Thoughts on the Fiesta Bowl, a month and a half later

So during my lunch break I decided to rewatch the Fiesta Bowl on iTunes.  I don’t know if anyone cares about my thoughts on a game that happened quite a while ago, but here goes anyway.

1. Only about 10 minutes of it was somewhat enjoyable.  I think OSU had the ball for about 18 minutes, and not all of that time was very good.  But for those 10 minutes…man.
2. The announcers really talked about Andrew Luck a lot.  I know he’s talented, but it got over the top when the announcers said that the only thing he did wrong was calling heads or tails.  Then again, Stanford had the ball most of the game. 
3. At the risk of sounding cocky, once Stanford was held to a field goal in OT, the game was already won.  I fully believed we could score a TD from 25 yards out.
4. Most of the time, the end-around to Blackmon doesn’t work that well.  It worked great against Baylor in 2010, where he ran something like 70 yards for a touchdown, but most of the time since then I don’t believe that play has gained much yardage.
5. I really wish the pass to Colton Chelf would have been a touchdown to end the game.  It would have been a climactic finish, but instead I was sitting around hoping Squinky wouldn’t have the last laugh as the announcers state that only a “collapse” by Oklahoma State would give Stanford a chance.  At the same time, it was great that Sharp got the winning point.
6. Gundy made some great calls that makes him relatively worth his pay – the call in the 4th quarter to go for it on 4th down, and icing Stanford’s kicker. 

Posts about dads

Since Father’s Day is coming up, I thought I would provide links (most of them mine) to various things involving fatherhood and the like.

Deadbeats, Duds, and Doofusses – Dads as portrayed in the media (thanks to my brother in law “the evil conservative”).

A blog post I had about the same issue – portroyal of dads in TV and movies

An earlier post on how conservatives see government as a father figure, and liberals a mother figure.

A post about how our view of God is influenced by our earthly fathers.

Heaven is for Real

I finished reading the book Heaven is for Real, in which “A young boy emerges from life-saving surgery with remarkable stories of his visit to heaven.”

The first four or so chapters were somewhat stressful, as Todd Burpo, the father of the boy Colton, retells the story of them wondering what is going on with their boy suffering from stomach pains and vomiting, finding out his appendix burst days before, and sending him off to emergency surgery.  These chapters were especially heart-wrenching because my wife and I went through something similar, although not nearly as extreme.  Our son went through a period of vomiting, stomach pains, and low blood count.  After a couple visits to the ER and visits to several specialists, we discovered our son had Meckel’s diverticulum, and it was easily remedied with surgery (although surgery is always scary for a little one, but God helped us in the peace area).  The condition was not nearly as serious as Colton’s, where it took a miracle to save him, but I feel that I can at least identify with the situation of taking your young son to the ER, not knowing what is going on with him.

It isn’t until a few months later when Colton speaks about things he saw and did in heaven matter-of-factly, speaking of his conversations with Jesus, sitting in the throne room of God, meeting his deceased grandfather, and meeting his older sister who was miscarried.

Although I’ve always been pro-life, I’ve never been completely sure that a soul was present in the womb at the time of conception (but I’ve been pro-life nevertheless because I believe it is wrong to kill a human and the benefit of the doubt should be in favor of life).  So, if this story is indeed genuine, it is very interesting to note that a baby carried for two months does have a soul, not that it would make any difference to pro-choicers, religious or not.

There were a few other interesting revelations. Jesus has a purple sash around his white robe and Gabriel sits at the left hand of God. There are also animals present, although the book doesn’t say if they used to be on earth. The most notable feature of God to Colton was not his power but his love for us. Also, as often believed, Jesus still carries the scars on his hands and feet.

So, the main question that has to be addressed is whether or not this story is for real.  I tend to believe it is for a few reasons.  Mostly, it corresponds with the Bible.  I don’t see anything in the story that contradicts what the Bible says.  Each one of Colton’s visions is quickly followed in the book by a passage of scripture that coincides with the vision.  Granted, that is not a sufficient condition but a necessary condition. Nevertheless, it seems that so many so-called “visions” and such have some message that adds onto or contradicts the Bible at some turn.  The messenger typically gets greedy and adds something to the message that works in their favor.  Also, it seems that the story is designed to give glory to God.  Again, every vision is followed by a Bible passage.  The whole manner of writing is designed to glorify God.

