Brit, You clearly know little to nothing about Buddhism so please - shut up and sit down. What about Matthew 7:1? If FOX news wants to be a church have them register as such.
Twirlette,You are sadly misinformed. Buddhism does not have a category for redemption because there is not a category for sin.The moral genious of God (and therefore the Christian faith) is that in Christ he took upon himself our sins that we might receive His mercy. Tiger Woods, like all of us desperately needs to know that there is One who offers redemption (not self-improvement). Buddhism offers no such hope. Also, you're idea that matters of a religious nature should not be discussed on a news network is unfortunate. Brit Hume has the role of a commentator. Commentators comment on what interests them. The problem with many of the other networks is that their commentators are disquised as reporters.
Ditto to Todd, thanks.
"The problem with many of the other networks is that their commentators are disquised as reporters."I don't have issue with Brit Hume stating what he believes as a commentator on the subject but let's distinguish between news and commentary. No news is unbiased (that goes for FOX or MSNBC) but commentary (or opinion) is OK as long as it is presented as such and is not disguised as news. To call it "news" is unfounded and FOX is as guilty as the next guy...actually I think they are worse. Does anyone really think that the video clips that FOX used to bolster the rally numbers in D.C. was a "mistake"? def not...they got caught and they should not have apologized just to Jon Stewart...their apology should have gone to their viewers.what a travesty of a "news" organization.
Not what the post is about Mike.
admittedly slight off topic...but if we look at what Hume said what does that mean for Woods? If he turns to christianity and seeks forgiveness and redemption for this acts then what? What point was Hume trying to make? will his marriage be saved? will his public image be restored? will he be at peace with himself? will he be forgiven by God and himself...what is the outcome Hume is alluding to that has a public facet to it? I may be misunderstanding this but I don't think that Hume is just talking about Woods personally...let's not over-promise and under-deliver.
Hume did not get specific. I assumed he was NOT expressing the opinion that Woods' professional life and circumstances would improve. Since he was referring to his need of forgiveness I assumed he was talking about the benefit of passing from death to life.I can almost guarantee that Brit Hume does not believe the "trust Jesus and your circumstances get better" lie. He has been through some devestating losses in his life (his son committed suicide).
Todd,thanks for the post. what struck me was how great it was that Brit Hume mentioned Christ and pointed out that he is a believer. It reminded to me to have Christ in my conversations. Given the topic, the comment was reasonable, and how often are others injecting secular comments/commentary into news stories? After all, Woods has been in a rut of destructive choices. Mike: I agree with Hume's comment about the public facet, and I think it relates to an important point. Yes, Christianity provides redemption as the Gospel meets our deepest needs. But Scripture also provides a roadmap for right living that would serve as a better testimony (public image) than Wood's immoral choices. In our era of moral filth, it is an important point to note that following God's moral law also leads to blessings (as Proverbs routinely described).
Brit, You clearly know little to nothing about Buddhism so please - shut up and sit down.Followed immediately by:What about Matthew 7:1?How predictable was that?And what about Matthew 7:6?
DreamCam: "But Scripture also provides a roadmap for right living that would serve as a better testimony (public image) than Wood's immoral choices."I agree with this statement...however there are also some very public failures by believers that when taken with this statement do little to further the gospel...i.e. Mark Sanford. This is where the public facet of this breaks down. On a personal level I have no problem with what Hume stated that Woods should do...on a public level (which this already is) the consequences of such an act are not so clear.
For crying out loud, the man stated an opinion in a free country on a network that asked to be on their program. And he did it candidly and respectfully.THIS is worthy of analysis ! Okay, now I'm going to sit down and shut up.
Harley,Absolutely right!Mike,At no point did Hume say, "Since I am a flawless Christian saint who has no skeletons in his closet I can say from experience that Christianity will make Tiger all better."By your standard every Christian who still sins (that's all of us by the way) ought to shut up.
Harley, I wonder if you would be so quick to defend someone's right to state an opinion (in a free country on a network that invited the person) that did not agree with your own.For instance if Tiger Woods was a Christian and Christopher Hitchens was invited on the show and said "Tiger should just become an atheist and give up this notion of moral absolutes...he would be a lot better off" How would you have felt about this?
Mike,Is that not what we hear all the time anyway? Have we not heard the screeds of Hitchens, Dawkins, etc on TV repeatedly already? Has anything Harley (or I) written indicate that we would deny the right of Hitchens to publically espouse his atheism?I am truly struggling to understand your point.
One more thought...If you scenario had been the case then Hitchens would have been wrong - within his rights but wrong. Again, what's your point?
I would have felt he was wrong. But that's just a hypothetical, right, that never happens. No one ever attacks Christianity, so I guess we'll never know how I'd respond. ;)
Yea. Who ever heard of anyone in the mainstream media attacking Christianity or theological conservatives? I can't imagine what it would be like to be criticized for what I believe!
The point I am trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to make is that our ideas of what is appropriate or not are based upon the desired outcome that we agree with...if we don't get the desired outcome then we go back and make a case for why the scenario that led to the undesired outcome was "wrong" and should not have been allowed. the world sees this and calls it hypocrisy...now you can argue that the world is hypocritical as well (which is true) but as a church we have to rise above that.
Mike,I still don't understand your point. In fact I don't even know what your first two sentences mean.I'll try saying it again. Brit Hume had a right to say what he said. Christopher Hitchens has a right to say what he says. Deepak Chopra has a right to say what he says. The difference is that Brit spoke the truth while Hitchens and Chopra speak what is false.What's confusing or hypocritical about that?
What's confusing or hypocritical about that?The part where you claim that one thing is objectively true and the other objectively false.
Mike, the reason you're haveing trouble making your point is that is doesn't make any sense. Where are you getting your arbitrary private/public categories of religious/philosophical expression from? And, what are you trying to protect the "public" from in the case of Brit Hume's remarks ? You're really not making any sense, I'm afraid.
Ok let me give this one last shot...let me try an analogy if it helps...when we watch our favorite sports team and the ref makes a legitimate call against our team what do we do?...we boo...our response has nothing to do with whether it was a wrong call or not but the fact that it went against our team. So if we are quick to jump on something that favors our position we don't consider the consequences.When someone supports the ringing of church bells based upon freedom of religion but then objects to calls to prayers from a mineret...the hypocrisy is painfully obvious.
Mike, if I recall the conversation correctly, it is you who are advocating the silencing of religious expression here – not me. I was protecting Hume’s right to say what he did. You’re getting yourself tangled in this thing. Eject…
Here's pretty much everything that's wrong with your argument, Mike.
Mike,We'd be happy to offer you a mulligan on this one if you'd like. We all know what it's like to get it wrong.The point you are pushing is off the mark. And for one who seems to love pointing out the hypocrisy of Christians I would simply say, "Better a little hypocrisy from a Christian than unwavering consistency from a Muslim."Now, if you'd like to debate the differences (and they are many) between church bells and Muslim prayer calls then I guess I'm up for that but it's not at all relevant to the current discussion. Not sure why you think it is.
Post a Comment