NFL Preview for 2015

Team	Overall Record	Power Ranking	1st Selection of Games	2nd Selection of Games	Relative Recaps
Dolphins	11-5	8	6-0	5-5	Dolphins' defense dominates.
Patriots	11-5	3	7-1	4-4	Patriots pulverize first half of opposition.
Jets	7-9	22	2-5	5-4	Jets jumbled but finally lack jargon.
Bills	7-9	21	5-3	2-6	Bills belittle most important position.
Bengals	9-7	11	3-4	6-3	Bengals all business in second half.
Steelers	8-8	16	6-4	2-4	Steelers stumble at finish.
Browns	7-9	24	4-4	3-5	Browns bilk opportunity to win division.
Ravens	7-9	19	5-4	2-5	Ravens remain restless.
Texans	9-7	14	6-2	3-5	Texans topple Colts' tradition.
Colts	9-7	10	5-5	4-2	Colts' progress slows among consternation
Titans	5-11	29	2-7	3-4	Titans trip in finishing games.
Jaguars	3-13	32	1-8	2-5	Jaguars lack creativity and remain a joke.
Chargers	11-5	9	5-3	6-2	Chargers passing game is in its own class.
Broncos	10-6	5	4-3	6-3	Broncos bitter about blasé finish.
Chiefs	7-9	18	4-4	3-5	Chiefs comply to complacency.
Raiders	4-12	31	1-6	3-6	Raiders reflect on ridicule.
Team	Overall Record	Power Ranking	1st Selection of Games	2nd Selection of Games	Relative Recaps
Eagles	10-6	2	6-1	4-5	Eagles execute exclusive offense.
Cowboys	8-8	12	6-3	2-5	Cowboys carelessly cast aside division.
Giants	8-8	23	4-5	4-3	Giants grow but do not graduate.
Washington	6-10	26	2-7	4-3	Washington weary of waste.
Packers	10-6	4	6-2	4-4	Packers positive despite plight.
Vikings	9-7	13	2-5	7-2	Vikings voracious in second half.
Lions	8-8	15	4-3	4-5	Lions languish in leisure.
Bears	6-10	25	3-4	3-6	Bears begin building.
Falcons	11-5	6	7-2	4-3	Falcons flash in first half.
Saints	8-8	17	3-5	5-3	Saints simulate good offense despite parts.
Buccaneers	5-11	30	2-6	3-5	Buccaneers bewildered by bluster.
Panthers	5-11	28	1-6	4-5	Panthers prepare to be petulant.
Rams	11-5	7	4-2	7-3	Rams revert to roaring 1999.
Seahawks	11-5	1	5-4	6-1	Seahawks sizzle yet still skid.
49ers	9-7	20	6-3	3-4	49ers flamboyant in floundering.
Cardinals	5-11	27	3-4	2-7	Cardinals contemplate culture.

NFL

Some of the word content is lacking in my NFL preview for 2015 due to a lack of information/research and time constraints, but I did continue to produce an abundance of numbers for my NFL preview.  In the capsules for each team a grade of "C" does not necessarily mean an average team, it only relates to whether or not I think the team stayed roughly the same as compared to last season in regards to personnel.  Some of the additions may be off, due to finishing that part of the process a few weeks ago.

AFC

East

I expect the Dolphins to improve defensively and continue their offensive growth to capture the AFC East.  The Patriots will continue to beat the opposition, regardless of turnovers.  Finally, the Jets and Bills will both struggle due to lacking a decent player at the most important position in football.  Overall the AFC East is tied for the best division in the NFL.

Miami Dolphins

Additions: Jordan Cameron, Ndamukong Suh, C.J. Mosley

Losses: Daniel Thomas, Charles Clay, Mike Wallace, Corland Finnegan

Offseason Grade: B

New England Patriots

Additions: Matt Flynn, Kevin Dorsey, Scott Chandler, Robert McClain, Bradley Fletcher

Losses: Shane Vereen, Stevan Ridley, Darrelle Revis, Vince Wilfork

C-

New York Jets

Additions: Stevan Ridley, Kellen Davis, Joe Mays, Darrelle Revis, Antonio Cromartie, Brandon Marshall, Ryan Fitzpatrick, DeVier Posey, Zac Stacy, Todd Bowles HC, Chan Gailey OC

Losses: Kyle Wilson, Percy Harvin, Rex Ryan HC

B+

Buffalo Bills

Additions: Tyrod Taylor, Percy Harvin, Richie Incognito, LeSean McCoy, Rex Ryan HC

Losses: C.J. Spiller, Kiko Alonso

B-

North

I expect a fair level of consistency from each team in the AFC North.  No division winner would surprise me, but I would expect that the Bengals are the most likely division winners, while the remaining three teams are all quite competitive and have an opportunity to make the playoffs if they take advantage of the chances they are given.  I think of the AFC North as an above average division, yet somehow the teams ended up with an overall average below .500.

