian. What other advice would you expect me to give?
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 3:23 PM
Re eric @ #55
AFAIK, Mr. Woods' legal residence is in Florida (although he apparently owns a residence in California. However, his "crimes" were apparently committed in Las Vegas, Nevada, and California. My point was that I don't see how he can be tried for a "crime" in Florida that was committed in another state.
Posted by: SLC | January 5, 2010 3:23 PM
So if your advice can only be either unnecessary or pointless, why expend caloric energy better utilized lifting a beer?
Arguing about free will with heddle is pointless, for the simple reason that heddle himself, de facto, doesn't really believe his own position. I've made no observations of his behavior, but I'm guessing he ACTS as though he has free will and his choices matter; and he also ACTS as though we have free will, and we're responsible for our choices; so he's basically full of shit when he pretends to believe all choices are motivated by his God. (And of course, he's doubly full of shit when he pretends to believe his God motivates all choices, but we still have "free will" when we make the choices his God motivates us to make.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 3:25 PM
Posted by: Spartan | January 5, 2010 3:30 PM
That’s at least partly why I’m uncomfortable. I’ve criticized Christians for getting outraged at minor expressions of atheism, like the “there’s probably no God,” bus ads. Hume’s comments seem similarly innocuous to me. It feels like I would be hypocritical to turn around attack Hume, like I’d just be trying to get even. But that’s not helpful.
Some folks have made good points that address my questions, proper time and place, mocking irrationality, challenging unsupported assertions. Maybe I’m over empathizing with Hume. Like him I regularly use public media (this blog for example) to arrogantly share unsolicited advice, often based on little more than my own feelings and experiences. I’m not always real sensitive about stepping on someone’s faith when I do it either. Seems like the biggest thing separating me from him is that my advice is usually good. (Which probably brings us back to arrogance.)
Perhaps, instead of justifying Hume’s comments, this would be a good time for me to own up to how well the same criticism applies to me and decide if I’m okay with that. I probably am. That’s nature of arrogance. But it’s worth some consideration.
Posted by: Abby Normal | January 5, 2010 3:32 PM
(I'm honestly curious on that last question. But, frankly, as I've found all explanations and defenses of Calvinism I've ever heard to be wholly unpersuasive, it'd be a real headline were I finally to meet a persuasive one.)
Posted by: James Hanley | January 5, 2010 3:39 PM
@heddle #64:
Thanks (I guess) for the sentiment, but I'm not interested. Have a nice day!
Posted by: Shawn Smith | January 5, 2010 3:40 PM
Posted by: Spartan | January 5, 2010 3:43 PM
James Hanley,
J I Packer? Most def. Ask Wiki.
His book is specifically about resolving the alleged antinomy between Calvinism and evangelism.
Side note from Packer's wiki page:
Spartan,
Umm--we are commanded to obey Christ. As Christians we want to obey Christ. We glorify God (which is our raison d'être) by obeying Christ. We have assurance of our own salvation by obeying Christ. I can go on--but the bottom line is that for many reasons it is good advice: obey Christ.
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 4:07 PM
If you think that you must follow the Christ to get into heaven, you weren't paying very close attention to the parable of the sheep and the goats. The whole point is that God's Grace enables some to live virtuously and be saved, regardless of who they follow.
I don't really care one bit about the religion to begin with, but don't sell us a bridge you don't have.
Posted by: Rutee | January 5, 2010 4:29 PM
Rutee,
It is somewhat subtle. What Christianity teaches, as I see it, is this:
1) Nobody absolutely nobody is justified unless they can claim the righteousness of Christ as their own.
2) To be able to do so is a pure gift of grace and not based on merit.
3) Since it is grace, it can be given to anyone. (God will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy.)
4) The normative case is that one makes a conscious choice for Christ after being regenerated. However point three trumps all.
5) It is still true, a la point 1, that nobody comes to the father except through the son. They may just not know it or acknowledge it or even be able to acknowledge it. Dead babies and the mentally handicapped are obvious possibilities--but so are people who died without ever hearing about Christ. Nevertheless they all--and even the saints from the Old Testament era, are saved by coming to the father via the son. According to Christianity as I understand it.
