Fantasy Football
I do not understand the appeal of fantasy football. Then again, I don’t understand the thrill of gambling on chance events. I lump them together, because the fantasy footballer has no control over what his team does, just like a lotto player has no control over which numbers come up.
My understanding (which may be way off base) is that there are leagues in fantasy football. A person joins the league, drafts players, puts various players on the “field” for a particular game, and depending on how the REAL players perform, the fantasy team gets points. There might be money involved in joining, and the teams who win get a payout. Again, I may be completely wrong.
The people who play fantasy football spend a lot of time following injury reports, recuperation times, and all the other stats involved with the actual living players. That’s so they can make informed decisions about which members of their team will go onto the fantasy field for any particular game.
To be a good fantasy footballer it’s a must-do. THAT I understand, because I used to play Dungeons and Dragons.
For a campaign group to succeed, the players need to select various characters with complementary abilities. To put it into football terms, you need a QB who can throw the ball, you need players to protect him so he has time to line up the pass, you need receivers who can get down field to catch, runners to take a hand-off and sprint to the goal line, and kickers who can score through the uprights.
In D&D, you need a wizard who can cast spells, a fighter to can keep bad guys away from the spell caster, a cleric who can heal wounds, and another character who is good at sneaking around and finding traps. Each of those characters has to have a broad range of abilities to face the possible challenge. For instance, what if the enemy refuses to get close enough to cross swords? Your fighter needs to have a bow and arrow. Things like that.
The point of all of the above is that people spend a ton of time researching the things which interest them. I spent a week preparing for a weekly game of Dungeons and Dragons. Political wonks spend tons of time looking at the people currently in Congress, and which potential candidates might be a better option. Poets analyze word choices and metaphors. Literary critics . . . do what they do. (LOL. I’m not sure WHAT they do!)
I know a guy who can expound on the meanings of poems, researches what the poet meant based on the history of what happened in that social climate, and a thousand other details. But he refuses to even look at what the Bible says, much less what it means.
I’ve mentioned to him about how I don’t “get” poetry. “Why can’t they say what they mean? Why do they have to say their love is LIKE something, instead of simply writing what their love IS?” And he’s off on an explanation of why similes are important to the art of poetry.
SIDEBAR:
I do get that. Mostly I use the red-red-rose situation to get him to think. Mostly. Since I’m a writer of prose, my focus is on being as clear and concise as possible. Both poetry and prose are writing, but about as different as night and day. (Did you see what I did there? “As different as night and day?”)
Anyway, the Bible has a lot of information that’s hard to understand. A person’s name is changed on seemingly a whim, a single location is called by different names, and God forgives one person for a violation of the Law and comes down like a ton of bricks on another person for what seems like an insignificant detail. (“Like a ton of bricks!” I did it again!)
People spend whole lifetimes studying the Bible to clarify a single detail. Entire books have been written about a single verse. Yes, the Bible is that complex.
So why doesn’t my poet friend try to find out what it’s all about?
He’s not interested.
He’s convinced that the universe consists of simply physical properties, and though he calls himself an agnostic, he’s a functional atheist. Evidence in support of the Bible is ignored, evidence against is studied and memorized.
If someone only listens to one side of an argument, they’ll only believe that position. Or, put another way, you find what you’re looking for.
Spend enough effort on this world, and you’ll end up with nothing more than this world. But when you die, you’ll exit this world without anything you’ve accumulated. Spend enough effort on the afterlife, you’ll get the dividends when you exit the mortal realm.
If you’re a betting person, which belief has the biggest downside? You know you won’t live forever. Believing in God is a much better bet. If the secularist is right, I’m out nothing.
If I’m right, the secularist is toast.
Comments