Cincinnati Bengals

Additions: Denarius Moore, A.J. Hawk

Losses: Taylor Mays, Terence Newman

C

Pittsburgh Steelers

Additions: Tajh Boyd, Devin Gardner

Losses: Lance Moore, Troy Polamalu, Ike Taylor

C

Cleveland Browns

Additions: Josh McCown, Terrelle Pryor, Dwayne Bowe

Losses: Brian Hoyer, Miles Austin, Jordan Cameron

C-

Baltimore Ravens

Additions: Matt Schaub, Kendrick Lewis, Marc Trestman OC

Losses: Tyrod Tayor, Owen Daniels, Torrey Smith, Haloti Ngata, Benard Pierce, Gary Kubiak OC

D+

South

I expect Hoyer and the Texans to pull out a few close games, the Colts to finally lose some of their close games, and the Titans and Jaguars to be mired in complacency. I actually would put the Colts as the favorite to win the division, but I wanted to change up the Indianapolis dynasty that has occurred in this division over the years.  I fail to understand why some teams fail to experiment at quarterback, the Jaguars could easily take a look at Tim Tebow, a quarterback in the CFL, Colt McCoy, etc., yet instead they decide to remain with 'projects' at quarterback who do not typically help them to win games. If the situation is awful, then think outside the box, think outside the conventional wisdom...  While the Colts and Texans are both semi-decent teams, the Titans and Jaguars drag this division down to the level of worst in the NFL.

Houston Texans

Additions: Brian Hoyer, Cecil Shorts, Nate Washington, Vince Wilfork, Rahim Moore

Losses: Kendrick Lewis, Ryan Fitzpatrick, DeVier Posey, Andre Johnson, D.J. Swearinger

C-

Indianapolis Colts

Additions: Frank Gore, Andre Johnson, Trent Cole

Losses: Hakeem Nicks, Josh Gordy, Trent Richardson, LaRon Landry

C+

Tennessee Titans

Additions: Hakeem Nicks, Harry Douglas, Anthony Fasano, Perrish Cox

Losses: Nate Washington, Kris Durham, Brandon Ghee, Jake Locker, Lache Seastrunk, Michael Oher

C+

Jacksonville Jaguars

Additions: Benard Pierce, Julius Thomas, Sergio Brown

Losses: Cecil Shorts, Alan Ball

B-

West

I have a high opinion of Mike McCoy, consequently I gave the Chargers both wins over the Broncos and the resulting division crown.  Peyton Manning is 39 years old, so it could be expected that it is only a matter of time until his play deteriorates, to a certain level anyways.  Replacing an average coach with a poor coach is always a great idea, so good luck to the Broncos on that decision.  I probably underrated the Chiefs, but when I W & L'd the schedule the wins failed to appear for them.  I have a slightly above average view of this division, but the overall record for it is simply .500.

San Diego Chargers

Additions: Stevie Johnson, Austin Pettis, Jacoby Jones, Patrick Robinson

Losses: Ryan Matthews, Edie Royal, Reggie Walker

C+

Denver Broncos

Additions: Owen Daniels, Antonio Smith, Gary Kubiak HC (Why?)

Losses: Julius Thomas, Jacob Tamme, Orlando Franklin, John Fox HC

D+

Kansas City Chiefs

Additions: Jeremy Maclin, Tyvon Branch

Losses: Chris Owens, Kurt Coleman, Dwayne Bowe, Anthony Fasano

B-

Oakland Raiders

Additions: Roy Helu, Trent Richardson, Michael Crabtree, Rodney Hudson, Malcolm Smith, Curtis Lofton, Jack Del Rio HC, Bill Musgrave OC (Great hire)

Losses: Darren McFadden, Vincent Brown, Pat Sims, Antonio Smith, LaMarr Woodley, Matt Schaub, Dennis Allen/Tony Sparano HC

B-

NFC

East

I was disappointed that Tim Tebow did not work out in Philadelphia, but the Eagles will be fine without him.  I expect the Cowboys to take a bit of a step back and to potentially lose the turnover battle this year.  I think the Giants are supposed to be Super Bowl bound this year, according to the timeline Coach Coughlin has followed anyways, but I rather doubt it will happen..  Washington has the potential to at least be a .500 team, but turnovers from their quartabcks will likely heavily impact their season's win-loss record.