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 4:54 PM
Posted by: Spartan | January 5, 2010 5:00 PM
What heddle's logic @ #72 seems to rely on is this logical proof:
http://shonari.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/religious-hard-talk/
Posted by: mercurianferret | January 5, 2010 5:03 PM
If one generalizes the above proof, you get the following:
http://itodyaso.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/circular-reasoning-works-because.jpg
Posted by: mercurianferret | January 5, 2010 5:05 PM
Posted by: Chayanov | January 5, 2010 5:08 PM
Debating heddle on the real meaning of Christianity is a waste of time, and isn't advanced by participants who don't know much about Christianity. heddle's theological views, which I don't share, represent those of an actual, existing sect within the religious tradition broadly described as Christianity. His views don't jibe with those of many other sects, or with the kind of "logical" Christianity that no sect espouses (though, I am convinced, many people who call themselves "Christian" actually believe), but pointing this obvious fact out at length serves little purpose. heddle is not "wrong" about his own religion in the only sense that that claim could make sense -- that sect A believes or does not believe X. Beyond that, there is, of course, no ascertainable fact of the matter about X. It might be worth discussing that, but that's a different question.
Posted by: CJColucci | January 5, 2010 5:11 PM
This is true--by what you are describing is antinomianism and it is a heresy. It has its own ditty:
Free from the Law, Oh blessed condition,
I can sin as I please and still have remission
Anyone proposing to sin whenever, because after all they are either saved or not, is (in my opinion) surely in the latter category. God not only saves, but there is a Golden Chain:
29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Rom. 8:29-30)
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 5:13 PM
#74: Yeah Christ doesn't care who you follow. It's right there in Matthew 25:31-40. Things not on the list of the Sheep's good actions: PRaising Jesus and The Lord. Things that are on the list: Helping those in need.
Maybe you should concern yourself a little bit more with what Christ (Allegedly) taught then what Christianity teaches today, huh?
Posted by: Rutee | January 5, 2010 5:16 PM
Sorry, previous comment #80 was in response to Spartan #75
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 5:17 PM
"Debating heddle on the real meaning of Christianity is a waste of time, and isn't advanced by participants who don't know much about Christianity. heddle's theological views, which I don't share, represent those of an actual, existing sect within the religious tradition broadly described as Christianity. His views don't jibe with those of many other sects, or with the kind of "logical" Christianity that no sect espouses (though, I am convinced, many people who call themselves "Christian" actually believe), but pointing this obvious fact out at length serves little purpose. heddle is not "wrong" about his own religion in the only sense that that claim could make sense -- that sect A believes or does not believe X. Beyond that, there is, of course, no ascertainable fact of the matter about X. It might be worth discussing that, but that's a different question."
Ultimately, you're correct. I'll stop.
Posted by: Rutee | January 5, 2010 5:18 PM
Rutee,
That's always good advice. Similar to the greatest advice one can find in the bible, from Mary, mother of God, in John 2:5. Speaking to the servants, regarding Jesus, she said:
Do whatever he tells you.
Point, game, set, match. You are in good company.
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 5:22 PM
Notice how heddle argues about "What Christianity teaches" with absolutely no reference to the words, acts, teachings, or example of the guy the religion is named after? Yet more proof of what an empty, useless load of bollocks his version of Christianity really is. What the Hell do they do in that loopy little church of his? I've heard more believable stuff from the "Christian Atheism" guy on Speakers' Corner.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 5:27 PM
Raging Bee,
Hmm. Let's see. My primary message was "Nobody comes to the father except through the son." No who said that? Moses? John the Baptist? Sarah Palin? Bill Buckner? ... now where did I get that... maybe Google can help... oh, yeah, it was from here:
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)
But I guess you are right I am a Christian not Jesusian, so I shouldn't be quoting this Jesus guy.
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 5:35 PM
I've finally figured out what really get's my goat about heddle here (and previously on the topic of Christianity): he assumes he is speaking the TRUTH, forgetting (or refusing to allow) that he might be wrong (i.e., that listening to the interpretations of what was translated from multiple scribed copies of texts that were written several hundreds of years ago by people who had very little understanding of the fundamental principles of the physical world surrounding them might actually not lead one to a meaningful truth) and then forces his perceived frame of truth upon the argument he is forwarding; refusing to allow for another option.
Of course, if someone were to say, "The Bible is bunk, point, game, set, match. You are in good company," there would be many of a Christian would feel that this is a personal attack on them, failing to realize that the statement that I made is equivalent to the ones that they are making. True, heddle agreed that his statements of [mild] proselytizing are basically of the form (and possibly manner of), "Why don't you join my social network because I think it's nifty-keen?" However, the "nifty-keenness" of that social network requires the acceptance of certain "TRUTHS" that may actually be a hindrance for a person, rather than a blessing, failing completely to accept this possibility, because he believes that it is correct.
