Brit Hume’s Advice to Tiger Woods
[Guest post by DRJ]
Today’s hot topic discussion is brought to us by … Brit Hume?
Here is the original Hume clip. The clip above shows Hume on Bill O’Reilly’s show discussing his earlier comments, and it includes an excerpt from the original clip.
A person doesn’t have to be a Christian to have morals or to believe it’s important to be loyal to his or her spouse. Thus, I don’t blame religion for its followers’ failings unless the religion endorses sinful behavior.
Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s wrong for journalists to talk about religion. My impression is some pundits object to Hume’s advice as inappropriate in a media forum. If so, I think they are trying to separate media and religion in the same way some want to erect a wall between church and state. I don’t agree with that view. Atheists and believers in any profession should be able to speak up in America.
— DRJ
Hume’s sin is that he dares declare there are better faiths/religions than others. This is absolutely not to be tolerated. There is no American exceptionalism, nor can there be religious exceptionalism.
This is a core issue that is unspoken in all of this avoidance of mentioning how the religion of peace, ain’t. Hume burst that bubble and he will be made to pay.
Ed from SFV (1333b1) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:17 pmDRJ:
I think there was nothing wrong with Hume expressing his opinion Tiger should pick Christanity, although it struck a somewhat odd note in that particular context.
However, it was certainly proselytizing, which Webster’s describes as “to induce someone to convert to one’s faith.” Assuming Hume is a Christian, what he was doing meets the classic definition. I don’t see why he would be shy to admit he was proselytizing. If you’re going to proclaim the good news, you’ve got to go all the way, and take the stripes, or else stay away from the subject.
But this whole issue aside, Hume is very pompous. He makes O’Reilly seem humble.
I thus find it very difficult to listen to Hume and tend to turn the tube when he’s on.
Myron (998393) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:28 pmI don’t believe Hume declared that one faith is *better* than another but rather that one faith addresses a sin issue and the other does not, but I understand what is supposed to be unspoken.
However, Mr. Hume is right, in a sense, that Buddhism doesn’t offer redemption and forgiveness in the same way Christianity does. Buddhism has no concept of sin; therefore, redemption and forgiveness in the Christian sense is meaningless in Buddhism. Forgiveness is important, but it is approached differently in Buddhism…
Anchoress wisely and prudently explored this today. I found her insightful and substantive as usual.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:29 pmYou don’t hear what Hume said regarding Tiger too often on mainstream news and opinion shows, but I agree that it is no reason for heads to explode over his statements. People are too freaking sensitive, especially the godless dirty socialist terrorist coddling liberals.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:34 pmHow interesting, Myron, that you find Hume to be “very pompous” and makes “O’Reilly seem humble”. I see Hume as very deliberative in his thoughts and carefully chooses his words. I watched the clip several times and didn’t see him as being anything less than very serious about someone whose plight he is very concerned about. There wasn’t a whiff of judgment, arrogance, or preachiness – rather passing on to him the only real thing he had to offer. And why shouldn’t he? Everyone else is offering their advice and pop psych tidbits… what’s wrong with Christian faith?
And seriously, I think it’s impossible to make O’Reilly seem humble…unless your name is Sean Hannity.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:34 pmMyron,
If there’s nothing wrong with what Hume said, then why does it bother you to listen to it? I take it your real problem isn’t what he said but that you think Hume is pompous. However, I’m not sure how Hume is more pompous than Keith Olbermann or Norah O’Donnell or Rick Sanchez. Don’t almost all media personalities have an element of “Look at me”?
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:34 pmI thought it was just loony. There’s nothing wrong with Buddhism and Tiger the Christian would still be a whore in my book.
It’s un-American to piss on someone’s religion like this taco did. We were founded on the principles of shut you face you stupid cable news strumpet this isn’t England you know.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:39 pmIf Mr. Hume were simply talking of a staged marketing/pr plan that would have been different but he was dead serious.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:40 pm“There’s nothing wrong with Buddhism”
He didn’t say there was anything wrong with it, only that it didn’t cover the skanky whore redemption and forgiveness bit.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:52 pmWhat does it mean that this is filed under media bias? Cause of these are his personal views? Or was he playing to an audience on top of that? … Anyone think maybe Hume is looking to a post-journalism sort of calling?
I think it’s possible. He might could be doing a religiousy Lou Dobbs type move here.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:54 pmhappyfeet, why is it anymore loony than this from John Daly,
“If I was him, I’d go to Oprah, I would get on her show, tell the truth and it doesn’t matter what the media say any more, because it’s all out in the open,” Daly said.
…or this from veteran publicist Max Clifford,
“Hopefully he can go on something like Oprah, maybe even with his wife, to show that they’re making a real go of it,” Clifford said. “The clever move would be for him to say, ‘I’m coming back when Elin tells me the time is right.’”?
Or is Hume’s advice loony because it is indeed *serious*, and goes way deeper than the Oprah show?
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:54 pm“We were founded on the principles of shut you face”
Nope, we founded on principle of if you got an opinion, you can express it. Sorry feets. You gots an intolerant liberal streak in you.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:55 pmWell there’s an implication there that if he remains a Buddhist he can’t be a great example to the world cause of he’ll be mired in his sin.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:56 pmI saw the story on O’Reilly and was surprised a bit, but readily understood Hume’s explanation.
(Once again, I disagree with Myron. Hume is one of the few people on TV that I find worth listening too.)
In the dictionary sense, Hume was proselytizing, in that he advocates that belief in a certain perspective will be helpful to Mr. Woods. Now, many people are making money saying things they find funny concerning Mr. Woods and what he should do, so there should be room for a few sincere comments on the subject that are really intended to be of benefit.
While I agree with Ed that Hume will catch grief for apparently suggesting one form of religious belief is “better” than another, I think there is an even more fundamental “heresy” to PC culture he espouses, that discussion of religion can be done rationally and meaningfully and has “real life” implications; that, perish the thought, religious faith is actually pertinent.
If one not only feels guilty but is guilty, then maybe one needs to look for a way to meaningfully deal with that guilt. In the discussion with O’Reilly, Hume made it clear that he was not saying that Woods get a “Like Jimmy, I’m born again” bumper sticker, but that Woods get the real thing that is demonstrated in a changed life that persists down the years.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/4/2010 @ 8:59 pmWoods needs to get his Jesus on, stat. Hume was right. No more of the bald guy with the big belly.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:04 pmDana: I don’t believe Hume declared that one faith is *better* than another but rather that one faith addresses a sin issue and the other does not
By singling out Christianity, Hume implied that one faith addresses a sin issue and all others do not.
aunursa (1ca021) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:05 pmatheists *are* believers. its just that they believe there is no god and spend all of their efforts in opposing and or arguing agianst those who do believe, which, in my eyes, is just another form of proselytizing.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:05 pmWhen you really get down to it, in the United States, Christianity is an impediment to statism. Right now, the left wants to disenfranchise Christian thought, since it is the predominant mass opiate.
They will move to the other religions later.
Ag80 (7d5340) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:05 pmI forgot to give a thanks to Dana for the link, which I also found interesting,
and to say to happyfeet, you seem to be in a most ungracious mood tonight, I hope you get over it
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:06 pmBy singling out Christianity, Hume implied that one faith addresses a sin issue and all others do not.
Comment by aunursa — 1/4/2010
Fair enough claim. Can you tell us, briefly, how the world’s other main religion’s deal with the sin issue?
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:08 pmI am in an ungracious mood. Thank you for noticing. I have no excuse.
Meta conversation about cable news hurts my soul.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:09 pmnishi gave me a song today what’s kind of cheerful but very Tiger apropos
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:14 pmaunursa, I don’t see it that way. I think that he singled out Christianity because it specifically addresses sin and forgiveness. At it’s core, it’s all about redemption. Buddhism does not address it in the same way. Hume, as a Christian would of course express his faith.
It’s also interesting to note that Britt Hume’s son committed suicide in 1998 and it was then that he rediscovered faith, which doubtlessly saw him through some very, very dark days.
It’s a wonderful thing that we (including Britt Hume) have this freedom so unique and priceless that whether in publicly or privately, or even on the air, an individual one can offer their sincerest thoughts to one in crisis, be it religious or not, no matter if it’s at the exclusion of others, or whether it goes against the grain. Every one has a voice and that voice is guaranteed the right to be heard.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:15 pmHume did not address which was a more moral religion. He merely was saying that from the perspective of Woods’ current situation, Christianity might offer more help to him in terms of redemption.
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:18 pmMD in Philly: I can tell you how Judaism deals with the sin issue.
In Judaism, sin is an event, not a condition. The sincerely repentant are forgiven. One of the differences between Christianity and Judaism is the question of whether blood is required for atonement. Christians believe that blood is required, based primarily on a misreading of Leviticus 17:11.
aunursa (1ca021) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:18 pmDana: I don’t see it that way. I think that he singled out Christianity because it specifically addresses sin and forgiveness.
Is Brit Hume a theological expert such that he is in a position to determine whether non-Christian religions do or do not specifically address sin and forgiveness?
aunursa (1ca021) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:20 pmIt’s just weird that there’s so many people in any given day what Brit can and probably should tell to get right with God and he picks a horny golfer.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:27 pmComment by aunursa — 1/4/2010 @ 9:20 pm
I don’t believe it matters whether he is a theological expert or not – it’s what *he* believes, no doubt with heart, mind and soul, and it’s what he offered to Woods. He has every right to say what he believes. Unless of course, you think that one must be an *expert* in something in order to have an intelligent opinion about it, which would be most unfortunate. Can you imagine the lack of conversation at Patterico’s if only those who were *experts* in the subject at hand, opined?
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:28 pmAunursa-
Thank you for your response.
So, Judaism would see Mr. Wood’s sin as repeated events of infidelity, and his appropriate response is to repent. His sense of guilt is a psychological state and not of primary importance? or will be adequately dealt with when/if he repents?
I think your point about the difference between Judaism and Christianity is well expressed, though I do believe the Christian position is based on far more than the (alleged) misreading of one verse from Leviticus.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:30 pmThough you must admit, Dana, if only people who knew what they were talking about were allowed on television the world would be a less confusing place, and we probably would still be on 3 major networks and PBS.
Then we would have to talk about nk’s recipe for gyros, looking again at Pat’s pictures of Switzerland, and other things that would not turn my hair grey.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:36 pmDana: it’s what *he* believes, no doubt with heart, mind and soul, and it’s what he offered to Woods. He has every right to say what he believes.
I agree completely.
Hume believes that Christianity alone addresses the question of sin. He’s perfectly entitled to believe and state that. My point was that he is not in a position to know that.
aunursa (1ca021) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:36 pmMy point was that he is not in a position to know that.
I suppose no more than you are to *know* that Leviticus 17:11 has been misread by Christians (and Jews!) for thousands of years. 🙂
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:39 pmI think there is such a thing as American exceptionalism. We are the greatest country on earth. If you dont think so, then you should not be in this country. He is correct to point out that Christianity is very forgiving. In some faiths, if you commit adultery you could be stoned to death. Off point but i think its pretty funny how hypocritical the radical Islamist are. There have been some Imams who were arrested for soliciting prostitutes, but hate us Americans for our religion and way of life.
andrew (26d3b6) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:42 pmThis country was founded on Christian values. We were not founded by Budists, Islamist or any other faiths. Accept that. We are a Christian country. We are free. That is why we have soooo many people, running from their oppressive countries and coming to ours. Hume has a good point. Hume didnt say Christianity is better. But Christians are not trying to blow up planes and sure are not strapping bombs on themslves and killing people.
MD in Philly: So, Judaism would see Mr. Wood’s sin as repeated events of infidelity, and his appropriate response is to repent. His sense of guilt is a psychological state and not of primary importance? or will be adequately dealt with when/if he repents.
I’m not sure what you mean by his sense of guilt is a psychological state. His sense of guilt is important because it acts as a notice to him that he has strayed from his moral base. It would be a bigger concern if he didn’t feel guilty.
I think your point about the difference between Judaism and Christianity is well expressed, though I do believe the Christian position is based on far more than the (alleged) misreading of one verse from Leviticus
I would be happy to discuss it further. If you are interested, email me at aunursa (at) comcast.net.
aunursa (1ca021) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:43 pmDana: I suppose no more than you are to *know* that Leviticus 17:11 has been misread by Christians (and Jews!) for thousands of years
In that respect, I am not in a position to know what non-Christian religions Mr. Hume has studied.
I am in a position to know that I have studied Christian-Jewish theological disputes for many years. I have read Leviticus 17:11 in the context of the entire chapter, and I have studied the conflicting commentaries of the passage by Christian and Jewish theologians.
aunursa (1ca021) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:47 pmhappyfeet — 1/4/2010 @ 8:54 pm:
PP doesn’t have a category for “Media” but it does have one for “Media bias.” The “Media bias” category doesn’t fit that well in this case but I used it anyway because it does involve the media. Categorizing posts makes it easier for me to find one later if I can’t remember exactly what to search for.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:48 pmredc1c4 — 1/4/2010 @ 9:05 pm:
True, but I didn’t want to use the term “religionists” and I couldn’t think of anything better.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:50 pmgot it.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:55 pmAndrew: Hume has a good point. Hume didnt say Christianity is better. But Christians are not trying to blow up planes and sure are not strapping bombs on themslves and killing people.
But one could say the same about almost every religion.
aunursa (1ca021) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:55 pmI’m not sure what you mean by his sense of guilt is a psychological state. His sense of guilt is important because it acts as a notice to him that he has strayed from his moral base. It would be a bigger concern if he didn’t feel guilty Comment by aunursa
I agree with you, but the idea of sin as an event that one repents of and then is forgiven still leaves the burden of guilt; he has done these things, no amount of repentence will undo the damage he has done. The impact of his straying from his moral base, while vital to bring to repentance, to return to his moral base, is also an awareness that in some sense would/should rightfully grind him down every day. I think Mr. Hume was voicing his understanding and experience that in Christianity one can face one’s sin and not be crushed by it, but can find redemption and life on the other side.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/4/2010 @ 9:59 pmMD in Philly: It seem that you are suggesting that a Christian conversion is the only option to prevent his guilt from overwhelming him and crushing his spirit. I disagree. Repentance may not undo the damage of his sins, but repentance and atonement will lead him onto the right path. In fact repentance is the first step to lessening his burden of guilt.
aunursa (1ca021) — 1/4/2010 @ 10:13 pmaunursa @ 9:47 p.m.,
Not wishing to get into a discussion about the particulars and/or disputes between Christianity and Judaism, suffice it to say, I have no idea how studied Hume is or is not, in any religion, and I’m reluctant to even guess. I can only account for my own studies and beliefs.
