Posted on 02/20/2010 2:36:52 AM PST by ozguy
CHEATING Tiger Woods promised to mend his ways yesterday - with the help of Buddhism.
The golf superstar had tears in his eyes as he apologised for betraying wife Elin during flings with a string of women.
In a 13½-minute speech, Tiger, 34, said fame and fortune had led him to act as though he lived by different rules from his millions of fans.
He confessed: "I was unfaithful. I had affairs. I cheated."
Tiger will return to rehab today to continue the fight to rehabilitate himself and save his marriage. And he also revealed he is turning for support to the Buddhist faith.
The winner of 14 golf majors said: "I was raised a Buddhist and I actively practised my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years.
"Buddhism teaches to stop following every impulse and learn restraint. Obviously, I lost track of what I was taught."
(Excerpt) Read more at thesun.co.uk ...
Ya know, all I can say to Tiger is it’s a good thing your father had passed on. He would have been SO disappointed in you as a son and a man. A real man doesn’t risk his family and livelihood just to fool around with a handful of floozies.
And, stop treating it as if its a medical condition. Each time to made an informed decision and decided to throw out your vows to God. While you might obtain forgiveness, you certainly deserve NO respect ever again.
I admit I did not watch all of Tiger Woods's so-called press conference (which it was not). From what I saw:
It had a creepy quality, reminded me of a funeral or of a former Soviet leader stepping to the podium.
His mother looked terribly uncomfortable and should not have been there. How many others have had Mom in the audience when they gave their "I am sorry" speech? And them hugging appeared staged.
Then Tiger Woods hugged a semi-blond babe whoever she was.
He did no appear sincere and instead read the speech probably not written by him. Still the best one was by Jimmy Swaggart.
This speech was just the usual meant for his sponsors. It did not lessen what he did.
He stated in one sentence(?) that he had not used drugs. But who believes him at this stage? He also told his many mistresses they were the only love of his life.
His attack on the press for hurting Elin was disengenious since it was he who had hurt her. In fact, from what I saw, people were cheering Elin for clobbering him.
He tried to paint himself as the victim.
The positive parts about his presentation were that he did not have Elin at his side, he defended her (perhaps was forced to by her or she would reveal who knows what), and he did not blame his actions of something silly like sex addiction
lol!
Why? The "rearend" Jesse Jackson and his pregnant mistress came in the front door, they even got a photo op. with Billy Jeff.
CC
I hear chicks dig Buddhists.
Does Buddhism require you to be faithful to your spouse? I don’t think so.
unfortunately, Tiger was referencing Tantric Buddhism, and it’s revered erotic manual “1001 sexual positions for Golfers and other Athletes”.
Me too.
I like TIger as a golfer- I still do. As a man, I think he is an alley cat with no idea of what marriage means.
Tiger’s main problem is STUPIDITY.
You’re the #1 golfer on the planet and you think you can cat around and NO one will talk or find out? This is the age of the internet, camera phones, instant communication- and he really believed he could get away with a string of bimbos?
He has enough money to buy anything but he couldn’t have a staff competent enough to protect him and cover his tracks?
He RISKED LOSING his children( maybe he no longer cares for the wife, but two babies??) for sex?
He risked millions in endorsements- for sex?
He got married and thought he could have the image and the wild life too?
Stupidity on so many levels its pathetic.
He’s a brilliant golfer- maybe its a savant thing- but a STUPID man with no morals and no control over anything but a golf club.
That he screwed around on his wife didn’t surprise me. Hell, regular guys do it every day- and their wives put up with it for far less reason than Elin has. That he has the cognitive reasoning capabilities of a turnip did surprise me.
Tiger isn’t unique in his immorality- but he may be unique- as a celebrity- for his combination of arrogance and sheer,mind-numbing stupidity.
Only if Jesus improves his golf game. lol
I also agree.
Show me a single cell organism evolving into my next door neighbor and you have a deal. (I’m not even hostile to the theory of evolution — but it does meet your definition of an extraordinary claim).
And besides — anyone who saw a resurrected Christ is going to believe, so they’d never meet your definition of an unbiased observer.
Just an observation. I’m not trying to justify my point of view of a risen Christ to you. :)
LOTS of affairs! LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of affairs!