Perhaps I'm missing a finer detail here, but I think I got the broad brushstrokes about right.
heddle, why can't you just leave it at, "It would be awesome if Tiger came over to join my social club because it has been a good thing for me, and I think it would be good for him, too," and then forgo all of this other bullcrap about whether God grants his grace or not? Such arguments make sense if you buy Pascal's Wager, but makes even less sense if you recognize its false logic. What if multiple afterlives exist, one for each religion, spiritual belief, social dogma, etc.; if the "correct" religion is one that has long-since died and all so-called miracles are merely motes of a slowly decaying divinity; if there is no afterlife; if our conception of Heaven and Hell are incorrect; and so forth?
In the end, your quoting John 2:5 as your trump card is as useful in settling a religious argument as a Muslim using the Shahadah or a Buddhist quoting the four noble truths as their trump cards. From a devout Muslim's point-of-view, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" settles the argument, and John 2:5 is meaningless. From a Buddhist's point-of-view, understanding the nature of suffering and how to stop it settles the argument without any need for a divinity, let alone a possible son of one, thus rendering John 2:5 irrelevant.
I get it, heddle: you are a believer, and as such your starting point is your belief. However, be aware the other people have other beliefs, may wish a similar change-of-heart from you, or might just wish you to kindly let them believe what they believe while letting you believe what you want to believe, both content in the knowledge that each is CORRECT.
[/ramble]
Posted by: mercurianferret | January 5, 2010 6:02 PM
mercurianferret,
Do you not assume you are speaking the truth?--or is that not a sin for you?
For crying out loud how many times do I have to answer that criticism? Look at the caveats in some my recent comments where I explained my views on Christianity. #78: as I understand it. And #80: in my opinion. Contrary to what you say I doubt there are many people on here who go out of their way as much as I do to stress that these are my opinions.
Because people asked me about it and commented about it and started a dialog about it. If you are not interested, then don't read my comments. Nobody is forcing you to read what I write, and as far as I know this blog has not promised to filter all comments that mercurianferret finds tiresome.
Of course-- do you think I expect otherwise? Do you think I am immune to proselytizing from Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons? Do you think I don't understand that they also think they are right?
And you-- you don't actually think you are wrong do you? Don't you think you are right in what you wrote about me? Or do you hold opinions that you believe to be wrong?--which would be quite odd.
Posted by: heddle | January 5, 2010 6:21 PM
Um... leftistism?
Well, I'll have to take your word for it, since it seems to be something you yourself have invented.
Well, without Christianity, certainly history would have been very different in many ways. The same is true of the Roman Empire and Islam. It does not imply their beliefs are or were true.
Please cite where, on this blog, anybody besides you has said anything remotely like this.
I'll wait.
Jesus. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Jesusjesusjesusjesus Jesussitty-doo-dah, skip-to-my-Jesus, supercalifragilistricexpialiJesus.
Are you satisfied? Can you stop making ridiculous claims yet?
A question Christians have been asking themselves for millenia and doubtless will continue asking themselves, indefinitely.
Posted by: DaveL | January 5, 2010 7:08 PM
First off, thank you for noting that my comment was a ramble (i.e., an aimless amble on a winding course), which is why it ended with the faux-HTML code [/ramble]. (Maybe I should be more obvious about when I'm having a ramble?)
Next, I apologize. I had forgotten that you always retreat to the "I said, 'in my opinion'," position. However, what is the strength of your faith if you only hold it as a personal opinion that may not be a universal TRUTH? Or do you doubt? Or are there no universal TRUTHs?
Next, you say that "this blog has not promised to filter all comments that mercurianferret finds tiresome". Bravo. Again, I thank you for accurately noting that I was having a ramble. Of course, I can as easily refrain from reading what you write (and commenting) as you can refrain from continuing a dialogue that - from past experience - has tended to end in mere ceasefire between you and those rallied against you. However, it wasn't until I read it all that I came upon the understanding about myself that I expressed in my ramble above. So... in that way I suppose I should thank you for your (as I so crudely put it) "bullcrap about whether God grants his grace or not."
Next, you finally state that accept that others may hold personally valid TRUTHs, similar to what you do. Phew! I was half dreading that you would argue against this so-very-obvious point that underlies the very perception that many people in this forum seem to have been stating viz the hubris with which Hume commented about the TRUTH of Christianity. Yet when one goes to read your comment @ #2, you seem to have so completely and utterly failed to recognize this calling-out of Hume's hubris that you wrote down your initial comment which lead to this daisy chain of commentary in which we find ourselves. If you had refrained, or stated (as you do when you start to feel harried) that it was "in my opinion," then perhaps people would have gone a little less hard on you (although I will admit that this is light compared to other daisy-chain dialogues of the past).