Philadelphia Eagles

Additions: TIM TEBOW, DeMarco Murray, Miles Austin, Brad Jones, Sam Bradford, Kiko Alonso

Losses: Chris Polk, Jeremy Maclin, Bradley Fletcher, Nick Foles, LeSean McCoy, Trent Cole

B-

Dallas Cowboys

Additions: Darren McFadden, Lache Seastrunk

Losses: DeMarco Murray, Bruce Carter, Sterling Moore

C-

New York Giants

Additions: Shane Vereen, Dwayne Harris, Marshall Newhouse, Josh Gordy

Losses: Zack Bowman, Antrel Rolle, Peyton Hillis, Mathias Kiwanuka

C

Washington Redskins

Additions: Chris Culliver, Jeron Johnson, Joe Berry DC

Losses: Roy Helu, Jarvis Jenkins, Tracy Porter

C+

North

Despite the loss of Jordy Nelson, I still see the Packers being the class of the AFC North.  The Vikings should take a small step forward this year with AP and Bridgewater.  The Lions suffered a somewhat miserable offseason, so that combined with regression from last year means they should fall a bit. The Bears are a confusing team to me.. Overall, I see them being somewhat consistent, as compared to last season.

Green Bay Packers

Additions:

Losses: Matt Flynn, Jarrett Boykin, Tramon Williams, A.J. Hawk, Kevin Dorsey

D+

Minnesota Vikings

Additions: Mike Kafka, Terence Newman, Mike Wallace

Losses: Jasper Brinkley, Greg Jennings

C+

Detroit Lions

Additions: Garrett Gilbert, Lance Moore, Greg Salas, Taylor Mays, Haloti Ngata

Losses: Kellen Davis, Ndamukong Suh, Nick Fairley, C.J. Mosley, Reggie Bush

D

Chicago Bears

Additions: Jacquizz Rodgers, Eddie Royal, Tracy Porter, John Fox HC

Losses: Josh Morgan, Brandon Marshall, Marc Trestman HC

D+

South

Many signs point to the Falcons improving this season, some of the main ones being the hiring of Coach Dan Quinn, regression from last season, and the signing of Jacob Tamme.  The Saints lack playmakers, otherwise they would compete for a wildcard spot.  The Buccaneers had a bit of a gutting to their roster in the offseason, but more importantly they still need to find a solution at quarterback.  Finally, the Panthers also need to acquire some sort of decent offensive playmakers.

Atlanta Falcons

Additions: Jacob Tamme, Adrian Clayborn, Justin Durant, Dan Quinn HC (Good)

Losses: Steven Jackson, Jacquizz Rodgers

B-

New Orleans Saints

Additions: C.J. Spiller, Josh Morgan, Brandon Browner

Losses: Patrick Robinson, Jimmy Graham, Kenny Stills, Pierre Thomas, Curtis Lofton

C-

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Additions: Bruce Carter, Sterling Moore, D.J. Swearinger, Dirk Koetter OC

Losses: Adrian Clayborn, Dane Fletcher, Mike Kafka, Etc.

C+

Carolina Panthers

Additions: Ted Ginn, Charles Tillman

Losses: Greg Hardy, DeAngelo Williams

C+

West

The Rams have not even managed to be an average team for many seasons, but I expect that they can overcome the difficulties and culture shock and capture the division.  The Seahawks are the best team in the NFL, in my opinion, but they face a fairly tough schedule once again.  The 49ers should be better than most expect.  Losing Harbaugh was a gigantic loss, but the rest of the offseason went extremely well for the 49ers.  Regression should finally catch up to the Cardinals this season. 

St. Louis Rams

Additions: Nick Fairley, Akeem Ayers, Case Keenum, Nick Foles

Losses: Alex Carrington, Sam Bradford, Zac Stacy, Jake Long, Brian Schottenheimer OC

B

Seattle Seahawks

Additions: Cary Williams, Will Blackmon

Losses: Bryan Walters, James Carpenter, Malcolm Smith, Dan Quinn DC

C-

San Francisco 49ers

Additions: Reggie Bush, Torrey Smith, Darnell Dockett, Phillip Wheeler, Jim Tomsula HC (Odd..)