And FLOOZIES out the WAZOO!
Yup, it's his private business but let's not act for a second like we'd accept this sort of thing in our own lives.
Buddah? Shah...yeah...wuddevah. You must seek a balance: Equal blondes and brunettes he's got covered.
Anyway, he didn't have to do this but it's still not worth much. Maybe to his sponsors.
Who said anything about evolution?! I never claimed to be an adherent of Darwin. Why are you introducing this issue into the discussion?
But in any event, a single-celled organism evolving into your next-door neighbor would, in fact, be a very good falsification of Darwinism! It would disprove it, as any reputable Biologist would agree! (For your information: What you have committed here is called the "Strawman Fallacy.")
And besides, believers in the Theory of Evolution admit that it is a theory (albeit a very solid one).
Lastly, no proponents of Darwinism are going to assert that you will be consigned for all eternity to Hell for not believing in the Theory of Evolution, so actually, their burden of proof is not so great as yours.
I’m not even hostile to the theory of evolution — but it does meet your definition of an extraordinary claim
No, I'm pretty sure that any disinterested third-party would agree that the particulars of Christ's life, as reported (in varying and in-part contradictory versions) in the New Testament are pretty outrageous, as well as in part non-sensical or just plain absurd ("Jesus curses a fig tree?") whereas the Theory of Evolution requires the acceptance of absolutely no premises, assertions, or argumentation not wholly in keeping with standard scientific method.
Regards,
Uhhh. Didn’t my next-door neighbor evolve from a single cell organism of some kind? Do you dispute that? Shouldn’t we be able to trace him from his current state -> back through time through a series of ancestors back to a single cell progenitor?
You are the one who started the whole thing by asking for satellite imagery of the resurrection. That’s absurd. You know when satellite imagery was invented.
As for the contradictions in the New Testament gospels, they are eyewitness accounts. I don’t think you can get 4 people who saw the same events over a 3 year time span to 100% agree. Which to me makes the idea of the Gospels even more trustworthy as they aren’t robotically identical.
I think the bigger question is — why are you so angry if Hell is imaginary?
Because if we believe in fairy tales (Hell being imaginary, and evidently Jesus is just a psycho) — you should just chill out. Because we’re not asking you to hurt yourself or others to put your trust in Christ.
But I think believing that there is no moral basis for anything we do, other than some vague “it’s good for society” is quite harmful — and has proven harmful wherever Objective Morality is removed from society — which is where Darwinism can lead.
I hope you find peace some day.
Corny.
I did not mean to imply that it was “extraodinary,” proof, only that there exists an adequate argument, and that Buddhists do not even make any claims to falsifiability. Buddhism is like a bowling ball with no finger holes. It may be beautiful, but no one can pick it up. Paul said that if Christ is not risen, then we [professed Christians] are, of all people, most miserable [as misled fools].
The evidence for the Resurrection is adequate except for those who simply don’t want to believe it. Indeed, the God inclines some to belief, others to unbelief. [Jn 6:44,65) There’s another politically incorrect sharp edge you won’t find outside Christianity.
Your original demand ("Show me a single-celled organism evolving into my next-door neighbor!") made it clear that you felt that the Theory of Evolution claimed that you should be able to SEE, on a time-scale of, e.g., a few days, weeks, or months, the process of macro-evolution (spanning entire Kingdoms and Phyla). But NO reputable proponent of the Theory of Evolution expects to see such drastic changes within even a single human lifetime.
You are the one who started the whole thing by asking for satellite imagery of the resurrection. That’s absurd. You know when satellite imagery was invented.
I didn't start talking "off topic," i.e., about the Theory of Evolution, you did. My mention of satellite imagery was only to illustrate what kind of evidence is currently viewed as acceptable, e.g., in a Court of Law.
My mentioning satellite imagery does not make it legitimate to introduce the "Straw Man" of the Theory of Evolution and then to attack it.
As for the contradictions in the New Testament gospels, they are eyewitness accounts.
Oh, really? You mean that Mary Magdalene and the "other Mary" (Matthew 28:1,9 and Mark 16:9 and John 20:11,14) and Cleopas (Luke 24:13-31) and Cephas (1 Corinthians 15:4-5) wrote those account themselves, or that at least their accounts were recorded in writing verbatim? In actual fact, all modern Biblical scholars pretty much agree that even the earliest Gospel was written many DECADES after the Crucifixion.