Next, you end with:
Ummm... Thank you for the disingenuous straw man. I hold opinions that I know could potentially be wrong with the knowledge that they may be wrong, but also with the understanding that certain opinions tend to hold up better than others, and therefore can be relied upon until they prove to fail. To hold opinions that one believes to be absolutely correct is what would be quite odd in my opinion. I also do hold opinions that I know to be wrong, but they are "wrong" only in certain context-dependent situations (e.g., the social opinion in Mongolia of using one's left-hand eat is wrong, and I follow it although I am a southpaw; referring directly to a person by name is wrong in polite conversation in Japanese although doing so would greatly facilitate clarity in a conversation; etc.).
Finally, I really do thank you for helping me understand a little bit of what's been getting my gob whenever I read or hear similar things to the sentiment I inferred in your post @ #2. With this gain in personal understanding, I will endeavor not to let it rankle me anymore, and (hopefully) allow myself to learn a little more about how your own opinion of TRUTH is something that makes sense without your starting axiom (i.e., from my own point-of-view). Full disclosure - and to respond to the spirit of your final questions - I don't think it will be easy, let alone possible, for me to make positive headway, but I'm not saying that I can't be convinced, merely that previous experience has led me to a position that is currently biased against your own.
Posted by: mercurianferret | January 5, 2010 7:17 PM
Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams and a tough old U.S. Marine Gunny Sergeant were captured by terrorists in Iraq .
The leader of the terrorists told them he’d grant each of them one last request before they were beheaded and dragged naked through the streets.
Katie Couric said,’Well, I’m a Southerner, so I’d like one last plate of fried chicken.’
The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chicken. Couric ate it all and said, ‘Now I can die content.’
Charlie Gibson said, ‘I’m living in New York , so I’d like to hear the song, The Moon and Me, one last time.’
The terrorist leader nodded to another terrorist who had studied the Western world and knew the music..He returned with some rag-tag musicians and played the song.
Gibson was satisfied.
Brian Williams said, ‘I’m a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what’s about to happen. Maybe, someday, someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end.’
The leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and Williams dictated his comments.
He then said, ‘Now I can die happy.’
The leader turned and said, ‘And now, Mr. U.S. Marine, what is your final wish?
‘Kick me in the a**,’ said the Marine.
‘What?’ asked the leader, ‘Will you mock us in your last hour?’
‘No, I’m NOT kidding. I want you to kick me in the a**,’ insisted the Marine.
So the leader shoved him into the yard and kicked him in the a**.
The Marine went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9 mm pistol from inside his cammies and shot the leader dead.
In the resulting confusion, he emptied his sidearm on six terrorists, then with his knife he slashed the throat of one, and with an AK-47, which he took, sprayed the rest of the terrorists killing another 11.
In a flash, all of them were either dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the Marine was untying Couric, Gibson, and Williams, they asked him,’Why didn’t you just shoot them all in the first place? Why did you ask him to kick you in the a**?’
‘What?’ replied the Marine, ‘and have you three a**holes report that I was the aggressor.....?
Semper Fi!
If You Are Not Willing To Stand Behind Our Troops,
Please, Please Feel Free To Stand In Front Of Them!
Posted by: Kernal Miller | January 5, 2010 7:31 PM
So... what you're saying is that there is Absolute Truth? Is that kind of like Aboslut Vodka? If so, what's the proof?
Posted by: John Yum | January 5, 2010 7:33 PM
Umm... Nice joke, Kernal Miller. But I fail to see its relevance. (Also, I don't think that drawing fire to one's position is necessarily a good thing, so I will refrain from standing anywhere near "Our Troops" while they are on the battlefield.)
Posted by: John Yum | January 5, 2010 7:41 PM
Great to hear, Rev. Now if only all these good ol' true believers would get together and agree on what exactly is absolutely true we'll be home free...
Posted by: DaveL | January 5, 2010 7:45 PM
And if Absolut Truth could be made in an easily-drinkable form, that would help, too. ;-)
Posted by: John Yum | January 5, 2010 7:47 PM
"I suppose the leftists would not be making freakish comments about this if the great magnificent sinless Reverend Jeremiah (GD America) Wright had said this"
You're an idiot.
"In any regard he is right. Christianity offers a new chance to begin again. What does leftistism offer? Public nudity, violence, global scams (warming), treason, moral relativism (no such thing - absolute truth prevails), and other evils like socialism and communism."