Losses: Frank Gore, Josh Johnson, Mike Iupati, Michael Crabtree, Chris Culliver, Stevie Johnson, Jim Harbaugh HC

C-

Arizona Cardinals

Additions: Chandler Harnish, Sean Weatherspoon, LaMarr Woodley

Losses: Antonio Cromartie, Ted Ginn

C

Tebow at QB	New Power Ranking	Change in PR	Predicted Record	Likely Seed
Patriots	8	-5	10-6	5
Bills	8	13	11-5	2 or 3
Browns	13	11	10-6	4 or 5
Jaguars	18	14	11-5	2
Titans	16	13	11-5	2
Raiders	17	14	9-7	6
Washington	13	13	9-7	6 or none
Cardinals	11	16	10-6	6

.

How to make the playoffs?	PWR	AFC Teams		PWR	NFC Teams
Only need consistency	Top Caliber	Dolphins, Patriots, Chargers, Broncos		Top Caliber	Eagles, Packers, Falcons, Rams, Seahawks
Half a standard deviation of better play.	Good	Bengals, Texans, Colts		Good	Cowboys, Vikings
Play close to potential and get a few breaks.	Average	Jets, Bills, Steelers, Browns, Ravens, Chiefs		Average	Giants, Lions, Saints, 49ers
Complete play and every favorable chance.	Pushovers	Titans, Jaguars, Raiders		Pushovers	Washington, Bears, Buccaneers, Panthers, Cardinals

.

First to Worst
Can Happen	Panthers
Will Not Happen	Patriots, Bengals, Colts, Broncos
	Packers, Eagles, Seahawks
Worst to First
Can Happen	Jets, Browns, Washington
	Bears, Rams
Will Not Happen	Jaguars, Raiders, Buccaneers

.

Poor Preseason Playoff Prediction
3 Texans		1 Dolphins		1 Dolphins	2 Chargers
6 Broncos		6 Broncos		2 Chargers
4 Bengals		2 Chargers
5 Patriots		4 Bengals
3 Eagles		1 Falcons		1 Falcons	1 Falcons
6 Vikings		5 Seahawks		3 Eagles
4 Packers		2 Rams
5 Seahawks		3 Eagles
					1 Falcons

Team	Change in Record	Playoff %	Top 2 RS	Top 4 P	Top 2 P	SBA	SBW	Five B & W
Dolphins	3	0.7	0.3	0.7	0.3	0.2	0.1	B
Patriots	-1	0.8	0.4	0.8	0.5	0.2	0.1
Jets	3	0.2
Bills	-2	0.3		0.1
Bengals	-2.5	0.4	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.1
Steelers	-3	0.3		0.1
Browns	-3	0.2
Ravens	0	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.1
Texans	0	0.4	0.1	0.2
Colts	-2	0.6	0.3	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.1
Titans	3	0.1						W
Jaguars	0	0.1						W
Chargers	2	0.5	0.3	0.5	0.4	0.2	0.1	B
Broncos	-2	0.7	0.4	0.7	0.4	0.2	0.1
Chiefs	-2	0.3		0.2
Raiders	1	0.0						W
Team	Change in Record	Playoff %	Top 2 RS	Top 4 P	Top 2 P	SBA	SBW	Five B & W
Eagles	0	0.7	0.5	0.8	0.4	0.2	0.1	B
Cowboys	-4	0.5	0.1	0.3	0.2	0.1
Giants	2	0.3		0.1
Washington	2	0.1
Packers	-2	0.6	0.3	0.6	0.4	0.2	0.1
Vikings	2	0.4		0.2
Lions	-3	0.3	0.1	0.1
Bears	1	0.2
Falcons	5	0.6	0.3	0.5	0.3	0.2	0.1	B
Saints	1	0.4		0.1
Buccaneers	3	0.1						W
Panthers	-2.5	0.2						W
Rams	5	0.5	0.2	0.4	0.2	0.1	0.1	B
Seahawks	-1	0.7	0.4	0.6	0.4	0.2	0.1
49ers	1	0.3	0.1	0.2	0.1
Cardinals	-6	0.1		0.1

.
.