Also, I’m moved by what the father says in one of the last chapters.  He again recounts the terrible days in the ER and the pain his family went through.  He claims that, despite Colton’s experience, he still would have not chosen to go through with it.  So, it does not sound like some story he would make up at the expense of his child.

So, overall, a very fascinating read.  It’s nice to get some images of heaven and Jesus, when I feel that Christians sometimes don’t focus very much on heaven and more on the here and now. It made heaven seem a little more real to me.

Should I do something more meaningful with my life?

Last year, in President Obama’s speech to the public schools, he said the following

Of course, each of you has the right to take your diploma and seek the quickest path to the biggest paycheck or the highest title possible. But remember: You can choose to broaden your concerns to include your fellow citizens and country instead. By tying your ambitions to America’s, you’ll hitch your wagon to a cause larger than yourself. You can choose a career in public service or the nonprofit sector, or teach in an underserved school. If you have medical training, you can work in an understaffed clinic. Love science? You can discover new sources of clean energy or launch a business that makes the most efficient and affordable solar panels or wind turbines.

Now, the gist of his message has a ring of truth to it.  We shouldn’t set out to become as rich or successful as possible; we should have ambitions higher than ourselves.

While I don’t want to read too much into this message, I fear at the core of his message is the idea that I have experienced in my own life, specifically, that unless we have a job that is specifically designated to solve the world’s problems, that we are not contributing to mankind.

When I was a young child, I wanted to be a preacher.  As I got older this dream eventually faded.  During my second year in college, I wanted to be an engineer of some sort.  This realization brought on two specific crises of conscious.  The first one was more of a spiritual nature.  How could I contribute to the kingdom of God working as an engineer.  As I talked to my dorm RA, who incidentally aspired to and now is a preacher, he assured me that I could still serve and glorify God even as an engineer as I interact with others.  He assured me that I could reach some people in some ways he, as a preacher, could not.

The second crisis was more of a secular nature.  I thought I wanted to be an engineer, but I had also considered being a math professor.   I had a university professor (who bragged that he never received a paycheck from anyone other than a state government) who thought I should really go toward the latter, as it seemed more noble. Part of me agreed with him.  After all, being a math teacher of some sort seemed to put me in a position to make more of a difference in people’s lives, even if it was discussing power series or separation of variables.  Ultimately, however, it didn’t seem to be the right path.  There was a bigger part of me that craved problem solving, that wanted to go out into industry and simply work (not that math professors don’t solve problems, I just wanted a different type of environment).

So, ultimately, I followed my passion.  I wasn’t going to be a preacher or serve in a position that supposedly bettered mankind, but I felt like I had to go with my heart.  But maybe that’s okay.  Jonathan Acuff of the funny and thought-provoking site Stuff Christians Like touches on this.

When I sometimes imagine “doing the work of the Lord,” I imagine sweat and tears and hard work and being obedient and disciplined and self controlled. Turns out, in my head, I serve a God who makes me build benches.
But what if I’m wrong?
What if you’re wrong?
What if we’ve all been wrong?
What if God doesn’t want more benches?
What if God wants you to build signs for Disc Golf because he knows you love that game?
What if God wants you to write books because he knows you love that?
What if God wants to unearth all those things you’ve hidden because you thought you weren’t talented enough? What if he wants you to roll around in the joys you thought were too silly or stupid or not spiritual enough?

For me, my passion is problem solving. I love sitting at a desk 8ish to 5ish banging around on a computer.  My job may not have an immediate impact on mankind, but it allows me to feed my family, and that’s good enough for me.

The fallacy is believing that we must have a certain job title in order to serve God or “better mankind”, that if we do have a job as an engineer or a broker on Wall Street, that is inherently inferior to serving in the peace corp or working in a non-profit, or if we are not on paid staff at a church, what we do has no eternal impact.   The people who do such jobs are to be commended, but not everyone has the ability or passion for those things.  The truth is, no matter what job we have, we should serve God in that, such as the quality of work that I perform and my interactions with others.   So the question I must ask myself is, am I doing that?