When did Christianity become taken over by these moral absolutists? As late as the 80s, we had CAlvinist Preachers touring the circuit who, gasp, lied to the Nazis to protect Jews. Because that's what it means to live dependent on Grace in a Fallen World. The World Sucks, and you have to behave imperfectly sometimes to do the most good, etc.
Moving along, Global Warming's Real, and Tiger Woods is a BUDDHIST. You claim Christianity will give him a fresh start. That's true, perhaps, if one can ignore the gossips. According to the Buddhists, he doesn't need a fresh start; He acted poorly, but there will be time to correct this.
"Without the Christian faith, this nation would not exist."
The lies we tell ourselves to sleep at night. Merikan Exceptionalism Strikes Again!
"I suppose if a Muslim said that Tiger would should convert to islam and kill Americans you people would cheer it on"
Where did this "THE LEFT
"but forbid, anyone say that word "Jesus". I wonder what people will do when Jesus returns to reward his followers and punish his adversaries? "
You mean like he did in 1932? And 2000? And 400? And and and..
"There is abosulte truth. Moral relativism is just a satanic whispered lie into the ears of a non believer. There is absolute good and absolute evil, an absolute good and an absolute bad. End of story. There is no refuting and no amount of political correctness ever going to change it. it is here to stay for all eternity. "
If YHVH is what you call good, I'd rather try and beat him senseless. By the way, Reverend McCrazy, Satan? Invented by y'all in the middle ages as a great evil. He was God's.. well, Devil's Advocate before then. And you wonder why we don't buy your absolute truth bs.
Posted by: Rutee | January 5, 2010 7:55 PM
The reverend's username makes me question the sincerity of his comments.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 5, 2010 7:58 PM
Re Heddle
Hmm. Let's see. My primary message was "Nobody comes to the father except through the son." No who said that? Moses? John the Baptist? Sarah Palin? Bill Buckner? ... now where did I get that... maybe Google can help... oh, yeah, it was from here:
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)
But I guess you are right I am a Christian not Jesusian, so I shouldn't be quoting this Jesus guy.
Excuse me, this is somebody quoting somebody who claims that someone calling himself Joshua of Nazareth said that. It's know as (at least) double hearsay and is not admissible in court. The historical fact is that none of the authors of the various books of the Christian bible ever saw Joshua, ever heard him give a sermon, and wouldn't have known who he was if he walked into a room.
Posted by: SLC | January 5, 2010 8:22 PM
Re Reverend Pollen
I suggest, meaning no disrespect, that Reverend Pollen hold his breath until Joshua of Nazareth makes an appearance, which I suspect will occur about the time that the shrimps learn to whistle.
Posted by: SLC | January 5, 2010 8:26 PM
Re Reverend Pollen
As is usual with ignorant fucktards, Reverend Pollen doesn't know the difference between weather and climate.
Get real. Global warming is the scam of the century. Just like the overpopulation scare tactic of the 1970s - they have things in common like population control, power and money gains, and big government.
I don't know about that but religion is the root of all evil and the scam of all time.
Posted by: SLC | January 5, 2010 8:41 PM
@98
The forces of Randomcapistan are invading.
Posted by: Dr X | January 5, 2010 9:12 PM
...but forbid, anyone say the word "Jesus."
That's kind of a strange thing to write in the context of a Hume defense considering that Mr. Hume "didn't say the word 'Jesus.' "
"It all goes to show that the reaction of the public depends on the person who made the statement rather than on the content of that statement."
I love how ridiculously broad this complaint is, as if different reactions by the public to different people uttering the same statement are ALWAYS wrong. Using the Reverend's logic, the public should react in the same way to a (hypothetical) claim by the current President of Iran that he supports Israel (remember, this is the guy who says he wants to wipe that country "off the map") as the president of AIPAC saying the exact same words.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 5, 2010 9:15 PM
"Why don't you people ever pick on "religious" people like Jeremiah Wright? Oh, my mistake. He is normal in the eyes of the fallen world. I never hear you denounce his beliefs. He is a radical marxist preaching marxist black liberation theology instead of the Word of God. Why not pick on him a while? Why not pick on islam for a change? What's the matter scared? "
Because he's not on the news right now. When he gets on the news again, expect the blogonets to collectively sigh at his idiocy. Is this a difficult concept for you? Get him on the news if you want us to complain about his stupid, because it's every bit as bad as yours. As to Islam,just look through the blog for pretty much any o fhte dumb shit that's come from Iran's religious right.