However, he obviously had a burden for the plight Woods finds himself in. Hume is but one man offering Hope. It’s an unbearable thing to come face to face with one’s true self, and be so completely undone that one is rendered incapable of looking themselves in the eye with a clear conscience. A terrible thing. But to experience forgiveness and redeeming grace is to be able to walk out of the consuming darkness and know peace and finally, a clear conscience.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/4/2010 @ 10:19 pm“Hume believes that Christianity alone addresses the question of sin.”
aunursa – I think that’s a stretch of an interpretation. Hume only mention’s Buddhism and Christianity on the two clips in this post. Your statement imputes something not in evidence. Hume’s failure to explicitly mention other religions may or may not indicate his lack of familiarity with them but I fail to see how it leads to your conclusion or that he feels Christianity is better than all other religions. He admits he is a believer in the O’Reilly clip, but he does not denigrate any other religion.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/4/2010 @ 10:25 pmof course, daleyrocks, it’s implicit in having faith in Christianity that you agree with the Ten Commandments and Jesus explaining he is the Only Way. So of course a logical Christian thinks that religions that conflict with Christianity are incorrect. I assume that’s what Aunursa means, though you’re quite right, Hume isn’t denigrating other religions much at all… he’s pointing out how his helps people overcome this kind of situation (which it clearly does)
I’m not sure that Buddhism, at least when considering the philosophy, is incompatible with Christianity.
What is clear is that this is a terrible way to get a convert. Is there any chance that Tiger would take this opportunity to become born again? This is alienating. Unless this is all some clever scam by Tiger to rehabilitate himself!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/4/2010 @ 11:02 pmTo err is Humeman, to forgive divine.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:55 amHe should be able to say what he likes. However, I can’t help but wonder what the reaction would have been if a Muslim or Wiccan counseled conversion in a panel forum such as that.
For those interested an essay about Buddhism and its purpose:
voiceofreason2 (f928b0) — 1/5/2010 @ 2:23 amhttp://blog.beliefnet.com/onecity/2009/09/buddhism-not-religion-god-problem.html?source=NEWSLETTER&nlsource=13&ppc=&utm_campaign=Buddhist&utm_source=NL&utm_medium=newsletter
vor2,
I think if some Wiccan were to make a reasonable attempt to explain why Tiger would be better off because of some legitimate aspect of Wicca, it would be enlightening. Certainly all the idiots screaming about how Mark Sanford proves Hume wrong wouldn’t be upset.
If some Muslims could explain how Tiger could use Islam to get his life back on track, it would be very interesting and thought provoking.
Here’s the problem: those religions are not Christianity’s equal. They aren’t interchangeable. Hume makes a legit point about what makes Christianity tick, based on his actual experience rebuilding his family. If some Wiccan or Muslim or Buddhist wants to do the same, I think that’s excellent TV commentary. People WANT to talk about this, and yet it’s somehow considered inappropriate. Of all the crap I’ve seen on Tiger Woods’s screwing hundreds of models and getting his face mangled, this is the only one that’s actually be worthwhile so far.
I know you’re right, though. A lot of people who think this is a great message from Hume would not be so tolerant of views that tell a Christian to become a Buddhist. While on the one hand, they are right… it’s still good to hear every view.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 2:33 am“Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s wrong for journalists to talk about religion. ”
If Hume had kept his mouth shut, people might get the impression he wasn’t a jackass.
imdw (05d41e) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:46 am” PP doesn’t have a category for “Media” but it does have one for “Media bias.”
Amusing.
imdw (de7003) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:51 amPot, meet kettle.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:12 am“If Hume had kept his mouth shut, people might get the impression he wasn’t a jackass.
Comment by imdw ”
Certainly, Hume knew he was inviting this. This is exactly how many Christians feel when they open up about this kind of thing, even when doing so carefully and with kindness, as Hume did, they are called ‘jackass’. Why? Hume is practicing a religion peacefully… he’s hardly bashing Tiger’s views… just offering his as well.
Is it really a better world where we don’t have candid and kind discussions about these differences? The nature of sin… its conceptual existence at all, and thus forgiveness, are major differences in these two views… I think one can’t be a great Christian without controlling their desires, so I think the two worlds actually are the same one, but even if they can’t coexist, it’s a discussion on a better level than what we’re used to. Because Brit Hume was willing to look like a fool in the eyes of many.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:19 amMeh, all Buddhism basically says is, don’t eat meat because that steak might be your grandmother.
nk (df76d4) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:42 amEspousing a religion, explaining beliefs, and giving moral advice are different from attempting to proselytize, which is what Hume was doing and why it crossed the line.
“You should convert to Christianity” is for a private conversation with Woods, not a public one. Even Kristol appeared taken aback by his comment.
Buddhism also recognizes wrong behavior, just as Christianity, Judaism, Hindusim and Islam do. No major religion that I’m aware of doesn’t recognize it, and provide some path to forgiveness/enlightenment.
JEA (0ccd61) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:45 amPlease explain to me why it should be private. Apparently, the only ones allowed to discuss their faith in public are Muslims. They not only discuss it, they demand conversion or slavery routinely, under penalty of death for refusal or dissent. When a Christian makes a suggestion out of a sincere desire to help someone benefit from their own experience, he’s called a jackass. He should stick to his guns and tell people like you and imdw to pound sand.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/5/2010 @ 5:03 amBuddhism also recognizes wrong behavior, just as Christianity, Judaism, Hindusim and Islam do. No major religion that I’m aware of doesn’t recognize it, and provide some path to forgiveness/enlightenment.
Comment by JEA
You don’t seem to understand Buddhism. Look into it, and you’ll understand Hume’s views. He probably could have gone into more detail and was assuming some basic knowledge out there.
There is no such thing as forgiveness or sinfulness in Buddhism. Just desire. You need to accept what road you’re on and not worry about your destination because desires lead to suffering, etc etc etc. That’s not to say that Buddhism is nihilism. It just doesn’t cover that topic… it’s pretty compatible with other views that are more comprehensive, in my opinion.
All Hume is doing is having an elevated discussion of our differing views. There’s nothing wrong with it. This is a better world where people stop bashing eachother for even expressing their philosophies, and instead have the discussion.
Of course a sincere Christian wants you to convert to Christianity… spreading the good news is a central aspect of the religion. If you do not tolerate this practice, that’s your insecurity. So long as the attempts to convert you are simply arguments from the heart, there’s only good in it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 5:09 am“I think one can’t be a great Christian without controlling their desires”
And I wonder what brit hume thinks buddhism has to say about desire, about being controlled by desire, about where desire leads.
“There is no such thing as forgiveness or sinfulness in Buddhism. Just desire. You need to accept what road you’re on and not worry about your destination because desires lead to suffering, etc etc etc. That’s not to say that Buddhism is nihilism. It just doesn’t cover that topic… it’s pretty compatible with other views that are more comprehensive, in my opinion.”
This is pretty much what makes Hume a jackass. Buddhism offers just as good a teaching and a path to rightfulness and avoidance of Tiger’s misbehavior.
imdw (38fb8e) — 1/5/2010 @ 6:17 amI try to stay the hell away from this subject, but I agree with Hume’s right to say whatever he wishes on the matter. However, I’ve experienced one too many folks who suddenly wish to start “telling me about Jesus.” Gee, thanks – but I’ve already received my information from confirmation in the Episcopal Church, thank you very much. Which is to say that I’m not sure that a hard news program was the best format for this discussion – and that may really be the underlying reason why some have found his comments to be somewhat disquieting.
Dmac (a964d5) — 1/5/2010 @ 6:26 amStill, how could Tiger be sure he was not having sex with his grandfather’s reincarnation?
nk (df76d4) — 1/5/2010 @ 6:28 amThere you go again, opening your mouth and removing any doubt about yourself. When President Obama mentions his faith in public and talks about how it has helped him, is he being a jackass? Point to one time you criticized President Obama for mentioning religion. You guys are such hypocrites. It’s pathetic.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/5/2010 @ 6:36 amBill O’Reilly is not hard news.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/5/2010 @ 6:38 amAnd to clarify, the original round-table was a discussion as well, not hard news.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/5/2010 @ 6:40 amI happened to catch Olberman (and Dan Savage, of all people) talking about this last night. To them, Hume is self-evidently, laughably wrong. Amid the smirking, there seemed to be these five contentions:
1) It’s absurd to judge one religion better than another. Christianity is no better or worse, in any respect, than Buddhism (or Scientology, or whatever.)
2) Religion is a stupid myth, therefore anybody who believes in it is stupid.
3) Newsmen are/should be prohibited from making religious declarations.
4) American Christians are just like violent Islamic radicals.
5) Hume is a sinner, therefore a hypocrite.
I’m not religious, and I’ve got no advice for Tiger Woods, but that Olberman segment irked me. That shallow man has such deep contempt for his fellows (majority religious in the USA.)
gp (72be5d) — 1/5/2010 @ 6:42 amI, too, was surprised by Mr. Hume’s comments. But pleasantly surprised. I am disappointed by those who feel he hasn’t the right to express his opinion. If you feel he can’t make commentary – how can you allow yourself to comment here? Talk about a double-standard!
Corwin (60969b) — 1/5/2010 @ 6:58 am“When President Obama mentions his faith in public and talks about how it has helped him, is he being a jackass?”
Nope. Nor would Hume be if he talked about this. Why is this so hard for you to get?
imdw (69577f) — 1/5/2010 @ 7:05 amAh, Stashiu3. You identify the central core of the Leftist Conceit. What they do and their guy or gal does is entirely different than anything done by anyone on the Right.
Even if they are the same things.
I had a friend over the other night who railed about how judgmental (and I quote) “those stupid Republicans” were. It was amazing. Completely non self-aware.
Absolute hypocrisy, yes. That is why the mantra of the New Left remains “...that’s different…” (foot stomp).
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/5/2010 @ 7:07 amNow that was an amazing coincidence.
“Why is this so hard for you to get” is a fantastic bit of irony-rich trollishness.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/5/2010 @ 7:09 am48, imd-dummy, projecting your weakness upon Hume. Let me put it to you straight. You prove yourself worse than a jackass each time you open your evil mouth.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 1/5/2010 @ 7:37 amIt’s un-American to piss on someone’s religion like this taco did.
Not really–if its one thing Americans haven’t been afraid to criticize since before the founding of the nation, it’s each other’s religious beliefs. Anti-Catholicism, for instance, has a pretty long history in this country. The Mormons could also tell you a thing or two about religious persecution.
Religious conflict in this country is as old as the Puritans vs. the Quakers.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 1/5/2010 @ 7:43 amI think the Fox News flunky has every right to express his opinion I just think the bizarreness of it comes with his selection of Tiger Woods as most in need of his Fox News flunky counsel.
I still think Brit’s trying to tee up some post cable news career dealio for himself. This felt exploitative like that.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/5/2010 @ 8:18 amBut those are regional dealios, Chris… cable is national. And when the tv starts telling people to change their religions, that’s just balls out weird I think.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/5/2010 @ 8:21 amThis is pretty much what makes Hume a jackass. Buddhism offers just as good a teaching and a path to rightfulness and avoidance of Tiger’s misbehavior.
Comment by imdw — 1/5/2010 @ 6:17 am
So if Hume had chosen the religion that *you* approve of, it would have been okay and he would not be a jackass.
How dare anyone not believe that Buddhism and Christianity are mutually inclusive and/or offer the same teachings! How dare individuals express their freedom of choice in religion! What fresh hell is this!
It seems for some, the bottom-line irritation about Hume is not that he has offered his religious faith to Woods as a path back to restoration but that that path offered is Christianity, the most reviled one of the bunch. I don’t have a problem with that but I would certainly have a greater respect for a person to be straight up about it.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/5/2010 @ 8:21 am[…] One Revealed, Report That His Bodyguards Helped Him Find Women Patterico’s Pontifications: Brit Hume’s Advice to Tiger Woods and Is This Racism? and Yes, There Is Racism in America and What? No Sex Clause? and TMZ: Tiger’s […]
Another Sponsor Cancels: AT&T Nixes Tiger Woods… Don’t Call Us, We’ll Call You (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/5/2010 @ 8:29 am“So if Hume had chosen the religion that *you* approve of, it would have been okay and he would not be a jackass. ”
Did you catch what Hume said? I guess there’s one kind of jackass that says ‘please follow my religion’ while there’s another that says ‘please follow yours.’
imdw (6eb217) — 1/5/2010 @ 8:31 amTiger Woods should accept the fact that his pecker is his conscience. He should let his wife go, to raise her children and make whatever life she can for herself. She is a young, vital woman, with her life and two other lives she is responsible for. He can be free to stick his pecker in a meatgrinder if he wants.
But that will not help his endorsements.
nk (df76d4) — 1/5/2010 @ 8:33 amSome people are born on the pathway to Hell and it’s a hard climb back.
nk (df76d4) — 1/5/2010 @ 8:40 amOne of the differences between Christianity and Judaism is the question of whether blood is required for atonement. Christians believe that blood is required, based primarily on a misreading of Leviticus 17:11.
Blood is required for atonement according to the bible – not only Leviticus 17:11. Blood atonement is the main topic of Leviticus – Leviticus 1:4 for example. It’s the only thing specified in the Old Testament as an atonement for sin.
Actually the “Jewish” argument that Lev 17:11 is about not eating the blood – the passage itself clearly states that blood atones for sin – and therefore blood has nothing to do with atonement is absurd.
Gerald A (da888e) — 1/5/2010 @ 8:59 amBut those are regional dealios, Chris… cable is national.
So was the Know Nothing party in the 1840s and 1850s, and the Republicans calling Democrats the part of “rum, Romanism, and rebellion” during the Gilded Age.
But that’s beside the point. The question of regional or national doesn’t have anything to do with it. You made the assertion that criticizing someone else’s religion is unAmerican. It’s really not; in fact, it’s protected by the First Amendment and inter-religious criticism has a long history in this country. To make the argument that it’s unAmerican is projecting your own offense at Hume’s remarks onto a concept that’s never existed in reality.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 1/5/2010 @ 9:06 amI don’t know where aunursa’s “Christianity” comes from, but Christ’s blood, spilled on The Cross, was the last blood spilled for the redemption of Mankind’s sins.
nk (df76d4) — 1/5/2010 @ 9:07 amDon’t go slitting any throats to please God.
nk (df76d4) — 1/5/2010 @ 9:13 amGood point. What I was doing there in calling it “unAmerican” was projecting my own offense at Hume’s remarks onto a concept that’s never existed in reality.
I see that now. But it was still weird.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 9:13 amReligious conflict in this country is as old as the Puritans vs. the Quakers.
No doubt about it, Chet. And today we are going to find out whether a pedal to the metal offense can move the ball against one of the league’s best defenses. Some folks are saying the Q’s passive defensive schemes are toast when the Puritans start airing it out, yet this analyst is predicting for the Quakers to come out with a lot of false looks before the snap. With the Puritans showing a tendency toward rigid play calling and lack of spontaneity, they just might find themselves in flex cuffs (heh-heh) before the day is done. Back to you in the booth, Chet.
political agnostic (99027e) — 1/5/2010 @ 9:25 amWhat advantage has Christianity over Islam?
Michael Ejercito (b0a575) — 1/5/2010 @ 9:47 amThis topic is interesting when contrasted with the “version of the truth” controversy of the Rainey article on O’Keefe.
If people are of the opinion that truth is subjective then what practical difference does it make where that “truth” is sourced? People babble on television all day long without establishing the validity of the premise that is invariably assumed in their rhetoric. Sourcing allegedly supernaturally revealed doctrine for “truth” may appear more absurd than say some “self-evident” basic human right “truth” advanced by a secular progressive, but in the end, they are both just unsubstantiated opinions.
