Skip to main content

Praying for a Win?

Image
By
It's no secret; I hate stupidity, and it doesn't matter whether it comes from the Left or the Right, whether it's religious or secular. I still hate it, and feel free to hold it up for public mockery. So it is with an article in yesterday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, noting that a number of religious authorities, including several clergymen, said that it was alright for locals to pray for a Steelers' victory in the Super Bowl. Completely disregarding the fact that they didn't win, am I the only person who finds this kind of talk simply ludicrous?

Even if one believes that there is a God who answers prayer, I fail to see how such a Deity, who must surely be the most busy entity in existence, would care about a single game on one day that in reality is far less important than most people seem to think.

This is a blatant sop by Western Pennsylvania religious figures to a public whose devotion to the Steelers approaches a quasi-religious level. While most may simply be inclined to dismiss this with a little smile, say that, "Well, it's just a game and all in good fun," I see no reason that this talk should be greeted with a wink and a nod. It is yet another example of faulty theology and faulty thinking.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Herla cyningFebruary 7, 2011 at 5:14 AM

    Preach it, brother. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ronnie PollockFebruary 7, 2011 at 1:07 PM

    I find the notion that God is incredibly 'busy' a little bit silly, as it is based on an anthropomorphism related to the technical functioning of God. However, do you think that praying to be healed from cancer is more or less trivial-sounding to God than asking to win a football game? It's obviously important to us, because we fear death and find it unpleasant, but the same could be said for losing a game. Both are related to our comfort and wishes, while God obviously is above these opinions. To us, one seems appropriate and one seems inappropriate, but from God's vantage point, they are more or less the same. If you believe in prayer, then either none of them are too trivial or all of them are too trivial.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ZenFebruary 7, 2011 at 5:05 PM

    Real gods watch roller derby! ;)

    The level of spiritual narcissism American Christians exhibit is truly astounding.

    "Dear God, please help my favorite team win and bless these snacks we are about to binge on. Amen!"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brady ClemensFebruary 7, 2011 at 6:36 PM

    Ronnie, anyone can tell the BIG difference between cancer and a football game. If something isn't done in the first, a person may die. If something isn't done in the second, well, no one dies. The latter is trivial, the first a matter of life and death; don't pretend that you don't know the difference. Some requests are just plain petty and selfish. If a person prays for a Jaguar, just because they want one, should we pretend that it is a reasonable and sincere request? If I pray to win the lottery and become rich, is that to be understood on the same level as praying for someone in intensive care?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ronnie PollockFebruary 11, 2011 at 7:23 AM

    A matter of life and death is trivial from God's perspective. Is it not selfish to pray for your own health? It is certainly okay to pray for the little things and the big things, but when we start saying some things are too trivial, we are clearly looking at things through human standards. I never mentioned material goods, because that brings in a whole other spiritual dimension not encountered when you simply pray to win a game.

    ReplyDelete
  6. UnknownFebruary 13, 2011 at 1:53 PM

    Stupid people taste good though! Om Nom Nom Nom!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

By
Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...
18 comments
Read more

How I Left Creationism

By
There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...
23 comments
Read more

What Creationists Don't Understand

By
There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...
Post a Comment
Read more