"
Rutee you are crazy. Even isaiah recognized Satan as a real being. Now are you referring to 800 b.c. as the middle ages? Satan was here at the beginning and existed long before the universe was created Rutee, just like Jesus. he was present at creation. He is a fallen angel who is wicked and evil. It just so happens you believe every word he says. "
Yeah, he was 'real'. He was God's testing bot originally. He was in Job, prodding him to test his faith in YHVH. The concept of Satan has changed greatly with time. That's why now he's big on contracts signed with blood, whereas in the early days of the settlement of the 13 colonies, he slept around with Witches, and why he wasn't a Great Evil at all for most of Christianity's history. I don't actually care, because each version of the myth is interesting, but you can't claim absolute truth when you're simultaneously claiming warped doctrine.
Doesn't change that YHVH is the real evil in the Old Testament, and he doesn't sound like he's really improved to hear the Godbots talk about him nowadays, what with the cursing of the gays and supposedly sending 9/11 at us, and floods at other places... Reaaaaal Omnibenevolent of the guy.
Posted by: Rutee | January 5, 2010 9:20 PM
"The forces of Randomcapistan are invading."
It's a character flaw.
Posted by: Rutee | January 5, 2010 9:22 PM
@103
Which is why Jesus invented the bottomless jar-o-wine at Cana.
Posted by: Dr X | January 5, 2010 9:25 PM
"...the difference between religion and Christianity."
Okay, if "Christianity" and "religion" are two separate things, then it's only logical to assume that Reverend Pollen believes that the former doesn't fall under "the freedom of religion" category. Do the members of your church know you have this view, Reverend?
"Why not pick on him a while?"
Because we're having too much fun picking on Hume for his unsolicited proselytizing.
"Why not pick on Islam for a change?"
Because Islam has already been picked on enough, espcially by rightists like you, it's Christianity's turn now.
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 5, 2010 9:32 PM
Ok, you've got to be putting us on.
Come on. Gayism?
Posted by: DaveL | January 5, 2010 9:37 PM
Brit Hume:
Bullshit. There are a whole host of methods young people use to own up to their failures and finally become responsible adults and emotionally intelligent and wise (if ever). I'd argue that religion is the most juvenile method of all, which it's is the most popular recourse taken by jailed felons.
Brit Hume:
While I understand why some people are parsing this carefully and claiming that Hume didn't mean there is no redemption and forgiveness in Buddhism, I think he meant it as it was mostly understood. That Mr. Hume meant to claim that Buddhism had no method for a person to be redeemed; otherwise Hume would have no case to make for Christianity rather than Christianity without more disclaimers. So if Hume was understood properly rather than what he precisely stated, he's misrepresenting Buddhism and I call bullshit twice.
Brit Hume stated:
This is the most interesting point of all of course. The first question I'd like to ask Mr. Hume is the following: "If Tiger Woods made a total recovery using a method other than conversion to Christianity, would that make him a great example to the world?"
Follow-up questions, "What methods would make him a great example and which examples wouldn't? If he used Buddhism would that be a great example? What if he renounced Buddhism and instead successfully recovered by claiming he's now committed himself to acting and thinking like an emotionally intelligent person all the time about all things, which required renouncing all faith and seeing things as they empirically are?"
Something tells me my questions will never get asked, let alone answered. . .
Re Mr. Pollen comments - whatever democommie has to say about Mr. Pollen if he shows up; ditto that from me as well.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 9:38 PM
Re Reverend Pollen
SLC, hitting the sauce is a sin too. Stop it. At least be sober when you speak to the man in cloth and then try to speak in english where people understand you better.
As a life long teetotaler, I find Reverend Pollens' comment rather amusing.
I don't know about that but satanic marxist socialist communist leftist humanist evolutionist secualrism is the root of all evil and the scam of all time.
Well,not surprisingly, Reverend Pollen is a creationist and evolution denier. I find this comment rather amusing as the greatest enemy of Darwins' Theory of Evolution wasn't Richard Owen, or William Jennings Bryan or George McCready Price or Henry Morris or Philip Johnson or William Dumbski or Michael Behe. It was none other then Josef Stalin who sent Russian evolutionary biologists to the Gulag for promoting Darwins' Theory.
I do not know who Joshua of Nazareth is. I do know that Jesus personally knew Joshua of the Old Testsament though. Jesus was present at creation.
Just goes to show what a fucking ignorant asshole Reverend Pollen is. Jesus is the Latin translation of Joshua. Joshua was the name he was given at birth. If somebody had addressed Joshua of Nazareth as Jesus, he wouldn't have had the slightest idea what the former was talking about.