Team	Proj	Line	Diff	Adj %	Diff	Combined	O/U	"Locks"
Dolphins	11	9	2	9.7	0.7	1.3	O
Patriots	11	11	0	11.5	0.5	0.3
Jets	7	7.5	-0.5	6.8	-0.7	-0.6
Bills	7	8.5	-1.5	7.3	-1.2	-1.3	U	U
Bengals	9	8.5	0.5	8.7	0.2	0.4
Steelers	8	8.5	-0.5	7.6	-0.9	-0.7
Browns	7	6.5	0.5	6.5	0.0	0.2
Ravens	7	9.5	-2.5	7.1	-2.4	-2.5	U	U
Texans	9	8.5	0.5	8.7	0.2	0.4
Colts	9	10.5	-1.5	8.9	-1.6	-1.6	U	U
Titans	5	5.5	-0.5	6.2	0.7	0.1
Jaguars	3	5.5	-2.5	4.6	-0.9	-1.7	(U)
Chargers	11	8.5	2.5	9.0	0.5	1.5	O	O
Broncos	10	10.5	-0.5	10.8	0.3	-0.1
Chiefs	7	8.5	-1.5	7.2	-1.3	-1.4	(U)
Raiders	4	6	-2	5.0	-1.0	-1.5	U	U
Team	Proj	Line	Diff	Adj %	Diff	Combined	O/U	"Locks"
Eagles	10	9.5	0.5	10.0	0.5	0.5
Cowboys	8	9.5	-1.5	9.0	-0.5	-1.0	U
Giants	8	8	0	6.8	-1.2	-0.6
Washington	6	6.5	-0.5	6.6	0.1	-0.2
Packers	10	11	-1	10.5	-0.5	-0.8	U
Vikings	9	7.5	1.5	7.5	0.0	0.7	O
Lions	8	8.5	-0.5	8.1	-0.4	-0.5
Bears	6	6.5	-0.5	6.6	0.1	-0.2
Falcons	11	8.5	2.5	10.3	1.8	2.2	O	O
Saints	8	8.5	-0.5	8.9	0.4	-0.1
Buccaneers	5	6	-1	5.1	-0.9	-0.9	(U)
Panthers	5	8	-3	6.3	-1.7	-2.3	U	U
Rams	11	8	3	8.9	0.9	1.9	O	O
Seahawks	11	11	0	10.8	-0.2	-0.1
49ers	9	6.5	2.5	8.9	2.4	2.4	O	O
Cardinals	5	8.5	-3.5	6.2	-2.3	-2.9	U	U

.

Quick college football Over/Unders: 

North Carolina, Minnesota, Arizona State, Auburn, Tennessee, and LSU over.

Clemson, Rutgers, Washington State, Colorado, and Utah under.

Thanks for reading, God bless.

Regular Two Point Conversion Attempts?

Across the American professional football landscape teams should regularly attempt more two point conversions.  While teams should almost always attempt two point conversions regardless, I would say that there is no excuse for a team to forgo attempting a two point conversion when they are the first team to score.  By attempting a two point conversion after the first touchdown a team should produce roughly an extra (assuming that they would only achieve a 48% conversion success rate on two point attempts) four points per season.  While four points would not generally change many games, it could certainly provide the difference between a loss and an overtime win.  

As a quick example of the potential advantage (in a risk-averse environment), a team scores first and converts the two point attempt, conversely the opposing team will quite possibly need to attempt a two point attempt, thereby being put in a slight disadvantage.  If a team scores first and fails to convert the two point attempt, then the team will still very likely have a chance to remain in a neutral position if they convert a two point attempt on their second attempt.  I would guesstimate that the chance of having another touchdown in a random professional game to be 91% (but it obviously depends on the amount of time remaining, skills of the teams, etc.).

I expect most coaches to remain risk-averse and choose the relatively easy 33 yard extra point attempt, converting successfully at roughly a 95% rate for an additional one point, but that a coach like Chip Kelly will hopefully (finally) take advantage of the additional potential points that are being discounted and have a two point package with Tim Tebow and DeMarco Murray.  With such a package I would expect a team to have roughly an overall 64% success rate.  While there is a potential game theory flaw with my estimation (although I attempted to account for it), I think that it would be an accurate estimate given that rushing two point attempts convert at an rate of around 61% and Tebow and Murray would offer an above average rushing attack package. 

Presuming fifty touchdowns in a season, then implementing a 64% successful conversion rate for two point conversion attempts would result in approximately 64 points from two point conversions, while if a team would attempt to convert the 95% extra point, the team would only produce 48 points (rounded up).  Consequently, the Eagles should be able to add nearly two-thirds of a normal game of scoring to their season points total and give themselves a slight, tenable advantage over the rest of the NFL.  (Due to Tebow being released I would now estimate the Eagles' chances of successfully converting two point attempts to be at 58%, less of an advantage to be sure, but it would still be worth it for the Eagles to attempt two point conversions nearly every time they score a touchdown.)