Being part of the family

Today at church we had baptisms.   It was a different baptism service than usual.  Our worship pastor talked about the concept of being part of a family.  When we are baptized we identify with Christ.  In addition, we also identify with a body of believers, which is the church.  When each person was baptized, we responded by saying “Welcome to Our Family.”  I thought it was a very cool idea. Simply put, we are family.

Contrast this to the news about a famous author who has claimed Christianity as her religion some time ago but recently announced that she is no longer a Christian.  Fortunately, she still believes in Christ and the Bible as the Word of God.  On one hand, I can understand where she is coming from.  She has seen what other “Christians” have done supposedly in the name of Christ and what the church as an establishment has done.  I can see where she’s coming from; she wants to distance herself from those who are actually harming the gospel of Christ.

I suppose every conservative Christian aware of this story has some response, and I suppose I’ll be added to the list.  But there are a couple of reasons this bothers me.  For one, she’s choosing the worst of the bunch as an example of what a modern day Christian is.   Brant Hansen, Christian radio personality put it succinctly when he said

It’s interesting that she allows — based on earlier posts — Westboro Baptist and a “punk rock ministry” that beats up people who are homosexual to define “Christian” for her. In reality, …a “Christian”, in 2010, demographically, is a poor woman in Africa, not Fred Phelps.

I don’t think it bothers me so much that she thinks “us” as a group of Christians are like this, but that she is missing out on a community of other Christians in the true sense, just because of some bad apples.

What bothered me the most, however, was that I believe this attitude is opposite of what we are supposed to have in a Christian family.  If there is anything that is not always pretty, it is family.  Family may include a lot of messed up people with various problems.  They may not always make the right choices or live the right kind of life, but you accept them and you still love them because they are family.  Ideally, the Christian family works in a similar manner.  We are a messed up bunch but we live this Christian walk together.  For some reason, however, some Christians are great at giving non-believers grace but we don’t do the same for people in our own family.

Don’t get me wrong; this doesn’t mean we should support wackos like Fred Phelps or be okay with abuses that have happened in many Catholic churches (note the plural use).  We should do what we can to disassociate from these groups and things as much as possible.  But we shouldn’t forsake the whole community of believers because of some fringe elements.

For this person, I rejoice that she is holding on to Christ, which is the element of Christianity.  But I think another vital part of Christianity is being part of a community, and if you forsake that, you are missing out on quite a bit.

Thoughts on retirement

The prevailing attitude in the work world today is to count down the days to retirement when one can live a life of leisure and play golf every day. Here’s the thing though; I actually like working, and I think I would get bored if I didn’t work.

Also, I think the whole method of saving up all my income for the last 20 or 30 years of my life just sounds very stressful. I would rather live most of my life striking a balance between stress and boredom, rather than going through a period of stress followed by a period of boredom.

I don’t know if I will necessarily work full-time until I’m eighty, but I think I will work in some capacity as long as I am able. I still plan to save up for retirement, for one, I get free money through my company matching some of my 401K contributions, and, I want to save up in the event that me being unable to work comes sooner rather than later.

I’m not saying everyone has to do what I do, but I do think it is good that people stay active one way or the other, whether it be work of some sort, home projects, volunteer work, etc. I think the main purpose is avoiding idleness.

Note: I do realize I have a cushy job compared to some people, so I don’t blame people for looking forward to retirement. I think the last paragraph addresses those issues however.

Why a playoff system is the most fair

One of my cousins and facebook friends posed a question that was essentially “For those favoring a college football playoff system, do you believe that the best team wins the NCAA basketball tournament.”

My answer was “No, not necessarily.  But it gives every team a chance to win.”

His response was that it would diminish the value of the regular season.

Now, to some degree, he may be correct.  The great thing about college football is that every game does matter.

For most teams.  But not Boise State, Auburn, Utah, or Penn State (if you count before the BCS).  For some teams, winning every single game doesn’t matter when it comes to the national championship.

The one objection I think I will always have to the current college football system is that you can do all the right things and not get your shot.  There have been seasons with multiple undefeated teams, and there have been seasons with an undefeated team who gets left out.  The determination of who plays is based on a lot of subjectivity.