Brit Hume’s invocation of religion in his advice to Woods strikes a chord with people because religion is commonly held to be a belief in a specific and existent reality rather than a belief in a known to be subjective truth. In other words, religion is not rehab. Becoming a Christian implies a willing realignment of one’s entire worldview – a total acceptance of a new believed to be “objective” reality. All of the world’s “great” (as politicians like to say) religions have source material that provides plenty of context and direction. What they do not offer is proof, or axiomatically for non-adherents, believability. This common attribute is why offering any unsolicited advocacy for one religion over another is viewed as presumptuous and tacky – and seemingly advocating on pragmatic grounds, as Hume did here, is just, metaphysically speaking, odd. One should not, it would seem, adopt an entirely new view of reality and the meaning of life because it is more USEFUL than the one currently held.
The bottom line is that I do not believe that is in inappropriate for Hume to bring metaphysics into a newscast. It happens everyday in many less obvious ways. Like the majority of true believers, Hume apparently has issues with context and perspective – and that is what happened here.
JDBlackaby (1309cf) — 1/5/2010 @ 9:50 amDana, I think that the way the Left responds to all this has little to do with theology—most “religion objectors” know next to nothing about it, other than bumper sticker mouthings. Seriously, many of them are laughably ignorant on the topic. What it has to do with, instead, is one of several Leftist Conceits™.
This is the most ironic one: the Left hates authority, other than the authority of the Left. Hence, much of the Left rejects monotheistic religion, because of the implicit authority of a Creator.
Of course, people on the Left think it is perfectly okay to tell other people what to do. It’s just wrong when someone Else tells them what they should do.
It’s not about religion. It’s about “hating Daddy,” metaphorically. For the past eight or nine years, it has been about hating GWB. Thus, anything at all GWB believes in must be made evil, or ignored. This is how the Left has put itself into a position of repeatedly defending the philosophy of Wahabist Muslims…a group that would literally behead them for their own beliefs.
Now, if these same Leftist would post those Danish cartoons on their webpages, and on bumper stickers, I might feel differently. But I don’t believe for one second that the Left believes in much, other than opposition.
Oh well.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/5/2010 @ 9:59 amComment by happyfeet — 1/5/2010
I think a lot of people got thrown off by what Hume did because Americans in this particular era really aren’t used to seeing a prominent journalistic figure take up for Christianity the way that Hume did. It’s something we’re more accustomed to seeing from pundits.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 1/5/2010 @ 10:12 amIf Hume had kept his mouth shut, people might get the impression he wasn’t a jackass.
Comment by imdw
You should take your own advice. I thought Hume was saying that Buddhism might not be the religion for those in need of redemption from a major screwup like Tiger’s. It was an observation and the predictable uproar is no surprise. I was a little surprised that he said that and he probably expected the left’s reaction. Frankly, Tiger has a long way to go before he is ready for that sort of thing, in my opinion.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/5/2010 @ 10:32 amComment by JDBlackaby (with responses):
What they do not offer is proof, or axiomatically for non-adherents, believability.
I would suggest “axiomatic truth” and “believeability” are two different things. I believed the meal I ate for lunch will help and not hurt my body. I did this in spite of the small but real possibility that the meat could have been contaminated with bacteria that could make me sick and go into kidney failure. There are many substantive discussions that show the “reasonableness” of Christian faith (such as Mere Christianity by Lewis or Making Sense out of Suffering, by Kreeft- which does do some interesting direct comparisons on how Christianity and Buddhism address different issues of life differently). One can not axiomatically prove that the view of the secularist is correct, even though the Obermans of the world think they can (#62, gp).
This common attribute is why offering any unsolicited advocacy for one religion over another is viewed as presumptuous and tacky – and seemingly advocating on pragmatic grounds, as Hume did here, is just, metaphysically speaking, odd. One should not, it would seem, adopt an entirely new view of reality and the meaning of life because it is more USEFUL than the one currently held.
Historically orthodox Christianity, straight from Paul, agrees with your sentiment that belief without truth is foolish and to be pitied, no matter how good it “seems to work”. On the other hand, why would someone base their life on something that DOESN’T work? After all, you said yourself the problem with religion is there is insufficient “proof”, and commonly “religion” is contrasted with “science” because “science” is thought to be empiric (=hence has verifiability) as opposed to religion (hence no verifiability). It is an interesting piece of logic (in general, not one which you specifically claim) to be against “religion” because it is unverifiable, yet at the same time discount it when/if there is empric evidence as if that somehow is beneath the dignity of religious claims.
The bottom line is that I do not believe that is in inappropriate for Hume to bring metaphysics into a newscast. It happens everyday in many less obvious ways. Like the majority of true believers, Hume apparently has issues with context and perspective – and that is what happened here.
In saying references to metaphysics are “happening every day in many less obvious ways”, are you including the assumed metaphysical claims of the “secularists” as well as the “religionists”?
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/5/2010 @ 10:48 am“I thought Hume was saying that Buddhism might not be the religion for those in need of redemption from a major screwup like Tiger’s. It was an observation and the predictable uproar is no surprise.”
Indeed the reaction is unsurprising. Because the statement is so wrongheaded.
imdw (688568) — 1/5/2010 @ 10:53 am#54 — Comment by Stashiu3 — 1/5/2010 @ 5:03 am
When a Christian makes a suggestion out of a sincere desire to help someone benefit from their own experience, he’s called a jackass.
Of all the comments and all the dialogue about Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Islam, the discussion here has remained largely civil and with some excellent insights (and some humorous observations).
Imagine this same discussion in a liberal forum – the name-calling and the deliberate misstatements of facts, as well as the arrogance and blind entrenchment to falsehoods no matter how flawed or contrary to logic. Actually here is an example found by gp.
Here, only one commenter had nothing of substance to say and resorted to name-calling (and, in fact, is a liberal).
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/5/2010 @ 10:56 am#62 — Comment by gp — 1/5/2010 @ 6:42 am
That shallow man [Olberman] has such deep contempt for his fellows (majority religious in the USA.)
This is a modern day liberal value. To respect and trust people would require the people to have power over their own lives. Without trust and respect, then the central-government ought control the lives of the people.
The Founding Fathers had this same argument, many doubtful (or at least suspicious) if the people could remain virtuous en mass, and if they could put their needs second to that of the country and of future generations.
They took the chance.
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/5/2010 @ 10:58 am#33 — Comment by andrew — 1/4/2010 @ 9:42 pm
I think there is such a thing as American exceptionalism.
There is, Andrew. Great explanation of it here (this is a fifteen minute video preceded by a forty second commercial).
** Warning – factual, logical and accurate –not for adherents to Modern American-Liberalism **
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/5/2010 @ 11:00 amI definitely got thrown off, AC. But nobody’s remarked on the of all people why Tiger aspect. I think cause we all know that it would be inane to say hey bin Laden you should convert to Christianity. Or Lindsay Lohan. Or the French.
I think maybe there’s something curiously passive about Tiger to where a Brit Hume might could presume to tell him oops you got the wrong religion there buddy let me help you out.
Or maybe he went all evangelical on Tiger cause Brit subconsciously feels an inherent if unexpressed tension between sex and Christianity. Like it’s the antidote or something.
It’s very very odd.
Why Tiger?
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 11:27 amWhy Tiger? Because he is an easy target at this point in time, a likeable fellow, and not a splodeydope.
JD (345b57) — 1/5/2010 @ 11:49 amIf Tiger said please do not exploit me for your own purposes Mr. Hume I think he would come out ahead on that deal.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 11:52 amHe could do the same to the Joy Behar, TMZ, E!, NBC, CBS, ABC, ESPN, CNN, etc…, happyfeet.
JD (345b57) — 1/5/2010 @ 11:55 amThis is true. I forget how cocooned I am sometimes.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:04 pmThe point lost on so many was that it appears that Tiger Woods could use some “forgiveness and redemption”. Hume suggested Christianity, but if he could get it elsewhere .. fine.
Of course, the huffy misogynists on the Left would rather claim something else, rendering them on par with the “birthers.”
Neo (7830e6) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:09 pmwell, first, i think you could interpret that more as PR advice, that he was saying that christianity is more associated with redemption, so if he goes out and says “i have found christ” then he could maybe plausibly say that has redeemed himself.
And if meant it as life advice, rather than PR advice, then it is reflective of the view that buddhism doesn’t have a strong redemption tradition, at least as we know it. now i cop to being ignorant of buddhism that hume might be wrong without me knowing it. i will let any experts in buddhism answer that. but with that caveat, i think it is not very offensive.
And bluntly, i am allowed to believe my faith is better than others. i say it like this. you can be a good person and not a christian and you can be a very bad person and profess a belief in christ. but i do believe that a belief in God, and specifically in Christ is a short cut to goodness; its the path of least resistance for goodness.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:12 pm“Please explain to me why it should be private.”
It should be private, Stashiu3, because this is Woods’ private issue. I would have the same opinion if he had told him he should convert to Islam, Judaism, Scientology, or any other religion.
I have no problem with Christians or anyone else advocating their beliefs. My problem is the ‘my religion is better than your religion’ attitude on display by Hume here. It implies contempt for others’ beliefs.
JEA (0ccd61) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:17 pmI wish I knew what the F**k you’ll are talking about. 8)
The Emperor (22bda5) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:17 pm“And bluntly, i am allowed to believe my faith is better than others.”
In fact, you’re lying if you pretend you don’t think this. It’s simply a matter of preference and honesty. Religious Jews think their religion is true and therefore that Christianity or Wicca is false. There’s a line between being honest and being rude. “I think he should seek forgiveness from Jesus” is simply what a Christian would think. “Your religion is not tolerated” is rude. People are doing the latter to Hume for doing the former.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:19 pm“I have no problem with Christians or anyone else advocating their beliefs.”
Because you think there should be a separation of Church and public discourse. That’s stupid. Religion is a huge factor in our lives and opinions and we’re simply dysfunctional to shut up about it to placate people who bizarrely want the issue kept “private” (forbidden in public).
also, nothing about Woods’s scandal is private. He’s a celebrity… he has exchanged a measure of privacy for extreme wealth and fame. It’s not like Hume was bringing up how Tiger screwed hundreds of girls or got his face smashed. But you don’t think THAT’S private… you think a discussion of differences in faiths in private (with no argument beyond you just want it forbidden).
We’re better off being open and honest about our opinions, even if someone wants to analyze Scientology or Islam (which are hardly comparable to Christianity… and this is only obvious if we are allowed to discuss it).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:23 pmIt implies contempt for others’ beliefs.
No, it does not. All it tells us is that you inserted your projection into the narrative, in order to make his words out to be something they were not.
JD (345b57) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:24 pm“Ah, Stashiu3. You identify the central core of the Leftist Conceit. What they do and their guy or gal does is entirely different than anything done by anyone on the Right.
Even if they are the same things.”
There’s quite a difference between talking about what one believes and one’s experiences, and telling someone they need to convert. If Hume had said something along the lines of ‘My experience has been such and such’ or ‘I feel such and such would help him’, that is entirely different than telling Woods he needs to convert.
Can’t believe I need to explain this.
JEA (0ccd61) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:26 pmYou all miss a very valid point; Christianity is not a religion. It is a way of life. It is living God’s life on Earth, through a relationship with His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ: The End of searching. He that hath the Son of God, hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life. Religion is man’s way to God. Christianity is God’s way to man. Religion is man-made. Christianity is a proof of new life. God’s life.
The Emperor (98b682) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:30 pmNext, Hume will convert the C Street guys in a FoxNews special.
imdw (c8592f) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:33 pmWhy Tiger? Because he “had it all” and squandered it, and is in a place to realize he squandered it. Bin Laden doesn’t think he’s squandered anything, not sure if Lohan knows enough of anything yet, though as a youth she likely thought she knew it all.
A.W., your point is reasonable, but Hume and O’Reilly actually spoke against the PR advice. They talked about something that would show a real change in his life and behavior that would last through the years, not simply a short term impression to help get him out of a jam.
As far as privacy issue, I think the time for concern about that is over, at least in terms of things being said which are actually meant to be compassionate and helpful. Jokes are mainstream, there should be room for a little bit of public concern, if not for Tiger’s benefit then perhaps as an example to the rest of us for the benefit of decency and civility in general. Jesting about coarse behavior simply gives it a degree of permissibility- “If one can joke about it, it must not be too bad”.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:35 pmDo not Muslims say the same about Islam?
How would someone who does not have a religion know that which way is the right way?
Michael Ejercito (b0a575) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:36 pmIt’s not like Hume is attempting to define and close Buddhism off. If there are prominent Buddhists who want to explain how it would help Tiger to follow it (and it clearly would have saved his marriage and happiness if he had… hell, Tiger Woods is the best example of how Buddhism would work that I’ve ever seen), then those people should feel welcome to bring it up.
And we get a few people doing that. Which is great… there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing about religion.
Sadly, most don’t even seem to understand the discussion, and are simply bashing Brit as some kind of nutty evangelical. But that’s OK. This helps Hume’s implied point that there’s no good reason not to have these discussions, at least I think so.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:37 pmYou know honestly if I were to be honest I would admit that if it were Tony Snow what had said it I would have thought it was cool beans. Tony Snow was the best ever.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:44 pmHow would someone who does not have a religion know that which way is the right way?
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 1/5/2010 @ 12:36 pm
The Emperor (98b682) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:45 pmSimple. Jesus died and on the third day, God raised Him from the dead. No other religious group makes such claims about their founder or leader. The Resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the basis of the Christian faith. He is presently seated on God’s right hand: waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. He is coming back again. He lives. That is the difference. What is left is for you to believe or refuse to believe.
JEA
> My problem is the ‘my religion is better than your religion’ attitude on display by Hume here. It implies contempt for others’ beliefs.
Jesus H. Christ, JEA. Of course we believe our faith is better than the others. If I believed that Islam was a better faith than mine (Presbyterianism) then I would convert. Duh. And if I thought they were all “equal” then I probably wouldn’t believe in anything at all.
I mean seriously, at some point in every mature person’s life we choose a faith. if it was the faith we were “born” into it was the moment we stopped believing because we were told but because we believed. Now what did that search entail if it was not a search for the best faith possible?
And it is not intolerant, either. Tolerance in the context of faith isn’t pretending that each is equally valid. Its recognizing that every faith believes it is superior to all the others, accepting that fact, freely competing among faiths, and not using the mechanism of government to get a leg up on the other.
So of course Hume believes that Christianity is superior and all other beliefs are inferior He is a Christian after all. And some Buddhists will surely disagree. Let them make their pitch to us, and let representatives of Christianity make their pitch, and may the best faith win.
I mean what is the alternative? All faiths are equally valid? Well, let’s see here, is scientology equally valid? They believe long ago a galactic alien overlord named Xemu murdered millions of aliens by flying them to Earth in rocket ships that looked just like DC-10s and then dumping them in our volcanoes. Then he vacuumed up the alien souls as they departed their bodies and forced them to watch 3D movies. I don’t know if Avatar was playing in that theater, but there were movies about Jesus and Buddha, and so on. Then these tortured souls seeped out and attached themselves to the cave men and that is why we have all of our hang ups today.
