As anticipated, Tiger Woods finally got around to making a public announcement in which he apologized for his actions and the hurt it caused not only himself but to his family and fans as well.
Many of you will probably remember that Fox "News" correspondent Brit Hume, among others, had called on Woods to turn to Christianity in order to seek forgiveness and redemption. I did a post on it here, in which I criticized Hume for either being ignorant of or deliberately misrepresenting Buddhism.
In reading the transcript of Woods speech, this section caught my interest:
"I have a lot of work to do, and I intend to dedicate myself to doing it. Part of following this path for me is Buddhism, which my mother taught me at a young age. People probably don't realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years. Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously I lost track of what I was taught." (Underlined for emphasis).
The part I underlined is exactly the same point I made in my previous post. I will be interested to see if Hume has any reaction to Woods publicly stating that he seeks to rededicate himself to his Buddhist faith (assuming of course that Woods is being truly sincere). I certainly don't begrudge that Hume and others may have found solace for themselves in turning to Christianity. But they need to understand that other people can turn to plenty of sources outside of Christianity for inspiration to make positive changes in their lives.
3 comments:
...they need to understand that other people can turn to plenty of sources outside of Christianity for inspiration to make positive changes in their lives.
This idea is not within the scope of possibilities for holders of a particular brand of Christian doctrine; it was inconceivable to me for a long time. For Christians like these, other religions and philosophies can only lead to doom; they lead people away from the One True God. Understanding of the sort you describe is impossible within what is inevitably an elitist, exclusive worldview.
Understanding of the sort you describe is impossible within what is inevitably an elitist, exclusive worldview.
And to think they call us "elitists"?
And to think they call us "elitists"?
Ironic, I know.
Hard-line Calvinists will just chalk it up to their god's sovereign power to elect whom he will and damn whom he will. There's nothing elitist about it, since no one controls his or her destiny - it's all in their god's hands; the dispensation of grace is determined by him alone and bestowed as he sees fit. No one earns it, they just get it - or not.
Wesleyan-Arminians, who believe that their gospel is for anyone who wants to be saved, don't see their perspective as elitist either. After all, people who are damned could have god and heaven if they wanted it. They make their choices to accept or reject god's gracious offer of salvation.
As for those who belong to other religions, some views are:
1. Dems da breaks - that seems a bit callous to some, though, so another answer is
2. To evangelize without ceasing and snatch as many lost souls as possible from Satan's clutches; but, if evangelism is not one's thing, then one has to trust that
3. God will judge according to his standards (which we can't understand), so maybe they can be saved anyway, somehow.
Post a Comment