Posted by: SLC | January 5, 2010 9:47 PM
Posted by: DR X | January 5, 2010 9:52 PM
I propose a new general term to describe the phenomenon at work in Poe's Law, with a hat-tip to mathematics:
Parody-Complete: An idea or position is said to be parody-complete when any attempt to create a more extreme, more ridiculous caricature of said position nonetheless yields an accurate depiction of the position itself.
Rev, are you actually being serious? Is gayism even a word?
I love how some Christian look at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and point to it as a condemnation of homosexuality. I guess the whole 'gang rape' aspect of it goes right over their heads.
Just for laughs though,can you tell me what the sin of Sodom was according to Ezekiel, Rev? Also, can you provide any archaeological evidence that these cities ever existed?
Posted by: DaveL | January 5, 2010 10:02 PM
Rev, are you as big an asshole as you seem or are you an incompent poe?
Posted by: Rob Jase | January 5, 2010 10:03 PM
Please, please be a poe.
Posted by: DaveL | January 5, 2010 10:06 PM
Re Reverend Pollen
Not everyone speaks latin SLC. I have never heard of him referred to as Joshua.
It is also sometimes spelled Yeshua. See attached link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29
Posted by: SLC | January 5, 2010 10:27 PM
I got the feeling that Rev Pollen is a Poe, especially after the reference to "gayism". But then again a lot of Christians refer to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" without a hint of irony.
Posted by: Blue Nine | January 5, 2010 10:55 PM
On January 5, 2010 7:31 PM, Kernal Miller posted:
If You Are Not Willing To Stand Behind Our Troops,
Please, Please Feel Free To Stand In Front Of Them!
Could you define what it means to stand behind the troops? Maybe this does not apply to you, but it seems a lot of conservatives think it means putting yellow ribbon decals on their SUVs, complaining about taxes and yelling at people who disagree with them.
Posted by: Blue Nine | January 5, 2010 11:03 PM
I think it refers to the practice of the ranks of soldiers who stood behind those pressed into service who were charged with killing any broke ranks. With stop-loss, multiple consecutive tours of duty, and lowering standard for entry, Kernal Miller is obviously referring metaphorically to how the GOP is standing behind the troops, ready to cut them down the instant they start to question why they keep getting pushed to the front.
Standing in front of them (damned if he doesn't love Capitalizing The Start Of Every Word) probably is a metaphorical reference to being like a Biblical general - leading from the fore; a charge down the hill at the opposing force, sword in hand, leading the all the way to victory. (Victory being, of course, peaceful coexistence with a group of people no longer one's foes.)
Posted by: John Yum | January 5, 2010 11:09 PM
Reverend Pollen = Raging Bee, having us on.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | January 6, 2010 1:22 AM
Dear Reverend Pollen,
1) False claims don't become true just because you keep repeating them.
2) Just because you hate lots of people doesn't mean that all those people are working together against you.
3) Christianity does not equal right wing politics, Christians are as politically diverse as any other group and I've known plenty of Christian leftists so your claim that there is a straight choice between Christianity and the political left is false.
Posted by: Matty | January 6, 2010 6:35 AM
i think Tiger should use his affair in marketing campagians .. after Golfers have never been known to get alot of ladies , thus many young guys dont play golf ..
"Use Calloway Big bertha , hell it got Tiger some tail "
lets be honest tigers affair should have never been public discourse . and it probably wouldnt have if he didnt get sloppy drunk and have a car accident. people in the USA have far to many hangups about sex. most of us who have had sex Enjoy it and want to have it again as often as possible . we should stop denying it ..
and well most people on the fox news network are idiots .(wonder what Hume thinks of the loofa)
Posted by: Vic Vanity | January 6, 2010 7:11 AM
SLC:
That's actually untrue (and even the second link you provided notes this): Joshua is itself an English transliteration of Yeshua, which is probably the name given to Jesus since it is the Aramaic form (and that was the language of 1st century Judea, by and large).
First rule of nitpicking: If you're going to do it, better have your facts straight first.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | January 6, 2010 7:58 AM
Re Christian Cynic
Ah gee, I'm off by one letter. From the wiki article:
The English name Jesus derives from the Late Latin name Iesus, which transliterates from the Koine Greek name Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs
Posted by: SLC | January 6, 2010 8:28 AM
Re Christian Cynic
By the way, I'm not so sure that Jesus is an English version of Yeshua. Jesus is a not uncommon name in Latin America (e.g. former San Francisco Giants' outfielder Jesus Alou, pronounced haysus)
Posted by: SLC | January 6, 2010 8:35 AM
I think I read somewhere that the letter J was added to the Latin alphabet in the middle ages. It may be that at that point Jesus replaced Iesus in Latin religious texts and both English and Spanish followed those texts in adopting their own version of the name.