Validation of Laziness

There are many days in which I do not feel motivated and fail to perform any regular definition of the word “work”.  In my conscience I used to feel remorse and shame when I was lazy, but thankfully I no longer have these sensitivities.  Despite my evolution past my conscience there are some people around me who have not evolved as much as I have and believe I am not actually carrying out work when I am lazy.  I think that these people are misguided in their intolerant views.  I think that my movement has a lot of merit to it and that the symbolic representation of my movement should be a cross – both to symbolize the suffering that the lazy have had to endure from the dogmatic employed individuals around them and as a goading against religious zealots. I wish that the narrow-minded people who do not recognize what I believe could feel as liberated as I do.

As a result, I think that the government should validate my belief that all “work” should be rewarded, even if my interpretation of the word “work” effects a complete redefinition of the term and the “work” that I carry out simply pertains to sitting around and doing nothing.  Accordingly, the government should reward my right to have a different definition for what “work” really means and should reward my outstanding productivity on these days and give me the same recognition and benefits that many working-class individuals receive, aka respect and money.  A further collaboration with my reasoning is that there are some employed individuals who earn money in dishonorable manners and the way in which I desire to earn money is no less reasonable.  Those who are employed need not worry about some watering down of “work”, there will surely be no slippery slope of consequences resulting from the substantiation of my belief.  I simply want some sort of “higher being” to validate me.

[I wrote this to be taken as satire, although through it I may happen to be making an analogy to another issue, just in case you could not tell.]

Three Topics: Representatives of what/whom? Can We be God? Flawed Messaging?

Representatives of the People or the Constitution?

I fail to understand why some people get upset when their representative or representatives in the US congress or their state legislator or legislators, etc., disregard what appears to be the majority of the people's wishes in that particular district or state.  I agree that most representative things should be, you know, representative of whatever they are supposed to be representative of.. But, politicians should not actually be proper representatives.  Last time I checked, politicians do not make an oath to carry out their duties as a politician along the same lines as what the majority of the populace in their representative area wish for them to support. Simply being a representative representative leads to mob rule, which does not quite happen to be what the Founding Fathers intended..  

Instead, I have this silly thought that the representatives should not be representative to the people whom they are representing, unless there is a completely gray area that is being discussed, and should actually be carrying out what the Constitution says they should be doing.  Politicians do not swear to defend the people and all of their many wishes, but to defend the Constitution.  Of course the number of politicians that actually believe that they should defend the Constitution and then carry that out with their actions are few and far between, but I still think that you have to begin with one of the root symptoms of the problem instead of simply attacking politicians with the flawed Constitutional premise that politicians are not truly 'representing' the people by not carrying out whatever the majority of people desire.

Do We Get to be God?

(Here's an even quicker thought, though it grabbed some other flawed premises to make it about the same length as the first discussion point..) I do not understand why some people say that Christians need to BE THE GOSPEL.  How does that even make sense?  I cannot be the Gospel. How can I be God?  We can spread the Gospel certainly, but in no sense of the term can we actually BE the Gospel.

The 'Be The Gospel' kind of thinking tends to run alongside other great beliefs such as, I'm not religious, I'm spiritual, or Jesus is above religion, etc.  In regards to the I'm not religious, I'm spiritual comment, while I would be tempted to just flippantly say to these fine folks that indeed they are not religious and are consequently not actually Christians, that would probably be the wrong thing to do.  While some of them are indeed not Christians, certainly this is not the case for all of them.  This may actually be one of the rare times where improperly judging others may actually apply, and, as such, since we do not get to be the final arbitrate we should not come out and say that those people are not Christians..  However, that obviously still does not at all mean that we should not attempt to convince them that their statement is contrary to the Bible, and attempt to convince them that both 'spirituality' and religion are quite important in Christianity. 

(In general I'm not actually a big fan of 'spirituality'.. Partially because of the lack of common definition, for instance it can mean such things as, relating to ecclesiastical law belonging to the church, attachment to religious values, or, the most common meaning, relating to a person's spirit.  Which leads me to my second main reason as why I think 'spirituality' or being 'spiritual' happen to be silly terms.  What does it even mean for something to 'relate' to a person's spirit?  It doesn't really mean anything.  What it means for one person could be almost entirely different to another person.  The terms that I find which define spirituality and spiritual provide definitions that either do not help an argument for Christians to be more spiritual than religious or provide amorphous definitions that do not truly define anything.)