Now you might say it is wrong to denigrate these beliefs. Never mind that these beliefs denigrate my beliefs, but apparently you want to pretend that this set of beliefs is no worse and no better than a belief in Jesus Christ. Meanwhile the rest of us say, “scientology is crazy.” Mind you, I think we would also agree that it is the scientologists’ right to believe it, but we don’t have to pretend it is anything more than silly claptrap. Or a scam, like they said on South Park.
Putting down the faith of others, and asserting the superiority of yours is nothing more than the rough and tumble of freedom and the marketplace of ideas. Grow up and get used to it.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:47 pmI don’t get about the footstool. Is that in the Bible?
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:47 pmNow you might say it is wrong to denigrate these beliefs.
I think it’s bang on. I can’t even look at Jenna Elfman. The whole Scientology project is viscerally disgusting.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:52 pmI mean, look at JEA… totally proves my point. He (or she, but I assume he) really enjoys this discussion… is engaged and feels some passion… wants to opine out there Hume is mistaken on the facts.
I’ve seen over a dozen prominent attempts to debate Hume. I’ve seen Hume defend his point. We want to have this talk, but it’s considered inappropriate by a pop-culture that elevates scumbags. It’s amazing what is considered OK to talk about, when this central and wonderful discussion of sin, afterlife, family harmony, is considered off limits.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:53 pmMD in Philly
> A.W., your point is reasonable, but Hume and O’Reilly actually spoke against the PR advice. They talked about something that would show a real change in his life and behavior that would last through the years, not simply a short term impression to help get him out of a jam.
I watched it last night with interest. I am not sure I would take it that far, but you could even say he meant it in sort of a Dale Carnege sort of way. In How to Win Friends and Influence People, Carnege said his suggestions were not really about creating tricks to accomplish that but a whole change.
Michael
> How would someone who does not have a religion know that which way is the right way?
Contra what The Empty Roar said, there is no magic formula. You should hear them out and decide what makes sense to you. That is not to say that there is no single truth, but I have enough confidence in my faith that most people will know the truth when they hear it.
Happy
I miss Tony Snow, too. He was a good guy, whatever you thought of his politics.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/5/2010 @ 12:58 pmI don’t get about the footstool. Is that in the Bible?
Comment by happyfeet — 1/5/2010 @ 12:47 pm
Of course it is. Check it here: Psalm 110:verse 1.
The Emperor (98b682) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:04 pmHappyfeet – I went to a Church of Scientology open house once. I found it amazingly amusing. I asked lots of questions.
JD (295979) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:05 pmJD when they are at the local mall, i like to f— with them, saying “lord Xemu is coming to get you!” lol Seriously, when God was handing out religious, clearly these people were taking a whizz.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:07 pmDear Mr. JEA:
I think you missed the point.
Oh, good. That means, when Richard Dawkins says he is an atheist, he never criticizes other for their beliefs by calling them stupid? Because he has, you know, many times. He just shares his own beliefs, and allows others to have theirs without derision or judgmentalism.
Or moving away from religion…. folks on the Left do not say that conservatives are “stupid”? Because they have, you know.
Or Al Gore hasn’t said that people who don’t buy his version of AGW are similar to folks who denied the Holocaust? Because he continues to do so.
Speaking of not getting the point.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:10 pmJEA, why so intolerant of others?
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:12 pmthen why does it bother you to listen to it?
DRJ: Not “it.”
“Him.”
I don’t like listening to him, no matter what he says. He’s a condescending a–.
Myron (6a93dd) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:18 pmAW,
Scientology is pretty disturbing if you look into it. It attracts a lot of people who needed help. Mental cases, widows, etc, and drains them of all money. Sadly, they convince these people that if they learn about the secrets of Xenu and OT3 stuff too early, it will hurt them seriously, so they are paranoid against people who try to mock them out of the cult. Clever way of keeping the cult together, since it’s nearly irresistible to mock these secrets.
Their leadership are the best at pretending that multicultural tolerance means we shouldn’t delve into eachother’s views at all. That religious diversity equals shutting up about religions in public. It’s not rude to talk about this stuff… it simply makes the people who need to hear it the most feel deep insecurity.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:20 pmHe’s a condescending a–.
UNINTENDED IRONY ALERT !!!!!!!!!!!!
JD (96ef1b) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:23 pmoh. Got it. I think the footstool is just smack talk mostly.
The only for real Scientologists I know are waitresses, JD. They bring me food, so they don’t get lumped in with the rest. This is at Leah Remini’s little breakfast place which is right where I am on Ventura. She’s a flagrant scientologist.
I guess I was overstating about the visceral disgust.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:24 pmAlso, JEA says that Hume shows contempt for other people’s beliefs. But that’s not true. Hume was very respectful of Tiger’s beliefs. Watch the freakin’ clips and see how respectful he is.
It is not showing contempt to say you disagree with someone, and it’s hypocritical to say that Christians should be silent because even acknowledging their views is contempt for everyone else. This argument is itself in contempt of others.
But watch Hume’s video and look for the contempt… is this a man who hates anything?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:24 pmJD, it’s a Mr. Magoo kind of thing.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:25 pmIt is not likely possible to overstate that, happyfeet. They are full on quacks. I did my best to avoid openly mocking them at their open house. Not sure I succeeded.
JD (96ef1b) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:26 pmIt’s intolerance, clear and simple. And it’s disingenuous to attribute contempt to Hume. He was deliberate, polite and concerned. Unfortunately for him, he was not fashionable in his views.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:31 pmM. Ejercito asks a fundamental question that The Emperor’s answer fails to address. He asks, “How does someone who does not have religion know which way is the right way?”
She answers by saying basically: Jesus lived, died and was resurrected. There are only two paths following his Resurrection; follow Christ or do not. I testify the correct path is to follow Jesus Christ.
The root question is how do we know anything. There are three sources of knowledge to the secularist, four for those who believe in a Divine Being.
1. Observation / Experience: This is the scientific method.
2. Reason / logic: Starting from a known observation / experience, use reason and logic to infer new knowledge.
3. Testimony: Learning from others.
4. Divine Revelation: Learning from God.
The Emperor’s answer is testimony. Read what others wrote in the Bible and what she wrote here and make a choice.
God’s answer (again testimony) is to ask for Revelation: James 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.
I testify that if you study and ask of God with a sinscere heart and real intent, you can know (revelation) the path to follow.
bonhomme (abefb5) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:31 pmDana – That is exactly what JEA is attempting to do.
JD (96ef1b) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:32 pmYou have to be careful with Scientologists. They can get pretty aggressive.
They use English in unusual ways. I remember an optometry clinic run by Hubbardites in San Diego. When I wouldn’t buy expensive frames, the young woman looked at me intensely, and said: “You have a lot of confront.”
I didn’t argue sentence structure. I didn’t laugh. I did leave.
I had a friend years ago who was raised by parents in that “religion.” It really and truly messed with her head.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:33 pmJD, yes, of course it is. It’s that pesky disingenuous that irks.
Dana (f64b7d) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:38 pmDana, that is why I call it one of the Conceits of the Left. It’s a bizarre form of lack of self-awareness. I think I mentioned that we had a friend over the other evening who was telling us how awful it was for her, at another dinner party, when the host was wearing a “Pro-Bush” T-shirt (the image with the “Miss Me Yet? question).
I agreed that he shouldn’t have injected his politics into a dinner party in such an aggressive fashion. Then I started timing her.
Within just a few minutes, she went off about how “stupid” Sarah Palin was, and how “dumb” Republicans were for objecting to “health care.” She went on to say that she just couldn’t understand why so many Americans were “idiots” for not “voting for change.”
And to put a cherry of intolerance on her Sundae of hypocrisy, she said that she believed that people who objected to Obama’s decisions and leadership were racist—even if they didn’t know it.
That was too much for my wife. I just chuckled and said that I felt that was a dangerous road.
I did tell her that I remember being told that “dissent was the highest form of patriotism.”
“Yes,” she said…but…but…but…
I guess she won’t be coming over to dinner again soon. I mean, we are so intolerant and stupid and everything.
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:38 pmbonhomme, but it’s not faith if you know it for sure. You have to take a leap of faith.
To “study” about Christianity is to take a leap of faith that the bible is accurate, or that your inner dialogue with God is not merely a psychological phenomenon coping with the world.
There is no way to know that Christianity is truth. You say “if you study and ask of God with a sinscere heart and real intent, you can know (revelation) the path to follow.” But this is not true. If you sincerely take a leap of faith into believing in Christianity, you can experience all the things that you call knowing, but it’s not knowing… it’s a leap of faith.
I think the Doubting Thomas story was meant to show us that God loves us when we have a hard time making this leap of faith. Thomas was truly devoted to Jesus when he had proof. Loyal, selfless, and willing to die with Jesus. But when he didn’t have proof, he was fundamentally aware that he was having to make a leap of faith. Jesus didn’t force him to take the leap… he simply gave Thomas knowledge.
but for you and me, Jesus is requiring a leap of faith. Thus, we can’t really call what we have “knowledge”, in my opinion. You can’t test it, disprove it, or justify it in argument.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:40 pmI just… I like it when they bring me pancakes.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:46 pmPancakes make everything better.
But Scientology is one of those things that is made better with lots and lots of discussion and awareness, because a well informed person cannot be an earnest scientologist (they can, however, happily make money from the scam).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 1:48 pmDustin, please consider the Bible verse James 1:5 I linked to above. God says he will give you knowledge if you ask Him. God’s prophets were given knowledge to teach His word and their faith was tried and tested before and after revelations. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. His promises are eternal. He entreats us to knock at the door and it will be answered, ask and it will be given.
bonhomme (a7b8f8) — 1/5/2010 @ 2:11 pmbonhomme, that’s not responsive to what I said.
Of course, if you take the leap of faith that the Bible is inspired by God, you are not coming away with definitional knowledge. I’m not saying you shouldn’t rely on bibles, I am saying you are acting in faith (which is the opposite of acting in knowledge).
But when you start your proof with ‘check our the Book of James’, you’re admitting that this is an argument only for people who premise that the Bible is accurate. Frankly, the bible gets a few things wrong, too. It’s good that people have been able to turn the views in the bible into such a loving and good message, but it’s easy to point at sections that cannot be inspired by a perfect being.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 2:17 pmWe of the Church of the Seventh Day Agnostics believe that Brit Hume is a boor.
Larry Reilly (45c8f2) — 1/5/2010 @ 2:45 pmHis kind of personal faith needs others to accept what he believes, too, in order to validate him and give him more of the security that faith brings to him in the first place.
He’s chasing his emotional tail like a puppy and requires that you do the same.
And you do.
woof woof
140.We of the Church of the Seventh Day Agnostics believe that Brit Hume is a boor.
Comment by Larry Reilly — 1/5/2010 @ 2:45 pm
You also believe that the worst sin is sand in your Vaseline. Get lost, Larry.
nk (df76d4) — 1/5/2010 @ 2:48 pm“He’s chasing his emotional tail like a puppy and requires that you do the same.
And you do.
woof woof
Comment by Larry Reilly ”
You said you wouldn’t be back, and were told you would be back to tell people what they are not allowed to discuss. And of course, you proved us right. You’re back to tell us that hume shouldn’t endorse his views. Somehow, you think this proved HIS insecurity, and not yours.
LOL. If you think Hume didn’t know he was inviting tremendous scrutiny and proving his security in his faith, you’re an idiot. Plain and simple. Maybe he’s wrong, but he certainly isn’t afraid of critical attention. The only side showing intolerance is the side saying we should have a separation of church and public.
Larry, you’re dripping with fear, every time I read anything you write. We can’t criticize this loser, or that loser, and we can’t bring up religions you dislike, and we can’t pay attention to anything that gives you a problem. You never just say “I disagree, because X, Y, Z.” You always say “how you dare you even bring this up, discussion over, you lose!”
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 2:57 pmI pointed to the Bible because I thought it was a common point of reference. I’m not using logic to prove anything. That’s a wholly different method of learning. Revelation is proved by revelation.
bonhomme (49c932) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:05 pmBrit didn’t “talk about religion” or discuss his own faith, or even simply witness the affects of the Christian religion in his own life.
Brit called Tiger to Jesus while simultaneously denigrating another faith as inadequate and inferior to the purpose of redemption, and by implication, moral bearings or morality in general.
I love Brit, but “badly done, Emma.” Forget journalism, it was bad form and bad manners.
SarahW (692fc6) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:24 pmBrit didn’t “talk about religion” or discuss his own faith, or even simply witness the affects of the Christian religion in his own life.
Brit called Tiger to Jesus while simultaneously denigrating another faith as inadequate and inferior to the purpose of redemption, and by implication, moral bearings or morality in general.
I love Brit, but “badly done, Emma.”
SarahW (692fc6) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:24 pmhey take a load off let me get you a footstool
no thank you. really it’s ok.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:26 pmI’m on SarahW’s page and I’d get in a lot less trouble if I were half as well-spoken I bet.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:29 pmIf you think Hume didn’t know he was inviting tremendous scrutiny…
I think he knew and also he’s a tv person. TV people are always always always thinking about their next gig.
We will see I guess.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:31 pmDear Dustin,
Larry Reilly (45c8f2) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:41 pmHere is the specificity you want: I disagree because what Hume said is chauvinistic and bigoted. You probably would say this is a Christian nation.
Please direct me to the pertinent part of the Constitution to prove me wrong. (And please remember that Deists were behind most of the intellecutal ferment and the actuation therof in that most original of times for our country.)
Yes, he can say what he said. I’ve long made my living thanks to the First Amendment. But that doesn’t mean a legitimate news network would permit such to happen on its time.
Yours with all hope that you grow a brain and a mind,
Larry
Hume was respectful and did not denigrate Buddhism.
As far as Tiger Woods goes, most obvious is that it’s what he does next that counts toward his redemption.
GeneralMalaise (68a574) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:42 pmBrit called Tiger to Jesus while simultaneously denigrating another faith as inadequate and inferior to the purpose of redemption, and by implication, moral bearings or morality in general.
Comment by SarahW
So it’s denigrating to note that Buddhism lacks a concept of sin and forgiveness? I think that’s just a valid obersvation. It’s not denigrating the other faith to note that you think your faith works better. Hume did not witness personally, and I agree that this is not a good way to actually win Tiger over, but I don’t think this was denigration. It was noting a difference and preference without denigration. Hell, it’s obvious it was designed to carefully avoid denigration. In fact, if this crosses whatever line you have in your mind, then most discussion of religious preference does.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:43 pmMore classiness from the Left!
Eric Blair (ddbceb) — 1/5/2010 @ 3:45 pm#101 Dustin:
Dustin, this is incorrect.
Judaism applies only to Jews, because it is a contract between a people and the Unknowable, blessed be He. While others are welcome to become Jews, there is no obligation to do so in order to reap the rewards of living a good and righteous life~which is defined in Judaism for non-Jews by a previous contract between Noah and his descendants with the Holy One (and therefore the rest of non-Jewish humanity).