However, the importance of regular season games for most teams is still a concern.  While I believe the primary goal of a sports league should be to determine a champion in a fair way – and not necessarily having the most significant regular season games – it is still a worthy issue to raise.

I don’t see having a playoff system and a significant regular season as mutually exclusive, although it is a balance.  The easier it is for a team to get into the playoffs, the less significant the regular season.   Major League Baseball has about 160 games, but only 8 teams get in.  I hate the idea of expanding the NCAA basketball tournament to 96 teams, because right now the 7th and 8th best teams out of 12 conference teams get in with 65.  What does that say of the talent with a 96 team pool?

So, to keep the regular season games as significant as possible, a college football system should have the conference champions of all 11 college football conferences.  No wild card teams.  By having only the conference champions, there is no debate about wild card teams.  Berry Tramel of the Oklahoman had this idea of 11 teams (among others I’m sure), and I blogged about it before.

Will every regular season game be as significant with this new system?  Honestly, the answer is no.  Late season games for teams who already have their division or conference wrapped up will have less meaning.  Texas would have not had their national title hopes dependent on playing A&M last season.  However, that is a change I’m okay with, because it means other teams will have national title hopes to begin with.

The First Amendment talks very little about what people can do, it mostly addresses what government CANNOT do.  So the whole argument about the rights of people vs. the rights of corporations is really pointless when it comes to such cases as Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission.

Where is this loving all-powerful force?

I haven’t been posting very much lately; I haven’t felt particularly inspired.  I would say this will be my last post in a while, but it seems that every time I say that all of a sudden I get inspired to start writing again, and I look silly.

Basically, people have philosophical and empirical arguments why they believe the way they do politically.  When it all comes down to it, people are going to believe the way they do based on their perception of the world.

My beliefs started to take on a more libertarian nature as I was finishing up school and getting into the world of work.  The idea of limited government was something I learned as a young child and tended to forget all those ideas over the course of time, but they stuck with me.  This included the idea that the fewer rules you have, the better off things are.  I believe this with football and I believe it with society as a whole.  I’ve always believed that man is inherently sinful, and because of this, I have a distrust of human nature.  Humans in power are always scarier than humans left alone.

At the center of our debate in American society is whether or not we can trust government to make decisions for us, whether people believe it or not.  Part of the problem is people don’t realize that they are giving the government more power when they actually are.  The same people who say giving the government more financial responsibility over a matter does not mean it has more control, these are the same people who insist the government does have a right to control something once it has invested in the matter.

At the end of the day, all we know is based on how we perceive the world.  We can have profound philosophical arguments and provide empirical evidence backing up this view or that view.  All I know is that, in my limited experience, bureaucracy is an ugly thing.  Sometimes bureaucracy is necessary, but I believe a bureaucrat has way more power over my life than a CEO.  A CEO of Pepsi or Time Warner or Exxon can never tell me I don’t have the necessary documentation to get a drivers license or threaten to throw me in jail for making a mistake on my taxes when it really wasn’t my mistake.   I never have to take a day off work to stand in line and buy groceries.

Of course, we do need some government in our lives, so the debate is where and how much.  I do know this though; in my experience I have never known of a problem to get better as government gets more involved.  I’ve never known of government agencies to get more efficient or streamlined over time.

When it comes to government, I feel much like the atheist.  Like the supposed “free thinking” scientists who look for a shred of visible evidence that a benevolent all powerful being exists, I do much the same in search of this omni-capable benevolent force that people trust in so much.  “Where is the evidence that such a loving and all-powerful being exists” I ask.  I keep searching for a shred of evidence, and I just don’t see it.

I’m ready for the bad guy to die already

I am a fan of the conventional TV show. I like my shows resolved within 30 minutes to an hour.
Lost is the exception to this rule, in which it is a continuous story from the first to the last episode (or serial drama). But even so, watching this show takes an extreme amount of patience. I keep waiting for the bad guys to get theirs, in particular Benjamin Linus.  At least with the procedural shows (i.e. the 3 CSI shows or the 12 Law & Order shows) the bad guys usually get caught within an hour.  Fortunately, after this season there is only one more left.  Six (or seven, I lose track) seasons is a long time to wait for justice.