My point is that, absent any hard evidence which would stand up in a Court of Law, the prudent course of action is to DISCOUNT (i.e., place no faith in) the NT story of the Resurrection.
I don’t think you can get 4 people who saw the same events over a 3 year time span to 100% agree. Which to me makes the idea of the Gospels even more trustworthy as they aren’t robotically identical.
Are you saying that the inconsistent testimony of several biased (after all, they were friends and disciples of Jesus, and probably in a state of profound anguish, emotional shock, if not clinical depression), uneducated and illiterate (women in that day and milieu were overwhelmingly unable to read or write) witnesses about whom we know next to nothing is sufficient for you to accept the breach of fundamental Laws of Nature? Then why don't you accept Mormonism? After all, eleven mature, educated, literate, respected members of the community submitted signed affidavits attesting to the fact that they had seen and handled the "golden plates" for themselves. These were people who owned land, had permanent addresses, jobs - gosh, even surnames. So why don't you believe them?
I think the bigger question is — why are you so angry if Hell is imaginary?
Because I find it offensive when theists insult my intelligence by saying that theirs is a rational belief, and that I am either "hard-hearted," "willfully obstinate," or even "evil" for not embracing it, and that I will be punished in Hell for preferring, in the absence of convincing evidence, to withold judgment. (Which is all that I'm doing. I'm not saying that those things didn't actually happen - I'm merely saying that there is no rational, logical reason for believing that they did.)
Because if we believe in fairy tales (Hell being imaginary, and evidently Jesus is just a psycho) — you should just chill out. Because we’re not asking you to hurt yourself or others to put your trust in Christ.
Oh, yes, you are asking me to hurt myself. You (collectively) are asking me to abrogate my most precious possession - my faculty of reason - to embrace a belief system based upon, inter alia, the suspension of Natural Laws and commonsense.
But I think believing that there is no moral basis for anything we do, other than some vague “it’s good for society” is quite harmful — and has proven harmful wherever Objective Morality is removed from society — which is where Darwinism can lead.
To say that all those who reject theism have nothing but some vague "it's good for society" to fall back upon is a gross misstatement, and indicates that you haven't done much research on the issue. I suggest that you read up on the subject. Christopher Hitchens is a good place to start.
I hope you find peace some day.
I hope that you return to reason some day.
Regards,
Thank you for your non-hostile response!
I respect your saying that you regard the Biblical evidence as "adequate." So what you're saying is that Carl Sagan's famous quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is too strict a standard, and that you prefer the guideline "Extraordinary claims are satisfied by 'adequate' evidence," right?
Then shouldn't you also find the eleven sworn affidavits testifying to the actuality of the "golden plates" of Mormonism at least "adequate?" In fact, there are probably hundreds of different supernatural events, inexplicable occurrences, etc. (levitating swamis, angelic apparitions, cornfield symbols, mutilated livestock, alien abductions, and even alien seductions) which all happened in the last fifty years, for which much more evidence than the Bible provides could be submitted. Why don't you believe in them all?
I, for my part, consider it rational to accept (as "likely" - not as absolute "truth") eyewitness accounts and the like only if it pertains to normal, everyday occurrences - and even then, only if no better evidence is available.
In the case of clearly extraordinary claims ("I am a time-traveller from the future!", "I was abducted by gray-skinned aliens!", "He was born of a virgin!", "He walked on water!", "He cursed a fig tree, and it withered!") which may even contradict widely accepted physical laws, I feel that it is justified to demand harder proof - for example, results which can be independently verified by experts under laboratory conditions.
Do you disagree?
Regards,
LOL. You ask for something nonsensical like satellite imagery, then you get huffy at others. You have no leg to stand on, and indeed you have no basis for any morality — nor do you or Hitchens have any moral authority.
Christopher Hitchens (like you I’ll take a venture) really wants to convince himself that his life of sin is okay. Deep down I think we all know that it’s wrong.
BTW — unlike the Mormons, none of the Apostles recanted their faith in Christ and all but John died horrific deaths. But you know that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.