Notably, the “rewards” for living a good and righteous life are left up to the Creator rather than explicitly spelled out, in either contract.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:11 pmEW1, perhaps I should have been more clear.
People who think A is better than B or C also think that B and C are not better than A. People who have decided that one religion (I don’t care which) is the best are saying that the others are not.
You have a point that several religions, including Judaism, apply in inconsistent ways across the population. But someone who thinks that the claims in Judaism (whether they are a Jew or not is irrelevant) is correct, also thinks that the claims contradicting Judaism are incorrect. If two religions make no contradictions, they aren’t really distinct. This is a rare problem. Islam directly contradicts Judaism, and so does my understanding of Wicca. But as our science has evolved, a lot of people don’t take all the scientific claims of religions as seriously, which makes my problem more rare.
I think you’re confusing what I said a bit, but that’s understandable.
Great observation. This is the kind of discussion that is so much more interesting than ‘Oh wow, Tiger had plastic surgery and look at this bikini shot of his mistress #45’. Thanks.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:25 pm”
Slook at JEA… totally proves my point. He (or she, but I assume he) really enjoys this discussion… is engaged and feels some passion… wants to opine out there Hume is mistaken on the facts.
I’ve seen over a dozen prominent attempts to debate Hume. I’ve seen Hume defend his point. We want to have this talk, but it’s considered inappropriate by a pop-culture that elevates scumbags. It’s amazing what is considered OK to talk about, when this central and wonderful discussion of sin, afterlife, family harmony, is considered off limits.”
First, I don’t give a rat’s rump about Tiger Woods, or any other famous person’s ‘scandal’. What they do or don’t do, I could care less.
Second, when did I ever say anything about Hume being mistaken about facts? If he wants to proseletyze, there’s nothing wrong with that. I just don’t feel a national news show is the appropriate forum. How would your reaction be if Katie Couric – or anyone else, liberal or conservative – commented like that and advocated Woods should switch to Christianity? Or any other religion?
There’s nothing wrong with discussing what you believe in a public forum, Christianity or anything else. Believe whatever the hell you want, I don’t care. Just don’t tell me what I should believe.
JEA (a4bda1) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:29 pm#154 Dustin:
I don’t think that I am confusing your point: but I am not sure that you have the background to understand mine, although the statement above comes close.
In Judaism, any religion that teaches the precepts of the Noahide Covenant are valid~which means most real religions. How others approach the Creator is between them and G-d, and Jews have no say in it because it ain’t their deal. Judaism doesn’t teach any pretense of being ‘better’ or more correct than any other valid religion, but that there is a group of people bound by contract to a special relationship with G-d, which mostly means that G-d gets to use Jews as a whipping boy whenever He decides to prove a point.
Islam does indeed contradict Judaism, and most other “real” religions because of its teaching of murder and enslavement of others as goals to be sought out. I think there is a valid case to be made that Islam is not in fact a religion, but a murderous death cult, one of whose major goals is world domination by bloody conquest, with another major goal being the extinction of Jews and several other groups of people (mostly defined by their not being named an exemption to the extinction imperative).
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:46 pmMyron… Larry… Cheese…
GeneralMalaise (68a574) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:49 pmBuddhism lacks a concept of sin and forgiveness?
They also shave their heads and then slather them with yak butter. I suppose that would keep most women away.
nk (df76d4) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:52 pm“We want to have this talk, but it’s considered inappropriate by a pop-culture that elevates scumbags. It’s amazing what is considered OK to talk about, when this central and wonderful discussion of sin, afterlife, family harmony, is considered off limits.”
It’s off limits because it’s too judgmental. Same reason why scumbags aren’t called what they really are.
GeneralMalaise (68a574) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:54 pm“You probably would say this is a Christian nation.”
Larry – With the latest survey showing that 78% of the population, I believe, adheres to some form of Christianity, why would you not call this a Christian nation?
What have you got cupcake?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:54 pm“They also shave their heads and then slather them with yak butter.”
Brother, once slathered with yak, you can’t wait to go back… to Ice Blue Aqua Velva®.
GeneralMalaise (68a574) — 1/5/2010 @ 4:59 pm#158 nk:
The trick is making sure the yak butter is fresh!
Rancid yak butter as a scalp dressing is just so … ewwwwww!
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/5/2010 @ 5:00 pmRancid yak butter as a scalp dressing is just so … ewwwwww!
Yes, but add a little flour and you have a wonderfully versatile roué!
GeneralMalaise (68a574) — 1/5/2010 @ 5:43 pmOn the substance, I’m with Sarah W, but that GeneralMalaise has a stylish wit about him–a new Mark Steyn in the works?
Gary McVey (b6eb95) — 1/5/2010 @ 6:58 pmOr is Hume’s advice loony because it is indeed *serious*, and goes way deeper than the Oprah show?
I think it’s loony cause of the Britster thinks the answer is for Tiger to be unfaithful to his Buddha. I think Tiger needs to keep faith with something. Anything. Jeez. He’s already an earthly slut he doesn’t need to become a spiritual one.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/5/2010 @ 7:01 pmRe #151, etc.
What I think is really denigrating and offensive to a faith is to not take it seriously. So, if Buddhism does not look at life from the perspective of sin and forgiveness, then to say it does is being denigrating. As said previously, Buddhism sees the problem of existence as primarily the suffering we experience (as I understand it, in a very brief nut-shell).
I’ve always disliked the term “leap of faith” because it implies there is a stable ground all can agree on, and then some others take a “leap of faith” that is at least “Unrational”, if not irrational.
I prefer the concept of a “step of reasonable faith”. Everyone has a fundamental belief system about the nature of existence that includes faith claims, whether one likes to acknowledge it or not. (As mentioned before, Dawkins has a strident faith claim that he cannot prove). As said above, there are different ways we acquire “knowledge”, and through many of them one can evaluate the faith claims of different religions and judge which seem “more reasonable” or at least “internally consistent” than others. (Again, I would suggest Lewis and Kreeft).
And then there’s yak butter…what a delightful interlude of wit.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/5/2010 @ 9:37 pmYeah, I sorta came to the same conclusion on 9/11.
Well said EW!
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/5/2010 @ 11:18 pmSarah
> Brit called Tiger to Jesus while simultaneously denigrating another faith as inadequate and inferior to the purpose of redemption, and by implication, moral bearings or morality in general
I am continually astonished that we have people so addled that they think that you SHOULDN’T believe that your own faith is superior to others.
God forbid anyone should actually believe in something, to think it is the one and only truth, and ask others to share it. Seriously, what do you think faith is about?
Larry
> I disagree because what Hume said is chauvinistic and bigoted.
Give me a break. you are allowed to love your God more than all others. Wtf do you guys get this idea?
> Please direct me to the pertinent part of the Constitution to prove me wrong.
Freedom of religion and freedom from establishment doesn’t mean that people have to believe that all faiths are equal, and its just a matter of personal preference. No, it just means you don’t use the government to tip the scales in your favor. But you are allowed to believe whatever the f— you want, including that your faith is superior to all others and everyone should convert to it. You can even believe certain things that are blasphemy to others. It is blasphemy to Jews to say the Messiah has been here, it is blasphemy to Christians to say there is any prophet, including Mohammed, greater than Jesus. We all know this, and we accept that what each faith teaches might be deeply offensive to the others. And speech is countered with speech.
Its call the market place of ideas, including religious ones. Get used to it.
> But that doesn’t mean a legitimate news network would permit such to happen on its time.
What? To let a guy who is retired from being a newsman make commentary that is faith-related?
EW1
Are you really going to claim that jews 1) do not believe their faith is superior to all others and 2) don’t want converts, either?
Have you ever met any actual jews?
JEA
> If he wants to proseletyze, there’s nothing wrong with that. I just don’t feel a national news show is the appropriate forum.
If its an opinion forum, why not faith-based opinions?
> How would your reaction be if Katie Couric – or anyone else, liberal or conservative – commented like that and advocated Woods should switch to Christianity? Or any other religion?
Well, they do promote global warming, which as best as I can tell is a religion.
> Believe whatever the hell you want, I don’t care. Just don’t tell me what I should believe.
Um, you said it is okay to proseletyze, but not to tell a person what they should believe. Um, what exactly do you think proseletyzing is? I mean that is nonsensical. That is like saying, “its okay to drive a car, but you should never touch a steering wheel or accelerator.”
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/6/2010 @ 5:52 am#168 A.W.:
I’ve been studying Judaism for almost thirty years. You? In answer to your specific questions:
Faith is not an essential element of Judaism, so your question is moot. Judaism is a contract between the All Knowing and a group of people that provides the framework for a way of life that most of its practitioners find rewarding and morally uplifting, and that they personally prefer to any other.
No, Judaism does not “want” converts. It welcomes them, but since being a Jew is an obligation that isn’t required of others, there isn’t any reason in the main to seek out converts.
To return to:
It’s a little difficult to have lived with them for as long as I have without meeting any.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/6/2010 @ 7:25 am#168 A.W.: Let me recommend The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin as a good and interesting basic cover of Judaism.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/6/2010 @ 7:31 amHow would you convince someone who is considering a religion that the Resurrection actually happened?
We can preach about the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour until we are blue in the face, but no non-believer is going to buy it without evidence.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 1/6/2010 @ 7:50 amthis makes sense.
It is not up to Pope Benedict XVI or Osama bin Laden to prove unto others the nature of God; God can communicate with us Himself and reveal Himself to us however He deems fit.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 1/6/2010 @ 7:53 amI think the values and narrative and solace and teachings and encouragements of Christianity are a lot attractive with or without the mythology.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/6/2010 @ 7:54 amEW1
> Faith is not an essential element of Judaism, so your question is moot. Judaism is a contract between the All Knowing
What a nonsensical answer. This has nothing to do with faith. This is just about a contract with God, that’s all.
> No, Judaism does not “want” converts.
Something contradicted by anyone who has encountered actual jews. Mind you, they aren’t any more pushy about it than any other faith group, but yes, they want converts.
Which means either 1) you don’t actually no any jews or 2) you are grossly misrepresenting their faith.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/6/2010 @ 7:59 amHow would you convince someone who is considering a religion that the Resurrection actually happened?
We can preach about the Resurrection of our Lord and Saviour until we are blue in the face, but no non-believer is going to buy it without evidence.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 1/6/2010 @ 7:50 am
The Emperor (09c9e3) — 1/6/2010 @ 8:17 amThe Bible has an answer to that question, Michael. In Acts 1:8 Jesus said to His disciples “But you shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you and you shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the uttermost part of the Earth….” The gospel was not meant to be preached without evidence. Jesus said “These signs shall follow them that believe. In My name they shall speak with new tongues. They shall cast out devils. If they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them and in My name they shall lay hands on thee sick and they shall recover..” Mark 16:15-18. (I am not quoting from the Bible. The Bible has a more accurate account. Read it.) The gospel is followed with the demonsrtration of the power of God. This is made possible by the help of the Holy Ghost who goes with us, confirming the word with signs following. Mark16:20. That same power that raised up Jesus from the dead is available to those who preach the ressurection of Christ and to those who believe it. Jesus is Lord.
Any god who requires belief, or faith if you wish, in order to exist, is not a god. It is a construct of mankind’s infinite and all-powerful imagination.
nk (df76d4) — 1/6/2010 @ 8:54 amI do suppose though that if we can build 100-megaton nuclear bombs that can wipe us all out along with the entire planet we could also build a god that powerful.
nk (df76d4) — 1/6/2010 @ 8:56 amHe did say there would be unbelievers. Nothing new.
The Emperor (09c9e3) — 1/6/2010 @ 9:03 am#174 A.W.: You are spouting self-contradictory nonsense.
I have explained what Judaism teaches, if you are willing to learn.
I cannot correct your misimpressions if you aren’t.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/6/2010 @ 9:06 amHi, Emperor. Stay civil and I will stay civil. He did not say there would be unbelievers. We (the writers of the Scriptures) said that.
nk (df76d4) — 1/6/2010 @ 9:18 amI love that line about the nuclear bombs.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/6/2010 @ 9:44 amHis disciples seem to be dead these days.
Michael Ejercito (b0a575) — 1/6/2010 @ 9:44 amEW1
> You are spouting self-contradictory nonsense.
Given that this is from a man who claims that belief in God is not central to Judaism and then tells us the central idea is a contract with God, well, I will take that for all the credibility it deserves.
But in truth it is not just you contradicting yourself here, it is you contradicting reality. Seriously, are you really going to say a belief in God is not central to Judaism? What a bunch of hogwash.
What you don’t understand is I am not coming here wanting to learn about Judaism. I come here already knowing enough to know that what you are saying is bullsh–.
When a jewish man keeps his head covered, why is that? because God told him to.
When a jew refuses to eat pork, why is that? because God told him to.
When a jewish man is circumcised, why is that? because God told him to.
When a jewish man refuses to turn on a light on a Friday night, why is that? because God told him to.
When they light the candles of the menorah, why is that? to celebrate a miracle from God.
When they celebrate Passover, and leave an open seat for Elijah, why is that? to commemorate when God plagued Egypt to set them free.
When they say it is wrong to murder, steal, lie, commit adultery and so on, why is that? Because God told them to.
So in what exact way is a jew indifferent to the existence of God. I mean my God, it is common for jews to refuse to eat anything that they couldn’t verify was kosher—that is, it was blessed by a properly ordained rabbi, and followed a few procedures. Every bit they eat has to be blessed (with the exception of milk and honey), and yet God is not central to their lives? How much more central does it have to get?
Of course not every Jew does every single one of those things. There are differences in levels of orthodoxy. But its not from a lack of belief in the divine, but in a lack of belief in God’s finickiness.
> I have explained what Judaism teaches, if you are willing to learn.
You know, I have read the Torah, dipshit. Its in that part of the Bible we Christians call “the Old Testament.” I know what Genesis says, what Exodus says and so on.
I have also dealt with real jews. Their faith is like many others. It is centrally about the divine. They believe they have found the ultimate truth. They want others to convert and share this truth. And that is fine. My God is not afraid of friendly competition.
But don’t tell me that Judaism is not about faith in the divine, and don’t tell me that they don’t want converts. I know too much to believe that for a moment. Next I suppose you will tell me Martha Washington was the first president of the united states.
By the way, if I am being self-contradictory, name the contradiction.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/6/2010 @ 9:46 ammichael
you probably missed it but i think this is the better answer over the empty roar’s:
> Contra what The Empty Roar said, there is no magic formula. You should hear them out and decide what makes sense to you. That is not to say that there is no single truth, but I have enough confidence in my faith that most people will know the truth when they hear it.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/6/2010 @ 9:55 amIt is a sad fact, happyfeet, that experience provides far more evidence that there is no God, or that in fact the Devil rules the world, than that there is a God.
nk (df76d4) — 1/6/2010 @ 9:59 am“Um, you said it is okay to proselytize, but not to tell a person what they should believe. Um, what exactly do you think proselytizing is? I mean that is nonsensical. That is like saying, “its okay to drive a car, but you should never touch a steering wheel or accelerator.”
A.W., this is a stupid statement on its face.
You have the right to proselytize.