I find the Jesus is above religion comment to be just a bit pretentious, among other things anyways.  This statement is much like saying that Jesus is above grace or above belief...  Is the Lord above all things?  Certainly, but this is an argument on a different level (I'm not even certain if I nail down the proper level here, since I really think that statements such as Jesus is above religion are just one of the Devil's ways to attempt for Christianity and Christ to lose their proper definitions, so that even so called Christians will not truly be Christians.).  What this Jesus is above religion saying may really be trying to get at is a difference of semantics, with the consequences of those redefinitions being a weakening of a person's faith.  

While it is definitely possible to define religion a bit differently, religion may effectively be simply defined as the following:  Religion is a belief in some sort of deity.  The statement that Jesus is above religion simply does not make any coherent sense.  Are you trying to say that it is not necessary to believe in Christ?  Are you trying to say that Christ is not a deity (much less THE Deity)?  Your logical framework is fundamentally flawed and makes no sense.  While obviously the vast majority of religions do not lead to Heaven (maybe this is the point of the saying?), Christianity does point the true way to Heaven. Christianity is a means to Heaven, a means to spending eternity with Christ.  

Last I checked, Christ said that He alone is the narrow path to Heaven. Trying to unwind the intertwining of religion and Christ simply does not work. We need to believe in Christ's death on the cross, His resurrection, His 100% Godness, etc., to be Christians.  How is it possible to have an ocean yet no water within it?  How is it possible to be with Christ come Judgment Day and yet be saved without faith?  While Christ and Christianity are, or course, not of the same essence, there are plenty of interweaving parts wherein it is impossible to have Christianity without Christ and it is impossible to reach Christ without Christianity, without belief in Christ and God giving us saving grace.  There are no other means by which a person may be saved, Christ has laid out the only path to heaven.  We are saved by God's grace through faith in Christ given to us by the Holy Spirit.

The Flawed Messaging of Pro-Marriage and Pro-Life Groups
Why do pro-marriage groups tend to brand themselves as being against 'gay' marriage and pro traditional marriage? There is only one kind of marriage: marriage between a man and a woman. God set the standard, mankind cannot redefine it. You are either pro marriage or you are for redefining it, there is no middle ground where you should defend marriage on the basis of it being 'traditional'.

While pro-lifers tend to get more of their branding right, I certainly have plenty of problems with their messaging as well. For instance, occasionally you may see billboards that say something along the lines of, “My heart beat 30 days from conception.” I am guessing that the point that Pro-Lifers of America and other groups are trying to propose is that babies are in fact humans, so through the advertisement's messaging they are trying to humanize the babies. While I think that this is a somewhat decent idea and all, I think that it still misses the, uh, heart of the issue.

If we were to all accept that babies are alive once their heart starts beating, then what? If a person 'sheart stops for an instant, can they be killed in that instant? Or does the heart have to stop beating for longer than an instant? Can a person be killed if they have numerous heart palpitations in a day? Or does the line for killing a person begin 'legally' if that person is under cardiac arrest? Why set premises that give your opponent the means they need to murder children? If you say that murdering children is legal at any point beyond conception, then there will still be a vast number of abortions  (see that as murders of little children) that will take place in that 'murder legal' zone. And if for some reason you think that there will not be any doctors who would be willing to perform murders even if a child is only a few days from being delivered and there are pragmatic laws against said murders, then I have some children in Pennsylvania to show you. NO, WAIT, I cannot show you those children because those children happen to be DEAD.

Knowing that there are billions of people going to Hell should probably be the saddest thing in my life.  But, for whatever reason, a fair amount of the time, I tend to be the most saddened and angered by all of the abortions which take place in America and across the world.  I get extremely frustrated with the ticky-tack, go along to get along, pragmatic policies of the pro-lifers who, while they may save a few kids here and there, in general, those who want to murder children will find a way to keep the murder factories running and accept the human sacrifices before the pragmatic regulations would take effect anyways. In conceding that life beings at some point after conception, pro-lifers may as well be waving the white flag.
.
Pro-lifers need to have some sort of higher standard.  If everyone simply went basing their decisions on what science proves, then I've got some news for you, we would all be liable to be killed at any instant. Even when there is some sort of general consensus about an issue there will still almost always be plenty of dissenters who do not see that issue in that particular light. Science can prove nothing. Science can set no true lasting standard.  There is always more potential knowledge which could be learned that would put things into an entirely new perspective. Only lasting things get to set the lasting standards.  If only there would just be some sort of truly lasting thing, some sort of eternal deity that laid down the standards.  If only there would be some sort of eternal deity who would have happened  to step into history at some point and put into place the proper definitions of laws that humans should follow.  If only...

