Month: September 2006

Fake Hype for Kobe and the Lakers

KevinLeave a comment

John Nadel for the Associated Press wrote an article on Wednesday entitled Kobe ready for another runt to NBA title. However it doesn’t mention an NBA title anywhere in the article. Here’s an excerpt: “Bryant hopes the signing of Vladimir Radmanovic, Maurice Evans and Shammond Williams will strengthen the Lakers. ‘We made some key additions with those guys,’ Bryant said. ‘We turned some heads the way we performed last season. We were a very young team. We’re still a young team. I think it will be exciting.'”

Let’s take a look at the stats of these key additions. The most notable player, Radmanovic, has a career average of 10.1 points, 1.5 assists, and 4.6 rebounds per game. He’s thought of as a threat from behind the three point line, where he averages .381 for his career. Maurice Evans career totals are 5.4 ppg, 0.7 assists, and 2.4 rebounds. And finally, Shammond Williams. He hasn’t played in two years, but his career totals are 6.1 ppg, 2.5 assists, and 1.6 rebounds. Those numbers are sure to turn some heads.

In their defense, I didn’t expect the Lakers to make the playoff. I especially didn’t expect them to take Phoenix to 7 games. They did MUCH better than I expected last year. However, it’s very early to start talking about the Finals for Kobe and the Lakers. The first thing they need to do is make consecutive appearances to the playoffs and maybe win a series or two. Then I would be OK with people talking about a title run.

Until then, let’s just be realistic about the Lakers’ title chances. Slim to none.

Creation and Modern Science

Kevin1 Comment

The popular scientific approach to the origin of the universe is naturalistic evolution. The basic assumption is that the world, as we know it, is an advanced development of a process that began billions, trillions, or even more years ago. The concept is that everything began from small, microscopic atoms mutating into more advanced structures, out of which the universe eventually was formed through the Big Bang.

The doctrine of creation is the evangelical answer to the beginnings of man and the universe. The basic concept is that God created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing. There are, however, tensions between creationism and science, especially in the arena of the age of the cosmos. There are five primary theories which attempt to harmonize this tension.

The first theory is the gap theory, which holds that there was an extended gap of time between God’s creation of the earth and the universe and the six days of creation listed in Genesis. The second theory is the flood theory, which holds that the force of the great flood in the days of Noah accomplished what would naturally take billions of years. The third theory is the ideal-time theory, which states that God created the world in six literal days, but he created it in an aged fashion. That is, he created it as if it were billions of years old. The fourth theory is the age-day theory, which holds that the word “days” in Genesis does not refer to literal days, but an extended period of time. The fifth and final theory is the pictorial-day theory, which holds that the days described in Genesis are a logical structuring, not a chronological one.

Does God Have Emotions?

KevinLeave a comment

There have been many attempts to understand God and explain who He is. One of the most common ways to do this is to use terminology and imagery that is common to human beings. This makes sense, because human beings are limited by their senses and the world in which they live. There needs to be a measure of caution when making these comparisons. One needs to remember that the comparisons are analogies, not equations.

With this in mind, does God have emotions? There is a common perception that God stands outside of our world and is devoid of any real passion or emotion. The Bible paints a different picture. Exodus 34:6 reads, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness.”

Another biblical concept supporting the idea of God having emotions is the fact that humans are created in God’s image. While what God’s image really is can be debated, one thing that we can take away from the concept is that we are a reflection of God, however faint and dim that reflection may be. Since human beings are emotional beings, one can deduct that God is an emotional being. This is not a big stretch.

God’s emotions as not out of control, nor do they contain malice. When God is angry, it is not a selfish anger, but a just one. But he does have genuine emotions. “God is personal and ethical, and both senses call for healthy emotions or passions” (Lewis, EDOT).

In summary, God is a deeply passionate and emotional being, who cares for us and is moved when we are hurt. As Peter wrote, “Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you” (1 Pe 5:7).

VVCC On the Front Page of Wall Street Journal

KevinLeave a comment

My church made the front page of the Wall Street Journal today. They wrote an article about Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Life and how it is dividing Evangelical churches throughout the country. I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, but I will write about it once I do. If you subscribe to WSJ, here’s a link to the article.

Why Mark Cuban Doesn’t Like International Play

KevinLeave a comment

Pau Gasol might miss three months of the NBA season because of an injury he sustained to his foot during the closing moments of the World Championships in Japan. Mark Cuban has been vocal about his concerns of NBA players participating in these types of events. His main argument is that there is no insurance for his player, they were to get hurt. This fear has come true for the Memphis Grizzlies. They will be without their best player for a significant portion of the season. At least it didn’t happen to Dirk. Read the news story here.

The Most Useless Words

Kevin2 Comments

Bimonthly and biweekly are the two most useless words in the English language. Webster defines bimonthly as: “1) occurring every two months; 2) occurring twice a month.” I’m not kidding. Those are two completely different meanings for the exact same word. How stupid is that? Why in the world do we allow such nonsense to exist? In its definition of the prefix “bi,” Webster has this to say:

Many people are puzzled about bimonthly and biweekly, which are often ambiguous because they are formed from both senses 1b and 2b of bi-. This ambiguity has been in existence for nearly a century and a half and cannot be eliminated by the dictionary. The chief difficulty is that many users of these words assume that others know exactly what they mean, and they do not bother to make their context clear. So if you need bimonthly or biweekly, you should leave some clues in your context to the sense of bi- you mean. And if you need the meaning “twice a,” you can substitute semi- for bi-. Biannual and biennial are usually differentiated.

Like they said, semimonthly is defined as twice a month, so that answers my problem. But I vote for eliminating bimonthly and biweekly from the English language because they are useless.