But I have the right to say no.
JEA (cc6fe4) — 1/6/2010 @ 10:02 amJEA
> A.W., this is a stupid statement on its face.
No, to be very precise, your statement was stupid because you didn’t say what you meant.
You said, and I quote: “Just don’t tell me what I should believe.”
But now you say that what you MEANT was no one should force you to adhere to a particular faith. Which of course no one could deduce from that because it was completely off topic. Brit Hume wasn’t proposing to fly down to Florida, buy a gun and force Woods to be baptized. And he wasn’t proposing any law doing the same. All he was doing was telling Woods to become Christian—that is literally telling Woods what he should believe.
And further, in previous posts you had said that even telling Woods to become Christian was wrong: “There’s quite a difference between talking about what one believes and one’s experiences, and telling someone they need to convert. If Hume had said something along the lines of ‘My experience has been such and such’ or ‘I feel such and such would help him’, that is entirely different than telling Woods he needs to convert.”
In that context why should anyone have deduced you were talking about force, as opposed to talking? Not one person in this thread has said you didn’t have freedom of religion. No one said a single word about forcing anyone to believe—or more precisely to pretend to believe—anything. And indeed its annoying that you do, because it is a dodge, a silly game.
So the stupidity is on your part. You literally did not say what you meant.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/6/2010 @ 10:25 amLarry – “God forbid anyone should actually believe in something, to think it is the one and only truth, and ask others to share it. Seriously, what do you think faith is about?
Larry, straw argument, that’s your statement, not mind. He could have done exactly that without the bad form and bad manners.
SarahW (692fc6) — 1/6/2010 @ 10:43 amLarry – “God forbid anyone should actually believe in something, to think it is the one and only truth, and ask others to share it. Seriously, what do you think faith is about?
Larry, straw argument, that’s your statement, not mine. He could have done exactly that without the bad form and bad manners.
SarahW (692fc6) — 1/6/2010 @ 10:43 amSarah, it wasn’t Larry, it was me. I wrote “larry” to signal I was at that point responding to his arguments and I had finished responding to you. Sorry for the confusion.
And to the substance, where was the bad manners? Hume simply expressed the opinion that his faith was superior to buddhism, at least in that respect. He said it as politely as one could say it. You just feel he shouldn’t say it and probably shouldn’t believe it.
But we can and do say, “my faith is better than the others and here is why” including specific critiques of other faiths. And it has been done for centuries. I mean my God, well over half the Christians in this country (by my unscientific observation) believe in a form of Christianity classified as “Protestantism”–that is they protested what they considered the wrong headed doctrines of Catholicism. The very founding of the first protestant faith, Lutheranism, came about when Martin Luther began to write scathing tracts protesting the teachings of Catholicism. And I think you can fairly say that to be any specific Christian you have to implicitly reject all the other teachings of all the other faiths. For instance to be a Catholic you have to implicitly reject all the protests of the protestants.
My joke, for instance, is that there are no actual Episcopalians. They are all either pissed off ex-Catholics and their families, or people who chose it as a “compromise religion” and their families. Now obviously I am exaggerating for humorous effect, but my uncle is a classic example. He was catholic and wanted to marry my aunt, who is blood (my mother’s sister) and thus a protestant, in a catholic church. They said he could marry her in their church, but none of her protestant family could attend. Imagine having a wedding where your father, your mother, your sisters, literally your whole family was excluded from the ceremony. He was so infuriated, he left the church entirely and they are Episcopalians to this day. Certainly he had a criticism of Catholicism. Should he have kept that to himself?
I would say not. Not only is it a valid argument in favor of Episcopalianism to contrast their tolerance with that intolerance, but people like him voicing an opinion and voting with his feet may have affected a positive change. By the time I married my catholic wife, they welcomed my entire protestant family into the catholic church for the ceremony, and merely said most of them would not be able to take communion. So we didn’t take communion but we honestly didn’t care, either. And my wife never felt a need to choose between her husband and her faith.
As I have said repeatedly freedom of religion doesn’t mean we pretend religion is unimportant; it just means we don’t have government intervene in this discussion. We should be generally tolerant and respectful in our disagreement–unless it is a really crazy religion like Scientology. But that doesn’t mean we hold back from comparing and contrasting the faiths, often in a way that makes one or the other look bad.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/6/2010 @ 11:16 amSarah, you keep saying Brit had bad manners, but I think you are also saying it’s OK to talk about religious views in public if you don’t have bad manners. Can you help me, by describing how Brit could have explained why he thinks Christianity is a good way to rebuild a broken life, without showing bad manners? I think pointing out Tiger’s horrible behavior is completely fine, since it was already well publicized, and obviously, Tiger deserves ridicule for being so awful to his wife and family. But I assume your criticism is not that Brit used Tiger as an example, but that it’s wrong to say ‘look at this: this person would be better off doing things my way’. Anyway, if you could explain what good manners in this effort would look like, maybe I could understand what you’re getting at.
Ew1, you may a lot of points to refute me that have nothing to do with anything I argued, so I’m not sure we’re having much of a back and forth. I don’t care that Islam has sections justifying horrible stuff. That’s irrelevant to my point.
Also, you keep telling us that you know Jews and stuff, and that we disagree with you because we must be ignorant. You don’t need those ad hominem arguments. They didn’t help your case, and yeah, you do seem to have some confusion about that topic (which I don’t even want to discuss, since the details of any particular religion are not relevant to the point that if two religions do not conflict they are not distinct such that endorsing one is intolerant of the other).
I’m glad you want to get into the topic, but Judaism is a view that many disagree about. What you think it is doesn’t define it. I think this is interesting and good for modern religions. You point out problems in Islam that also exist in Judiasm except that no one but whackos honors the horrible parts of the Talmud. None of the hundreds of Jews I know stones their wives or sells their daughters or owns slaves or whatever. those Jews that I know who pay much attention to the Jewish faith are simply charitable people, even my friend who often eats the pork sandwich with bacon (the most devout Jew I know in the ways that matter), sees his faith as a call to take care of people in need, and ignores the dumb parts of Judaism (my opinion).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/6/2010 @ 11:47 amA.W. a point of clarification if you please; have you read the Torah or have you read the Old Testament? They are different.
The Torah is written in Hebrew and is word for word accurate from one document to the next (for over 2,000 years, at least if the Dead Sea Scrolls are to be believed).
The Old Testament is a translation from Hebrew to (ultimately) English. Typically the translation pathway is convoluted, for example: Hebrew to Ancient Greek to Latin to Old English to Modern English. There are in fact many pathways. That is one reason why it is not word for word accurate from one publisher to the next. Not to mention Hebrew has no vowels in its written form, so the translation is different right from the source, between different translators.
Here are some of the different types of Bibles along with some Old Testament examples of differing translations of the same verse.
—
You might wise to consider EW’s reply (@169) of “I’ve been studying Judaism for almost thirty years” to your question about “knowing Jews”.
Why would a person study Judaism for 30 years — you may want to consider that before cursing at him for not rendering answers to your question about Judaism that do not comply with your current understanding.
(The profanity and name-calling is uncalled for A.W. and quite frankly surprising.)
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/6/2010 @ 1:07 pmMy word search of “ignorant” on this thread came up with only three usages:
@84 EB (before EW’s comments)
@98 A.W. (before EW’s comments)
@191 Dustin
Putting words into the mouth of someone does not make it is true.
—
You missed the point. Islam may not even be a religion (@156):
Rather than comparing apples with apples, we might be comparing apples with oranges. Not only a valid point for consideration, but an interesting one as well, even if you do not get it.
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/6/2010 @ 1:15 pmpons, he may not have used the word ignorant, but it was overwhelmingly clear that he felt we were ignorant of what judaism is about and he was going to school us.
By telling us things directly contradicted by reality, of course, but oh well…
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/6/2010 @ 1:20 pmpons, you’re being a jerk for no good reason, but I didn’t use quotation marks, so it’s clear I was paraphrasing.
It’s quite obvious he was calling people uninformed. I don’t mind that. I like Ew1 and think he’s added good things to this thread. I was pointing out that that was not productive, but we’re being respectful and not lying. I like EW1 because he can have a respectful disagreement.
You, on the other hand, are a liar. It would have been really easy for you to check my claims.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/6/2010 @ 1:34 pm…can’t talk, pants on fire…
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/6/2010 @ 2:04 pmYeah, but c’mon A.W, cursing at him? You are better than that. Gotta be careful or next thing ya know, ya go off the deep-end, and start calling people a liar 😉
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/6/2010 @ 2:09 pmWe can’t respond to every troll, pons. You have absolutely nothing to contribute to the topic, and you’ve been caught lying in a pretty ridiculous fashion. You want everyone to fight eachother, so you’re playing quote games that are transparently a pile of crap.
What a loser.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/6/2010 @ 2:25 pmPons Scum
You know, I didn’t conclude you were an asshole until I saw this response at 192.
> The Old Testament is a translation from Hebrew to (ultimately) English.
Gee, dipshit, I didn’t know that the old testament was a translation. I thought Jesus spoke the language of God. You know, American. *rolls eyes* Thank you for educating me to that little known fact. Hey, while you are at it, can you tell me equally obscure facts, like what is 1 + 1? And which way does gravity pull? /sarcasm
F—k you and the self-important horse you rode in on.
But more importantly I have met actual jews and I have seen how faith is central to their lives, and I have had them attempt to convert me. I mean politely, but yeah, they tried. So his whole stupid claim amounts to “what are you going to believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?”
But no, explain to me how according to the correct Hebrew translation God is unimportant and they are not interested in conversion. And then show that this is what jews actually think, as opposed to some outsider who reads a bunch of books. Go ahead. It should be amusing. And explain to me how the literally hundreds of jews I have known in my life, living in Pennsylvania, Texas, NC, and Connecticut and from places as diverse as isreal, tennesee, and cuba (among other places), tell me how they are all just an aberration. Sheesh.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/6/2010 @ 2:29 pmLet’s see:
You have now called me a Jerk, Liar and now a Loser (also loved the way you wove in the phrased “a pile of crap”).
Well argued, love the logic, objectivity, the occasional link to prove your facts; what an outstanding example of reasoning-by-Dustin.
—
Obviously I have struck a nerve, but despite your name-calling, I am not even certain what you are saying I lied about.
Kiss and make up, ignore me, or otherwise get over it. Your choice, I desire to fight no one.
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/6/2010 @ 2:45 pm#191 Dustin:
Dustin, you stated at #101:
and I replied that this is incorrect. Religious Jews are taught that their religion is true, only for them. Judaism teaches that other religions can also be true for non-Jews, provided that they meet a few standards…mostly along the lines of murdering is a bad thing, weird sex practices aren’t particularly good either, and cruelty to animals is lousy behavior. Later you stated that “Islam directly contradicts Judaism,” and I agree that it does, but use that contradiction to point out that Islam does not meet the criteria in Judaism for a “valid religion,” because of its injunctions to its followers to commit murder and other sorts of mayhem.
I have not posted anything to refute anything that you have posted, but posted only a clarification of something that you appear to misapprehend about the fundamental nature of Judaism.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/6/2010 @ 3:42 pm#174 A.W.:
Judaism is a complex subject, of which you have little to no knowledge.
I would have been happy to discuss it with you, but since you prefer to call me names and imply that I am a liar, I don’t see any reason to continue a soliloquy.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/6/2010 @ 3:51 pmA.W. is to be ignored, Pons Asinorum. Or just tell him, “Good boy, have a biscuit”.
nk (df76d4) — 1/6/2010 @ 3:52 pmIIRC the Old Testament was originally written in Aramaic, not Hebrew.
AD - RtR/OS! (b6fff3) — 1/6/2010 @ 3:56 pmnk @ 180. It’s a new year. Jesus did say there would be unbelievers. Unless you are insinuating that the whole Bible is a fabrication created by some writers. A lie. I am sure you are not saying that. I hope.
The Emperor (09c9e3) — 1/6/2010 @ 4:02 pm@199 — A.W. Uh, I was just pointing out that the Torah and the Old Testament are different. I explained my reasoning and linked a source that more thoroughly explores this. I make no claim whatsoever about correctness, just that there are differences (interesting that you interpreted a claim of correctness).
—
“Liar”, “jerk”, “loser”, “scum”, “dipshit” and the ever classic “FU”; with arguments like these (and of course, your considerable knowledge of all the Jewish people you know), I guess you “win”. Congrats! You must be so proud.
Sorry for upsetting you so much, A.W. I’ll be gentler next time.
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/6/2010 @ 4:07 pmOnly that The Bible was written by humans. Not an accusation of fabrication or lie. Humans can write truth too. Creation is a different question.
nk (df76d4) — 1/6/2010 @ 4:08 pmAD, the Old Testament was written mainly in Hebrew and a very small portions is in Aramaic if I recall correctly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/6/2010 @ 4:12 pm@203 — Good advice, thanks NK ! Rough crowd, rough crowd.
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/6/2010 @ 4:12 pm@204 — AD, admittedly I am no Bible scholar (I am Roman Catholic and not a good one at that), but wasn’t the Old Testament from the Torah, which was originally Hebrew?
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/6/2010 @ 4:16 pmI have had the luxury of listening at length to Denis Prager, and as I recall, he has stated that the Ten Commandments was originally in Aramaic.
AD - RtR/OS! (b6fff3) — 1/6/2010 @ 4:23 pmTherefore, my assumption was that most of the Old Testament was also.
But, as an old-phart, the memory does play tricks…who are you again?
#207 SPQR:
That’s my recollection as well. Some of the important and early prayers are Aramaic, as well.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/6/2010 @ 4:27 pmNone of this bickering is necessary, if you all would just convert to the One True Faith™.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (083fb7) — 1/6/2010 @ 4:36 pm@211 — AD
But, as an old-phart, the memory does play tricks…who are you again?
Me too, now what was the question?
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/6/2010 @ 4:48 pmOne True Faith™.
I have.
AD - RtR/OS! (b6fff3) — 1/6/2010 @ 5:12 pmI entrust my soul to God, and my life to John Moses Browning.
AD – RtR/OS!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (083fb7) — 1/6/2010 @ 5:15 pmThat’s a mighty powerful deity!
You Betcha!
AD - RtR/OS! (b6fff3) — 1/6/2010 @ 5:31 pmThe second half of this thread is just more proof that the JOOOOOS are responsible for all the major problems in the world. Heh.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/6/2010 @ 5:33 pmAD, and to his archangel ACP.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/6/2010 @ 5:33 pmCareful with that “archangel” stuff….
AD - RtR/OS! (b6fff3) — 1/6/2010 @ 5:37 pmdidn’t you know that’s the codename for the DHS/LAPD Counter-Terrorism Task Force?
H/T PJTV
Anyway, if JMBrowning has an archangel, it would have to be Jeff Cooper.
AD - RtR/OS! (b6fff3) — 1/6/2010 @ 5:38 pmAD, I miss Jeff Cooper.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/6/2010 @ 5:54 pmYeh, me too.
