Eli and the Beanstalk

I'm a sports fan and a writer. I sit at home or at work after a big game and want a recap of the action on the Internet right after the game. Trying to do something like that gives me a whole new respect for journalists who have to put out a meaningful, accurate article immediately after an event.

The Super Bowl is over. Eli Manning and the Giants beat Tom Brady and the Patriots...again. I have to say that this is one of the best Super Bowls I've watched in years - the game was literally a nail-biter. Eli Manning, the Giants quarterback scored a nice trophy and an even nicer looking centennial edition Corvette convertible as the MVP.

New England led for most of the second half after taking the lead 10-9 at the end of the first half on a Tom Brady touchdown pass to Aaron Hernandez (which was cool, because Hernandez played his college ball at Florida).

But the Giants hung in there and played their hearts out. With 3:45 left and 88 yards to go for a touchdown, the Giants got the ball back, needing at least a field goal to take the lead. On the first play of the drive, Manningham made a stupendous catch down the sideline as Manning dropped a beautiful ball in over his shoulder for a 38 yard gain. Honestly? I think that was the play of the game.

Building off of that, the Giants completed two more passes – one each to Manningham and Nicks to get inside the Patriots 30 yard line.

With 1^st and goal at the Patriots 7, New England called time-out with a minute and twenty-four seconds left. Trying to run out the clock, Manning handed off to Bradshaw, who had a hole big enough to drive a (Chevy) truck through and was so surprised, he couldn't kneel before he crossed the goal line – thus running out the clock. As a result, the Patriots got the ball back with 57 seconds left and the Giants leading 21-17; to win the game was simple - New England needed a touchdown.

It didn't happen.

I think we'll see more of the Patriots in the future but for now, the Giants and Eli Manning, who won this Super Bowl in what is called the House That Peyton Built (in reference to Eli's brother Peyton and the stellar career he's had at the Indianapolis Colts and their home: Lucas Oil Stadium), are champions.

Of course, it wouldn't be the Super Bowl without the commercials.

I know I missed a few of them, but I counted roughly eighty (80) commercials. A thirty-second slot on this year's Super Bowl cost in the neighborhood of $3.5 million. If I'm doing the math right, that's a whopping $280 million in commercial revenue alone. But enough about that, let's get to the ads.

My votes for the top three 2012 Super Bowl commercials:

1. Matthew Broderick's Day Off: A clever play off of Broderick's iconic role in the 1986 film Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Matthew (and the viewer) would really rather call in sick and drive their Honda CRV.



2. Doritos - There were a couple of very good commercials from Doritos - the snack my doctor says I can't eat anymore (high sodium, don't you know). But I picked this one because, well, I'm a dog person.



3. With over eighty commercials to choose from, it's hard to pick just three but the one that really stood out for the number three spot was an ad that Chevrolet called, "Joy." Basically, the owner of a new Chevy Sonic is going for a drive and the local insect population wants to go for a (joy) ride, too. this one got me, ahem, right in the thorax...


Of course, there were a lot of terrible commercials, too. And a lot of commercials that were good, but would never get me to buy their products...if I could figure out what they were selling. With my top three picks, it's crystal clear what each company is selling; the ads are very creative and well produced. And of course, they're all funny...at least to me.

But that's the beauty of this thing we call Super Bowl commercials: everyone has their own opinions. I'd love to hear yours!

What do you think?

X

I'll try the veal

"What would you like this evening, sir?" the waiter inquired ingratiatingly.

After perusing the menu for several minutes, I still didn't have a clear idea of what I most felt like eating for dinner. He was standing there, looking at me; pen poised expectantly over his order pad. I may have begun to perspire under the pressure. An image of a cartoon ogre popped into my head, "I'll try the veal," I blurted.

                                          I'm here all week...

Last week in my blog No Apologies, I briefly tackled the subject of apologetics. In my readings since then, I seem to keep coming across interesting concepts, either in articles, blog entries or just in my own head, that center on the subject.

The more I read and think about this, the more it seems that for most folks, Christianity is like veal: just another choice. In other words, being a Christian has less to do with truth or at least any real commitment to God - than it does with just being a personal choice like what to wear today or what to have for lunch.

Any real discussion on religion that includes Christianity is, frankly, in error.

"WHAT?!?!" you exclaim. "Christianity is the largest religion in the world!"

Nonsense.

Despite what you might read on www.adherents.com, or what you might learn on Wikipedia, Christianity in it's true form is not a religion, per se. I would hazard that most people when asked what the term religion means would answer something like, "It's the practice of religious beliefs," or "something to do with the ritual observances of faith."

Buddhism is listed as a religion, yet in Buddhism there is no god. Wikipedia - referencing www.adherents.com estimates that the non-religious/agnostic/atheism crowd numbers 1.1 billion, making it the third largest religion in the world. Then in the footnotes, they confusingly state: Nonreligious includes agnostic, atheist, secular humanist, and people answering 'none' or no religious preference. Half of this group is theistic but nonreligious.

Huh?

                               Where's your Buddha now, Beni?

I look at religion as the unnecessary but comfortable trappings of belief. Once we choose to believe in something, we need little things to affirm that we made the right choice when the going gets tough. The Jesus on your dashboard, listening to Let it Be and being reminded of Jesus' mom, the cross, Star of David, or other symbols worn around the neck, hanging on the wall, or smiling at us from your bumper.

                                     Can't we just all get along?

The Coexist folks believe - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - that if we'd quit trying to force our religion on each other, the world would be a better place. I see it as a cop out. It's like going to a restaurant and ordering a glass of water. Not making a choice is still a choice. Even worse, making a choice because it feels the best - seemed like a good idea at the time - allows you to recant at a moments notice. Kind of the modern, real-life equivalent of Beni when faced with the danger that the mummy was going to eat him.

So what on earth does this have to do with apologetics?

Today I was thinking about this while posting a comment on this blog. The gist of the blog was sort of an academic structuring of apologetics and suggestions about which particular aspect would have a greater impact on bringing non-believers or seekers around to our way of believing. I found the comments section to be a more spirited read than the actual blog post - something I occasionally look for here on The Stream.

After reading the blog and many of the opinions, I posted my own - I couldn't help myself. But in reading, and rereading, my response, I discovered that the opening of my response was the most important - not that the balance wasn't good stuff - but the rest of what I wrote was merely in support of those earlier three sentences:

I didn't accept Christ in my life because someone convinced me that Christianity was the best option. Although I can point to people in my life who influenced me to start considering Christ, and eventually, to start talking with God; I am a Christian today because of a singular event in my life when I clearly heard God calling me to Him - and answering that call.

Like apologetics, the rest is just additive. When I go to a restaurant and select veal, or fish, or whatever, it's because that's what I feel like at the moment. I did not choose Christianity to be my religion. I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

In the end, what most folks call religion is not something (in my humble opinion) that can be changed like socks. And, I suppose, that's where apologetics comes in. Followers of Christ believe that He is the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to God (the Father) except through Him. Because of that, we do feel compelled to share our faith and beliefs with others. It's not that we're trying to disrespect what other's believe. Seriously. We believe that God has given humankind a gift - the ability to have a personal, loving and individual relationship with Him.

If you get a cool car or a nice bracelet or tickets to the Superbowl as a gift, you will share that fact with others, right? You'll give others a ride in your car and ask, "It's nice, isn't it?"

You might lend your bracelet to a friend so they can enjoy it too. You might even invite your friend to the Superbowl if you have an extra ticket.

It's like that with Jesus. Only infinitely better.

What do you think?

X