Posted by: Matty | January 6, 2010 8:56 AM
Matty at #16.
A belated thanks for the quote.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 9:04 AM
Dont' mention it, and for the record I don't consider you a virus or a booby;-)
I am curious to know what you make of my point that the Christian idea of God's judgement or forgiveness for original sin has no real relevance to human judgement or forgiveness for a particular action.
Posted by: Matty | January 6, 2010 9:12 AM
The only Jesus whose existence I acknowledge is the dude of Hispanic ancestry that works as a GS-5 in the same government office that my dad works as a GS-12 in and who lives down the street. He I actually call by his proper name.
This wacky bastard that a bunch of people worldwide worship and who as far as I'm aware probably never existed? I refuse to call that idiotic concept by its proper name. No. I call the Christians' deity Jeebus.
Posted by: Katharine | January 6, 2010 9:22 AM
Matty,
If I understand your point I agree. Humans should not judge anything on the basis of original sin. That would amount to judging each other solely on the basis that we are human. For us it is a uniform background. And of course original sin is not a sin at all in the classic sense of the word, i.e., committing some identifiable crime such as coveting your neighbor's ass--it is far worse than that--it is a deplorable condition of all humanity.
Posted by: heddle | January 6, 2010 9:31 AM
Would that Marxism were the cause of all evil! In such a universe, there would have been no evil in the world before the 19th century. And in that universe, Marx would probably never have written, because the ills he described and attempted to cure would not have existed.
Posted by: Vicki | January 6, 2010 12:25 PM
Dear stupid bastard,
Where is your evidence that a) the sutra predates Christianity and b) Christianity stole the concept?
Posted by: Milesius | January 6, 2010 11:13 PM
Amen.
Posted by: Milesius | January 6, 2010 11:16 PM
You'd lose that argument dim bulb.
Posted by: Milesius | January 6, 2010 11:20 PM
The extent to which Milesius can recover from his ranting delusions depends on his ability to think rationally. He is said to be an unthinking Jesus-worshipper. I don't think that faith offers the kind of cogent thought and reasoned arguments offered by rational thinking. My message to Milesius is, 'Milesius start thinking rationally and you can make a total recover and be a great example to the world.'
Posted by: John Yum | January 6, 2010 11:28 PM
That's not a historical fact. It is asserted by several scholars, like Bart Ehrman, but others scholars argue to the contrary.
Are you suffering from CI?
Posted by: Milesius | January 6, 2010 11:29 PM
CI? What do you mean by "CI?" I had a look at possible definitions of "CI" and found:
* A "Curie" - a measure of radioactivity
* Roman numerals for 101
* The internet domain code for the Ivory Coast
* A form of Chinese lyric poetry
* The abbreviation of "cylindrical inclusion"
* The abbreviation of "confidence interval"
* Conservation International
* The conformity index
... and others.
Using Urban Dictionary, you get the following definitions of "CI":
* Confidential Informant
* "ci"
* Cubicle intrusion
* Cheerfully inebriated
* Coney Island
* A cigarette of any kind
* An abbreviation for Law & Order: Criminal Intent
After reading through all of those definitions, I still don't find one of them something that on could be "suffering" that makes sense in the situation you propose. (Of course, your lack of context does make it difficult to infer your precise meaning...)
Posted by: John Yum | January 6, 2010 11:41 PM
Tiger Woods doesn't even have a problem that needs attention, he's just a guy who likes to fuck. Just divorce your wife so you can keep doing it.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 6, 2010 11:48 PM
Wasn't Robert O'Brien banned from this blog years ago?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 7, 2010 12:17 AM
Heddle @2(etc), you lost me at "As a Christian..."
You clearly have the mental tools to not be a Christian. Seeing you here on the internet, you clearly have the access to information to not be a Christian.
On this particular point, though, there's a world of difference between you merely be consistent (I'm a Christian. Christians believe everyone should be a Christian. Therefore, I believe everyone should be a Christian) and Hume making the measurably false truth-claim that becoming a Christian will make you a better person.
Posted by: Jason Failes | January 7, 2010 11:57 PM
I consider it sound advice for Heddle to convert to sanity.
Posted by: Irving Watanabi | January 14, 2010 7:52 AM