AD - RtR/OS! (b6fff3) — 1/6/2010 @ 5:56 pmI miss Cooper too, but Massad Ayoob is a good training resource as well.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/6/2010 @ 6:00 pmJust don’t ask Mas about the time I almost DQ’d him from a match …
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/6/2010 @ 6:09 pmI have thought that the question “What is a Jew/What does it mean to be Jewish?” was one that led to much discussion but little of a simple answer. As far as being a “religious Jew”, are there not several streams of thought and conviction? My friends who were Conservative were far different from those who were Reconstructionist. And then there is the situation of those who claim a Jewish heritage by bloodline, but claim atheism. So I’m a bit surprised anyone can claim what “Judaism” has as it’s teaching.
At #25 aunursa commented that, “One of the differences between Christianity and Judaism is the question of whether blood is required for atonement. Christians believe that blood is required…”. To my understanding that is a very good point, but again, not all who would call themselves “Jewish” are very concerned about atonement.
Not to cause anyone to think I’m picking on Judaism, the situation with Christianity, at least in the United States, is not much better. What does one do with survey results that would claim 75% of the US population is Christian, and at the same time only 50% think that truth and morality is objective? It seems to me that when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through me”, He was being pretty specific in his claim. To believe it or not is one’s decision, but to say one is a Christian but you don’t agree with what Jesus said is an interesting claim. But it is consistent with a view that believes, “I am the center of my universe” and who are you to tell me what is right and wrong”, rather than one that says, “There is a center of the universe, and it ain’t me”.
I think it is easier with Christianity in the sense that there is a relatively succinct and specific set of core beliefs that have defined it for centuries, but then again, entire denominations call themselves Christian while denying aspects of these core beliefs.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/6/2010 @ 6:09 pmImmigrants in America built their communities around churches. Their religion, such as they paid the priest to preach, bound them together, and they paid the priest to bother God so they would not have to, and instead they bonded with their compatriots.
nk (df76d4) — 1/6/2010 @ 6:22 pmand as usual Dan Savage provides us all with the correct analysis:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/01/04/convert-to-christianity-and-receive-a-complimentary-get-out-of-adultery-free-card
imdw (00bfab) — 1/6/2010 @ 6:23 pmDan Savage is a picklebiter. A chocolate packer too.
nk (df76d4) — 1/6/2010 @ 6:30 pmimdw, that isn’t what Hume meant. A lot of people confuse christianity with license to sin. It’s something a ten year old might do.
I’m never heard of this Dan Savage guy, but he’s not very intelligent.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/6/2010 @ 6:35 pmI thought the Vitter point was a good point but the rest didn’t do much for me. I didn’t know about the diapers. Tiger can hold his head high. Relative to the diaper guy.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/6/2010 @ 6:39 pm“imdw, that isn’t what Hume meant. A lot of people confuse christianity with license to sin. ”
A license is permission. This is about forgiveness. And everyone knows it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (5bc028) — 1/6/2010 @ 6:43 pm#226 MD in Philly:
That would be an accurate assessment. For study of previous discussions of Judaism there are the Mishnah and Gemara, which collectively comprise the Talmud (Steinsaltz’ translation of which runs to an anticipated 46 volumes), and the later discussions which make up the Responsa are uncatalogued so who knows how much room that takes up?
There isn’t any central authority in Judaism, although there are a few different major “flavors,” if you will, where people who practice similarly have gathered under one flag or another.
At its core, Judaism is based on the concept of a contract with the Unknowable and All Knowing; so there are some basic tenets that are fundamental to the practice of Judaism throughout all its various flavors. Since the responsibility of conformance with the Covenant is a matter of individual responsibility, it is almost fair to say that there are as many flavors of Judaism as there are Jews. And because of its contractual basis, it is a very legalistic religion, with as much or as little hairsplitting as you like. (Hence the old joke, two jews, three opinions.)
Who is a Jew is defined by Jewish law, hence the situation where a Jew who is non-religious can be an atheist, but still be a Jew because they were born into the people of the Covenant.
The concept of Christian atonement is a little out of my league: IIRC from my discussions with the Catholic priests of my acquaintance many years ago, blood and atonement are wrapped up in the Mystery…which doesn’t really have any analogue that I am aware of in Judaism.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/6/2010 @ 7:13 pmMD in Philly #226
True. We Jews are a people and Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. If someone is an Irish Catholic and he decides he no longer believes in Catholicism, he is no longer a Catholic but he is still Irish. A Jew who does not believe in Judaism does not cease to be a Jew unless he chooses to join another people or another religion.
Anyone who practices Judaism is deeply concerned about atonement. We have an entire day of the Jewish calendar set aside for the purpose of atonement, Yom Kippur or Day of Atonement. You are not supposed to wait for that day to atone for your sins, but on that day we atone not only for our own sins but publicly and collectively for the sins of the Jewish people.
Stu707 (0981d5) — 1/6/2010 @ 7:19 pmMD in Philly:
In fact, because Judaism has as its basis a contract, a Jewish atheist can be as “good” a Jew as a “believing” Jew simply by following the Law. Belief in the Almighty is not an absolute requirement, although it certainly is encouraged and possibly makes the practice of Judaism more rewarding.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/6/2010 @ 7:23 pmThanks for the discussion. I take it we are having a cordial discussion, not an argument.
I think you two just gave evidence of what we are all talking about. EW1(SG) states he does not see any emphasis on sacrificial atonement in Judaism, while Stu707 sees atonement as a central tenant.
I understand the significance of the Day of Atonement, I was commenting on the reality that not all “Jewish” people would put the same emphasis on it. I liken this to the observance by “Christians” of Good Friday (essentially the “Christian Day of Atonement”). Good Friday is at least as important to the Christian faith as Christmas, but far less popular.
The issue of contract +/- belief is interesting as has been raised above. The question I would ask is why would one follow the Commandments from the Almighty if one didn’t believe the Almighty gave them? In our mature and reflective moments we understand life is better for all when life is lived in obedience to them, but in the short term those “old sayings” are so inconvenient and get in the way, as Tiger would have objected. Not to be irreverent, but a similar case would be why study for a final exam if there is no teacher to give it, especially when there are more enjoyable things to do on a sunny spring day?
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/6/2010 @ 9:33 pmYes, MD in Philly, we are having a cordial discussion.
You put Jewish people in quotes in your further discussion of atonement in #236. I assume you are referring to non-believing or cultural Jews. Since the need for atonement is a religious obligation it is unlikely that non-religious Jews would regard it as important. They might see it as psychologically helpful. But I can not understand how any believing Jew would not consider it essential to Judaism.
As to the covenant or contract as EW1 (SG) refers to it, I differ with EW1. Belief in God precedes the covenant else why would Abraham make a covenant with Him? And why would Abraham’s descendants attempt to keep it?
Your question of why would a nonbeliever keep the commandments is an interesting one. I know a secular Jew who fasts on Yom Kippur. I asked him why and he told me that it makes him feel closer to the Jewish people.
Stu707 (0981d5) — 1/6/2010 @ 11:38 pm“I have not posted anything to refute anything that you have posted, but posted only a clarification of something that you appear to misapprehend about the fundamental nature of Judaism.
Comment by EW1(SG)”
I misunderstood you, then. But no worries. I completely disagree with you on this, but that’s not a big deal… it’s a matter of opinion. As I was saying, the details of any one faith are not relevant to the point I was making. I’m glad your comments developed into an interesting discussion of Judaism, and I’m certainly not asking that it stop, but it really was a strange response to what I wrote, which you really did appear to be attempting to refute by talking about the details of Judaism.
Thanks for being so clear about your particular view of Judaism’s mechanics.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/6/2010 @ 11:47 pm#236 MD in Philly:
LOL. No, what you see is two different people attempting to explain the same concept to a third party who doesn’t share common referrents: Atonement is a central tenet of Judaism, unlike Christianity, Atonement is divorced from “blood,” which I understand to be connected to “the blood of Christ” in the Christian Mystery. And a comparison of Atonement as a theme in Christianity vs Judaism is not one that I think I am qualified to discuss, because I don’t understand the Christian view or teachings enough to make that comparison. As for Stu’s comment:
I totally agree with him. There isn’t any point to me personally in practicing Judaism without an element of belief, but unlike Christianity where faith in the Almighty is a prerequisite, Judaism recognizes that belief can wax and wane, and we are enjoined to continue in the practice during times that our faith wanes, with the idea being that the continued practice is very likely to restore and strengthen our belief. As Stu’s description of the secular Jew who fasts on Yom Kippur illustrates, the practice of Judaism can be rewarding even without the element of belief…but hopefully even the smallest practice grows into a larger practice and so on.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/7/2010 @ 3:53 am#238 Dustin:
Dustin, above you said “Religious Jews think their religion is true and therefore that Christianity or Wicca is false.”
But that is a false dichotomy. In Judaism, the “truth” of Judaism does not negate the truth of another religion. Judaism applies to Jews, not Catholics, or Buddhists, or whatever. For religious Jews, Christianity or Wicca or whatever isn’t false because it isn’t Judaism: it has to be found false on some other basis; and that criteria is found in the Noahide Covenant that predates Judaism.
If a “religion’s” precepts require murder, sexual deviance, cruelty to animals and the like, then it is a false religion by the lights of Judaism.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/7/2010 @ 4:08 amEW1
> Religious Jews are taught that their religion is true, only for them.
Hahaha. And God said to Moses, “Thou shalt not murder.” Then He added, “Well, I mean if you are a Jew. If you aren’t, yeah, f— it, become a serial killer. I don’t care.”
What a maroon!
> Judaism is a complex subject, of which you have little to no knowledge.
No, that is just it. I have enough knowledge to know you are completely full of shit.
> Who is a Jew is defined by Jewish law, hence the situation where a Jew who is non-religious can be an atheist, but still be a Jew because they were born into the people of the Covenant.
That would be a covenant with God, you mean. So the atheist believes he has a contract with something that doesn’t exist. Hahahaha. What a maroon.
Pond Scum
> Uh, I was just pointing out that the Torah and the Old Testament are different.
You were pointing out facts that are known by any sixth grader. You’re an ass.
Imdw
> This is about forgiveness.
Um, actually the word is redemption which implies forgiveness for past sins and a commitment to sin no more.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/7/2010 @ 5:43 amMore from EW1’s translation of the Bible which demonstrates that Jews believe that many faiths are as true as Judaism, this time Genesis 1:1:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Or maybe it was Cronos. Or maybe it was Quatzequatel. Or Lord Xemu. Really, we can’t be sure.”
Hahahaha, how lame.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/7/2010 @ 6:00 amA.W., are you going to have a conversation or just continue with ad hom? You can disagree and discuss without looking like an ass. In theory.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/7/2010 @ 6:02 amstash
he has already been an ass toward me and i might add committed the logical fallacy of arguing from authority (more or less saying I have studied this for 20 years! how dare you not take my word for it!). So the gloves are off with him.
Ditto with Pond Scum. when someone insults your intelligence, its on like donkey kong.
Your comment might have been more helpfully directed at them much further up this thread.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/7/2010 @ 6:10 amCheck your premise. You jumped on him for something he said to Dustin and accused EW1(SG) of not knowing Jews. He disagreed, but I don’t see where he insulted you at all, please point it out. You may have felt insulted, but I don’t see anywhere he offered it (when he does, it’s not usually hard to find). Also, it’s not a logical fallacy if you do in fact have some authority or expertise. Challenge his credentials or opinions with your own, the constant snark and ad hom is not to your credit. He hasn’t even addressed you (and said he wouldn’t at #202) after you called him names and implied he was a liar.
Same with Pons. Go back through the thread and see where they both said they weren’t trying to fight with anyone. Then look at your own comments and decide if that’s really how you want to present yourself. As was said earlier, it seems out of character for you to be unfairly hostile. I usually find myself doing the little “head-nod” thing when I read your comments… not so much here.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/7/2010 @ 6:37 am#243 Stashiu3:
Obviously doesn’t extend to practice in this case.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/7/2010 @ 6:40 am#245 Stashiu3:
Flattery will get you everywhere!
A.W.: As Stashiu points out, I wasn’t trying to pick a fight. Your comments, in the main, are lucid and usually well thought out.
But you definitely have a blind spot when it comes to Judaism…and that ain’t my problem.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/7/2010 @ 6:45 amWhat I’ve usually seen happen here is that everyone finds out they’ve been saying very similar things in different ways. I don’t think A.W. is far off from what you’ve said and I was enjoying the discussion when it stayed on point. I’m not familiar with the finer points of secular vs. devout Judaism and would like to hear more. I’m much more familiar with the different versions of Christianity, despite sometimes being baffled at how acrimonious the debate can become.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/7/2010 @ 6:55 amI understand what EW1(SG) is saying about Judaism from my perspective as Greek Orthodox. Our religion is as much part of our culture and ethnic identity as our language and history. You will find many Greeks who attend church, and support it, christen their kids and send them to catechism, but who still see it as more a bringing together a community than worship of God. Some will express outright skepticism if not atheism, others will consider strict orthodoxy weak and womanly.
nk (df76d4) — 1/7/2010 @ 7:01 amAnd proselytizing is disfavored in the Church, and in Greece it is a crime.
nk (df76d4) — 1/7/2010 @ 7:06 am#249 nk:
It might be that that is a good generalization over a number of culturally religious groups: Jews included.
Many religions, Judaism included, have esoterica not visible to the casual practitioner. Proselytization isn’t common in Judaism, but it isn’t forbidden either. Judaism welcomes converts, but you ain’t gonna be denied Heaven or whatever because you didn’t.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/7/2010 @ 7:14 amGreeks (to some extent like Jews) did not have a national identity for about two thousand years. From pre-Imperial Rome to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. But they maintained their ethnic and cultural identity through their language, history, mythology, and religion. (And infanticide of children conceived upon Greek women by invaders and occupiers.)
nk (df76d4) — 1/7/2010 @ 7:34 amGreeks have way better foozle.
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/7/2010 @ 7:36 amErr, what’s foozle?
nk (df76d4) — 1/7/2010 @ 7:42 amStash
I appreciate where you are coming from on this, but this is how I see it. First, with EW1, this is the moment when it turned personal:
> [Ew1] I have explained what Judaism teaches, if you are willing to learn.
> [me] You know, I have read the Torah, dipshit.
Now maybe you don’t think what EW said was insulting, but I did, and responded in kind.
I will also quibble with you about the fallacy of argument from authority. It is incorrect even if you are an authority. The whole idea is that anyone should be able to challenge anyone on any topic. You never get to say, “well trust me, it is true.” no if you are making an argument, then you have to prove it.
And yeah, this is a quibble, but in other contexts it is very important, because when you think about it the entire argument for Global Warming, when Al Gore or your average op-ed columnist makes it, is an argument from authority. “The scientists say it, so it must be true.” Even if not one single scientist agreed with me in my skepticism, I would be correct in pointing out how their conclusions are susceptible to question. I mean when their model predicts certain events, and they do not come to pass, then it says the model is wrong, calling all of it into question. that is true even before the climategate emails came to light.
As for Pons, I said exactly the moment it became personal:
> [me] You know, I didn’t conclude you were an asshole until I saw this response at 192.
> [quoting Pons] The Old Testament is a translation from Hebrew to (ultimately) English.