Presidential Race 2012 (part 3)

I wrote this a few months ago since I still occasionally hear some of the dim-witted statements which will soon be mentioned, plus I think I failed addressed some of them at all in my previous blog posts on the presidential race.  Finally, I figured that it would still be relevant since the candidates in that election were irrelevant anyways, and defeating a false choice and other problems can happen in many other circumstances and elections.

Completely false paradox

The statement, 'if you do not vote for Romney, then you are voting for Obama'...  Is such an inane statement.  Here is a scenario...  (As a quick lead-in, I am not necessarily trying to draw an analogy between killing someone and politicians.  Also, I thought about an analogy with demons and Satan, it runs along the same line, I decided to just keep the mushroom illustration though.)  You are captured by the government and you are given a choice between eating poisoned mushrooms and poisoned milk toast.   Which do you choose?  They both will taste bad and they will both kill you. The poisoned mushroom is obvious.  It has a sign saying it is a death cap mushroom.  The poisoned milk toast is not quite as obvious.  It only has a sign saying that while it is indeed poisoned, it does not have the same type of poisoning as the death cap mushroom and will be a slower releasing poison.  Which of the two options do you choose?  Poisonous mushroom or poisoned milk toast?

My choice is that it is a completely false choice and paradox and that I would abstain from both. That is when the Republicrats say, Wait, what?  There is no third option, thus your choice is NOT an option.  How dare you do that.  By not choosing to eat the poisoned milk toast you are really choosing to eat the poisoned mushrooms.  Eh?  I did not choose to eat either, because, frankly, both choices stink and will kill me.  There was no statement running through my head like, by not voting for someone thus I am actually voting for the other person.  

And by doing this I am not per se saying that I am smarter than everyone else, nor am I trying to say that I am holier than thou.. I am just saying that compromising from evil A to evil B does not work AT ALL.  Also, in the end I am still forced to eat the poisoned mushrooms by the guards. There is something called a primary.. (At least I think.. Maybe it is just a rumor.)  And in it you can actually choose candidates who are somewhat principled and you can actually tell what they stand for instead of nominating a nominee that is as bad and wishy-washy as milk toast (unless you like milk toast, in which case I should probably have a different analogy).

Anybody but Obama

A good portion of Republicans voted for Romney to be the nominee in the primary, because he was 'anybody but Obama'. They thought he had a chance to beat Obama.  Right...  That worked out really well.  The nominee was anybody but Obama.  Does not mean the nominee had to be better or worse, just that he had to be anybody.  And he was anybody alright...  If the voting populace does not even attempt to hold candidates to standards, then the candidates themselves very likely will not attempt to apply standards for themselves.

Pandering is lying

In politics 'pandering' (see that as going where the wind/public opinion blows and lying to your constituency) happens fairly often.  A candidate realizes that position A is more popular with potential voters than position B, hence he changes his position to appeal to more voters. Romney was and is a genius at pandering. The number of times in which he has changed positions on anything from abortion to taxes has happened close to innumerably.  But, even when the general election came around in 2012, Romney did not really have any truly good positions.  And even IF Romney would have had any good positions, (and no, 'repealing Obamneycare' does not count for various reasons) I still would not have voted for him.. Why?  Because you cannot trust perpetual liars.  Perpetual panderers.  One of the many, many problems with Romney is that he only has positions he does not have convictions.

Who chooses whom?

(This next short topic is sort of irrelevant to Romney and Obama, but I wanted to include it.)  Who owns the US military?  There are various stages as to who controls it, but the true owner of the military is the American people.  For a random example.  Who paid for an American F-35?  The government, duh.  Close, but no banana.  Actually, while the government did do the official purchasing, the people who paid for that F-35 were the American people.  (Technically this is not entirely accurate, since the US is in debt to such a large extent, especially to China, etc... So it might be more accurate to say that the Chinese people paid for the plane.)

President Obama and Governor Romney were both applying to be hired by myself and the rest of the American people.  THEY are the employees, WE are the employers.  Obama and Romney both failed my application assessments miserably.  Thus, neither received any positive recommendation or feedback from myself and I denied their job applications. Sadly, many other people gave their recommendations to Obamney and accepted their job applications.  Why?  Well, many peoples' beliefs and standards are semi-different to vastly different from myself.  And a decent portion of them have a completely different view of the presidency; they view the president as the ultimate boss, while the people are mere subjects or employees.  And that would indeed effectively be the case if America's government included a Monarchical form of rule or dictatorship, but, last time I checked, I think America is supposed to have a presidency.