Harrington: No sympathy for Tiger…

Am I alone in being somewhat surprised at Padraig Harrington’s judgemental statement on Tiger Woods’s dilemma? Mr Harrington made it clear he had “no sympathy” for Tiger Woods. Speaking on RTE’s Late Late Show (30 mins in) he said Woods had chosen a ‘path’ clearly of which he is not approving.

He did qualify his position in drawing attention to the fact that the allegations against Mr. Woods had not resulted in the death of anyone. It is arguable that Harrington is just refreshingly honest. I wonder what Jesus would say?

  • Turgon

    Eammon,
    I am totally disinterested by golf but if you mean the final comment about what Jesus would say that is very easy:

    John 8: 3-11.

    “And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

    So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

    And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

    When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

    She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”

    Pretty clearly then Jesus opposed sin; hence the comment “Go and sin no more.” However, he also seemed to forgive those who sought repentance. I think people are entitled to say that adultery is wrong but really the sin is against God and the non adulterous partner. As such it is for God to forgive and if the sinned against partner can forgive for him / her to do so as well. However, whilst God can and does instantly forgive sin it is more difficult for the sinned against partner as s/he does not know whether the person repenting is sincere (unlike God who knows everything).

    As two asides it is worth noting that the church in general is very good at condemning sexual sin but is less obsessed with condemning other sins like greed, the love of money and such like which are to my mind even more rife in our society than sexual sin.

    The other aside is that in the bible account of our Lord’s genealogy Matthew 1 four women are mentioned. It is very rare in Hebrew genealogies of the time to mention women. The four women mentioned (three by name) are: Tamar who pretended to be a prostitute to get pregnant by her father in law who would not give her his second son as a husband as he should have; Rachab, a prostitute and foreigner; Ruth, a foreigner and Bathsheba (not named) who had committed adultery with David.

    Hence, our Lord did not refuse to be born into a line which included those guilty of sexual sin. Indeed fundamentalist Christians, believing the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, believe that Matthew was told to include these specific women.

    Sorry but you did ask.

  • Scaramoosh

    “I wonder what Jesus would say”

    Where’s John ..doesn’t he have a direct line?

  • RepublicanStones

    “I wonder what Jesus would say”

    Where’s John ..doesn’t he have a direct line?

    I doubt jesus would be making much sense if John got him on the blower, sure hes not born till next week !

  • “he also seemed to forgive those who sought repentance.”

    Turgon – did I miss the girl’s guilty plea in that paragraph? Seems to me he forgave her without her seeking it.

  • Turgon

    Mark,
    Since Jesus was is and always will be God, He will clearly have known her opinion. Jesus called people to repentance on a regular basis As I suggested, however, I do not regard sexual sins as of particularly greater moral relevance than other sins. It seems that that position has at least some biblical backing.

  • Drumlins Rock

    Turgon,

    why did Jesus write on the ground?

    my view is it was to distract the crowd make them look down at the ground to give the woman a chance to regain some dignity, far too many focus on the “sin no more” and miss the whole point of
    Christs mercy and compassion, maybe the same should be shown to Tiger and instead of snide judgements a simple “ok you messed up, can i help you get things back on track both”.

    Sometimes I do wonder how so many Chrisitans miss the half of Chirsts teachings.

  • Frustrated Democrat

    Turgon this could also apply…

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10

    9 Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers , nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

    …as you know there is always an opposite view in the bible. Mind you politicians look a bit dodgy as well when you look at the list. As an atheist I look on with a certain detached amusement.

  • Turgon

    DR,
    I have heard many views on why Jesus wrote on the ground. Yours is a good suggestion. Another I have heard is that he was showing disinterest and contempt for the crowd in their baying for this unfortunate woman’s blood.

    It is worth noting that despite this woman having been taken in the very act of adultery the crowd only wanted to stone her. The other partner seems conspicuous by their absence from being stoned.

    FD,
    I agree but I would suggest that that passage demonstrates that one needs to repent of sin as in my view this woman clearly had. Jesus clearly did not want this woman stoned. I am not an expert but it is suggested that even in ancient Jewish times stoning for adultery was actually extremely rare. Certainly despite a number of mentions of adultery in the Old Testament I can think of no episode of stoning for it.

  • Fabianus

    Eamonn,

    “I wonder what Jesus would say.”

    I spoke to my friend Jesús on the phone today. At the mention of Tiger Woods he said, “Que huevos!”

    Not sure if he was expressing his admiration for the chap (he’s a macho little lad) or making a Latin wordplay on Tiger’s golf balls, but I hope it helps you out.

  • Clanky

    Jesus is as irrelevant as golf.

  • Fabianus

    Clanky,

    Please, keep Lebanon out of this. They have enough problems to be getting on with 🙁