Telling a person a basic fact of life as though it is supposed to be a revelation is a straight up asshole move. I stand by calling him that. It was snotty.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 1/7/2010 @ 7:43 amDid you? Again, please check your premise, especially the meaning of “in kind”. Also, you’re the one who asked if EW1(SG) had met any Jews and he responded. I think he can safely be considered an authority on whether he has met Jews. If you disagree with his views on Judaism, I encourage you to challenge those and I will read with great interest. I’m less interested in the repeated snark and ad hom when he was pointedly avoiding any argument with you, which prompted my comment. Take it for whatever you believe it’s worth and proceed accordingly. I’m not trying to fight with you either and both EW1(SG) and Pons can defend themselves if they feel any need to. Picking a fight in their name would likely get them both annoyed with me. I can easily get them annoyed with me on my own behalf. 😉
Be well, I’m out for a bit.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/7/2010 @ 8:06 amAnd the Britster wasn’t a tad snotty?
happyfeet (e9e587) — 1/7/2010 @ 8:13 amAnyway, I don’t know that we need God to tell us “When you side with a woman you stick with her otherwise you’re some kind of an animal”.
nk (df76d4) — 1/7/2010 @ 8:30 amNow who could get annoyed at Stashiu3? He rocks!
—
A.W, you left just a couple of statements out.
A.W. @183 (in reply to EW1):
You know, I have read the Torah, dipshit. Its in that part of the Bible we Christians call “the Old Testament.” I know what Genesis says, what Exodus says and so on.
My reply @192:
A.W. a point of clarification if you please; have you read the Torah or have you read the Old Testament? They are different.
Then I go on explaining why I think they are different, followed by a link exploring the differences between Old Testaments across Bibles of different publishers/versions.
Then @199 you call me an a-hole for being condescending — well technically you called me a “dip_s” first, then “scum” (which was a rather clever play on my pseudonym), followed by another “dip_s “ for good measure, and then ending with an oldie but a goldie, the ever classy “FU”.
Control is key in all things, and when a man loses his cool, well, typically it is quite sad or quite funny.
All in all, quite amusing, ILMAO!
Take it easy, A.W., I have no ill will toward you and normally I am in agreement with many of your remarks (obviously I must disagree @199 😉 ).
This stuff really is not so important that we need to raise our BP. I apologize for being condescending.
—
As for the rest of the discussion between MD in Philly, EW1(SG), and Stu707, as well as the antidotes supplied by NK and happyfeet — well bravo!
Sharing ideas, humor, and presuming the best about each other, even in disagreement; that’s the way.
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/7/2010 @ 9:20 amOops — anecdote rather than antidote.
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/7/2010 @ 11:05 am#260 Pons Asinorum:
Oh, I think they both work.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/7/2010 @ 11:38 amAmen!
Stu707 (0981d5) — 1/7/2010 @ 1:08 pmA.W. has explosives in his underpants. He’s cool. 🙂
The Emperor (09c9e3) — 1/7/2010 @ 2:28 pmEW1 — @261, Heh, it does 😉
Pons Asinorum (b200bb) — 1/7/2010 @ 5:03 pmJust got back to see the discussion.
Atonement is a central tenet of Judaism, unlike Christianity, Atonement is divorced from “blood”…
This sounds akin to what aunursa said previously. Now, I have never had an extended conversation on this topic with someone who is an observant Jew. I thought from Caan and Able (who’s/which sacrifice was acceptable?), through Abraham (his vision with the lamp passing between the two halves of the sacrifice), the night of Passover with blood on the lentil, the sacrifices of the Atonement (in the Temple worship) all had the elements of shed blood (acceptible offering, confirmation of the Covenant, salvation from evil end judgement, forgiveness of sin). Now, I realize that aunursa claimed that the idea of “the shedding of blood being necessary for the forgiveness of sin” is a misunderstanding of the verse Leviticus 17:11, but I have a hard time knowing what to do with all of these other texts even if one completely disregards Lev. 17:11.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/7/2010 @ 8:42 pmMD – I confess I did not understand what the introduction of shedding blood added to the discussion.
I was also mystified by A.W. running off the rails at the other commenters. Shit happens I guess.
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/7/2010 @ 9:02 pmdaleyrocks-
I also was surprised at the earlier kerfuffle between some folks. But some time ago I went off on EW with a vengeance because I had a serious comment/sarcasm misunderstanding. Thankfully Stashui3 stepped in to graciously tell me I was confused.
Again, I too was (pleasantly) surprised at the detail of discussion of the concepts of forgiveness/ atonement between Christianity and Judaism, and I would have never thought in context of the need for a blood sacrifice or not as originally brought up by aunursa.
I’m not sure how much to pursue the issue here, but I will offer my thoughts for a little bit if interested. Christian faith looking at the Old Testament sees the concepts of atonement/ forgiveness/ salvation as linked with the sacrifice of an animal, the “shedding of blood”. (As examples see the story of the Passover and the pattern for honoring the Day of Atonement as described in Leviticus for worship in the Tabernacle or later the Temple.) In the New Testament it is taught that those sacrifices were a foreshadow, that “the blood of bulls and goats” cannot erase human sin. The event foreshadowed was the self sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”, who was able to pay the penalty for the sin of others because He had no need to pay for His own.
Now, much of that seems strange or crude, especially to the modern mindset. That is why C.S. Lewis was of the opinion that “to say Jesus was (simply) a great moral teacher is absurd”; that anyone who thought his own death could bring God’s forgiveness to others was either a lunatic, a strange variety of liar, or amazingly enough was making an extraordinary claim that needed to be understood. In addition, we are talking about the necessary cost to “make up for” all of the hate and murder and everything else evil in the world. The execution of someone for an act of murder may be justified and right, but it nonetheless is gruesome and painfully sad. It may bring a type of closure for some individuals, be a moral lesson for the community, and be the ultimate prevention of further evil, but there is nothing pretty about it. At the heart of Christian belief there are very ugly realities as well. Again, this was for those interested in some thoughts on this aspect of the discussion, not meant to be offensive.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/7/2010 @ 10:08 pm#266 daleyrocks:
Same here. Guess his problem is either with Judaism, or more likely, someONE that he identifies as Jewish.
#267 MD in Philly:
You did? Hell, I don’t remember that.
Anyway, let me clarify that I am not an “observant Jew,” I’m not even Jewish. Yet. I started the studying process of converting to Judaism back around 1980, and for various reasons have never made it final (primarily my reluctance to do so while I was actively alcoholic). I have “moved into” the Jewish community, though, that’s who I hang out with and who I congregate with for services and holidays and the like. There is a talmudic phrase used to describe people like me: I am a ‘stranger in the community.’
Back to the blood thing: blood sacrifices are even older than Judaism, and were present in and incorporated into Jewish religious practice; but were completely supplanted by prayer during (or immediately after, depending on your viewpoint) the biblical period. And sacrifice wasn’t tied exclusively to atonement, so conceptually there is a gap between the Christian theology and Jewish theology that I am uncomfortable attempting to explain, because I don’t understand the Christian view, viz:
.
Another thought occurs rereading that, Christianity has the concept of salvation~again, tightly coupled to atonement, that Judaism doesn’t share. Jews in general are much more likely to share Lewis’ sentiments on the issue.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/8/2010 @ 10:08 amYou guys are too … whatever. How about, “What’s a woman for if you don’t treat her right”?
nk (df76d4) — 1/8/2010 @ 10:43 amMD, animal sacrifices are called for in Leviticus. Incidentally, sacrifices by non-Jews were also accepted at the temple. However, it is important to note the moral context of the times. Among the various peoples of the ancient middle east many horrific practices including child sacrifices were common.
Leviticus sets up a code of conduct for ancient Israel that would distinguish it from its neighbors. Think of the earlier story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son Iaasac. In addition to testing Abraham’s faith God sent a ram to signify that animal rather than human sacrifices were to be made.
All animal sacrifices ceased with the destruction of the 2nd Temple about 70 CE as there was no place where they could be made. A leading Jewish sage of the time pronounced that acts of loving-kindness superseded animal sacrifices as the preferred way of seeking God’s forgiveness. Prayer and seeking the forgiveness of people we have sinned against have become the primary means of atonement.
I have enjoyed this exchange with you, EW, nk, daleyrocks, and all others who participated in this thread. I appreciate the efforts of Christians to understand their spiritual Jewish roots.
Stu707 (0981d5) — 1/8/2010 @ 10:49 amI dunno, Stashiu. When my daughter asks me “Can I have a glass of water”, sometimes I get up and hand it to her. And other times I say, “God gave you hands and feet and there’s a glass and there’s the water”. It seems to me that God gave us a conscience and we don’t need to bother him every minute of the day about what’s the right thing to do.
nk (df76d4) — 1/8/2010 @ 12:17 pmnk, I have no idea what you’re trying to say to me.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/8/2010 @ 12:27 pmThat men are capable of, at least, treating their wives right without divine guidance. And if they’re not, they’re not men. Maybe some kind of animal or some god’s puppet.
nk (df76d4) — 1/8/2010 @ 12:38 pmnk’s point is that Tiger Woods’s problem is clearly not religion. He’s not really a man… that’s his basic problem.
I’ve reread some Buddhist thought, and it’s geared directly at preventing the misery via pursuing every possible desire. It’s geared right at Tiger. He didn’t care. He already said he doesn’t bother with the parts of Buddhism he doesn’t like, because man is too flawed to be enlightened.
If Tiger followed Brit’s advice, would he have the stomach for Christian morality, or would he be a jackass?
If Tiger becomes an honorable man, it will be because it burned him to be a whore. Not because of the Bible.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/8/2010 @ 12:46 pmI agree with what you say, Dustin, except for the last paragraph. I think most of us, especially when we are young, feel like we can handle life by ourselves. However, personal hardship convinces most of us that we can’t do it alone. Some of us turn to friends and family, others look to medicine for answers, but many turn to religion for guidance and comfort.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/8/2010 @ 1:06 pmSo don’t give advice if it involves faith… just shut up. Unless you just gave birth which excuses anything up to and including murder. Got it. Why you felt the need to address that to me is still puzzling, but not enough that I want an answer. It’s not like I make a habit of discussing religion here. I know for a fact that my wife is satisfied I already understood your point.
Matter of fact, I’d prefer you stop addressing me and I’ll do the same for you. Thanks in advance.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/8/2010 @ 1:06 pm#270 Stu707: Thanks, Stu~ a much more satisfying explanation than mine.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/8/2010 @ 1:48 pmWhy you felt the need to address that to me is still puzzling
You asked me.
nk (df76d4) — 1/8/2010 @ 2:03 pmPoint it out please or don’t talk to me further.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/8/2010 @ 2:14 pmI went off on EW. You did? Hell, I don’t remember that
Not sure you even saw it, Stashiu3 saw it, corrected my misunderstanding, and I duly apologized. You made a point with sarcasm that I missed and jumped on. So I really didn’t “go off on you”, but on my misperception of what you said.
Jews in general are much more likely to share Lewis’ sentiments on the issue. EW1(SG)
I’m not sure how you mean that; Lewis’s comment was from the perspective of one who believed that Jesus was who He said He was.
However, it is important to note the moral context of the times. Among the various peoples of the ancient middle east many horrific practices including child sacrifices were common. Stu707
Overall, I think the 20th century (into the present) has kept up many horrific practices itself, no less “barbaric”, and often in far greater number.
All animal sacrifices ceased with the destruction of the 2nd Temple about 70 CE as there was no place where they could be made.
I wondered if that was the transition point.
A leading Jewish sage of the time pronounced that acts of loving-kindness superseded animal sacrifices as the preferred way of seeking God’s forgiveness. Prayer and seeking the forgiveness of people we have sinned against have become the primary means of atonement.
Understandable.
I have enjoyed this exchange … Stu707
Me too, thanks.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/8/2010 @ 9:12 pmNot to be a kiss-ass, but that’s spoken like someone who is older and wiser than me.
Tiger can’t do it alone. You’re right. But, to my view, it’s this horrible drama that will define what kind of man he winds up as. He could turn out to be an awesome person, who rebounded from this into something, and to me, that means he’s like a cat that never jumps on the stove’s burner. I think he should take Hume’s advice, frankly, and I don’t mean it as a slight against him or Christianity to say it took a major screw up and great dishonor for him to reach that solitude that forces him to reach out.
bla bla bla, you get my drift.
Like the others, I appreciate all the people trying hard to have a friendly chat about such a personal thing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/8/2010 @ 9:42 pm#280 MD in Philly:
Actually, I misread the post and attributed some of your comment to Lewis: “that anyone who thought his own death could bring God’s forgiveness to others was either a lunatic, a strange variety of liar, or amazingly enough was making an extraordinary claim that needed to be understood.” which I thought a fairly accurate summation of Lewis’ view. Where Jews and Christians begin to differ is the understanding they achieve regarding the “extraordinary claim.”
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 1/9/2010 @ 6:06 am#282 EW1(SG)-
I think we’re on track now.
Yes, what you have in quotes was my statement, but was intended to be a brief summary of Lewis’ thoughts on the subject. And yes, Lewis came down on the side of believing, which is the major (sort of) dividing point. I say “sort of”, because I think many consider themselves Christian because they grew up in a family or culture that considers themselves such and think the “Golden Rule” and the rest of the Sermon on the Mount are pretty good things to live by- as long as you don’t carry it too far- but they really have never seriously considered the claims Jesus made about Himself.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/9/2010 @ 8:06 amCan’t point it out because it wasn’t true. Can’t admit it wasn’t true, so go away to another thread. Tired of this.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 1/10/2010 @ 9:22 am[…] One Revealed, Report That His Bodyguards Helped Him Find Women Patterico’s Pontifications: Brit Hume’s Advice to Tiger Woods and Is This Racism? and Yes, There Is Racism in America and What? No Sex Clause? and TMZ: Tiger’s […]
Tiger Woods’ Apology Press Conference: “I Brought This Shame on Myself… I Have Let Down My Friends” (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 2/19/2010 @ 10:08 am[…] Diary of a Mad Conservative: The most AWESOME athlete Patterico’s Pontifications: Brit Hume’s Advice to Tiger Woods and Is This Racism? and Yes, There Is Racism in America and What? No Sex Clause? and TMZ: Tiger’s […]
Uncomfortable New Tiger Woods Ad for Nike… Voiceover of His Late Father (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/8/2010 @ 8:18 am[…] Diary of a Mad Conservative: The most AWESOME athlete Patterico’s Pontifications: Brit Hume’s Advice to Tiger Woods and Is This Racism? and Yes, There Is Racism in America and What? No Sex Clause? and TMZ: Tiger’s […]
Uncomfortable New Tiger Woods Ad for Nike… Voiceover of His Late Father (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/8/2010 @ 8:18 am[…] The most AWESOME athlete Patterico’s Pontifications: The Creepy Nike-Tiger Woods Ad and Brit Hume’s Advice to Tiger Woods and Is This Racism? and Yes, There Is Racism in America and What? No Sex Clause? and TMZ: Tiger’s […]
Tiger Woods & Elin… Is Divorce Imminent? « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/13/2010 @ 7:11 pm