Isn't it? I sure hope not -- I sure hope I didn't just watch my team sleepwalk through a home playoff loss to the Ch*c*g* B*lls. It sure looked to me like they were playing some sort of an extended exhibition, because I've seen them in the playoffs, and it didn't look anything at all like that.
I know Garnett's down, and any realistic chance of hanging Banner Number Eighteen went with him. I get that. But that's no reason to drop Game 1 to the freaking B*lls. So I'm doing my part -- Flogging's going green. Now let's see you do your part, and I don't want to see another loss this round.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
If You Have Nothing Worthwile to Write. . .
Just a thought I had the other day -- what happened to colors? I mean colors used to be colors, right, like red, blue, yellow, purple, whatever. Not that the cardinal colors or whatever were sufficient, but of course we weren't necessarily limited to those, so it was ok. We could modify any color in any number of ways. No, not shackled simply to "blue" we could have light blue or dark blue. When light and dark aren't enough, we could even modify it with adjectives from outside the traditional realm of color. "Sky blue," "electric blue," "sea blue," "midnight blue," the opportunities are almost endless. Even if they're not endless, however, we could combine colors -- "blue-green" or what have you. And now the opportunities really are virtually endless.
And all of this before we even get into the colors that we don't really make use of anyway, like fuchsia, indigo, magenta, crimson, vermilion, mauve, teal, and taupe, to name a few.
Why is it, then, that things have suddenly become colors?
You guys, salmon isn't a color, it's a fish. Charcoal isn't a color, it's a carbon residue (I'll admit, I had to look that one up). Rasberry isn't a color, it's a berry. Our sofa is considered "mocha" (although it cost less). Mocha isn't a color, it's a freaking flavor!
Now I confess, there's no good reason why this should bother me. It's purely a product of my own mild nueroses, and I understand that. But still, where will this end? Will it stop with fish, berries, and flavors? Who's to say that it won't get worse and worse until someday someone describes something that's a sort of pale, unattractive pink (see how I just took a real color and modified it for a more specific purpose?) as simply "Ross." Besides, it had been too long since I'd written anything on here, and I just had nothing better to say.
And all of this before we even get into the colors that we don't really make use of anyway, like fuchsia, indigo, magenta, crimson, vermilion, mauve, teal, and taupe, to name a few.
Why is it, then, that things have suddenly become colors?
You guys, salmon isn't a color, it's a fish. Charcoal isn't a color, it's a carbon residue (I'll admit, I had to look that one up). Rasberry isn't a color, it's a berry. Our sofa is considered "mocha" (although it cost less). Mocha isn't a color, it's a freaking flavor!
Now I confess, there's no good reason why this should bother me. It's purely a product of my own mild nueroses, and I understand that. But still, where will this end? Will it stop with fish, berries, and flavors? Who's to say that it won't get worse and worse until someday someone describes something that's a sort of pale, unattractive pink (see how I just took a real color and modified it for a more specific purpose?) as simply "Ross." Besides, it had been too long since I'd written anything on here, and I just had nothing better to say.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The Devil's In the Q&A
So not too long ago Mark Driscoll and anther person debated the existence of Satan with a couple other guys on Nightline. I didn't hear about it until after it was done, but then I was curious, especially since mostly all my pastor said about it was about Driscoll's shirt. I didn't really care about the shirt, I wanted to see the debate. So I youtube'd it. It's up in about 10 segments if you're interested.
Anyway, at the end they had an audience question bit. I always hate those. They just never go well when the average person tries to expose the brilliant person (that goes for both sides of this, as well as most any other, issue). Anyway, one woman directed a comment to Driscoll that his belief that Jesus is the only way to God was arrogant and narrow-minded (or some variation of thereof). My question is simply, "Can we do away with this once and for all?"
At the heart of the idea is, essentially, the belief that, if you think you're right and others are wrong, you should think differently and be more open/tolerant/whatever of different beliefs. Isn't it really the same as saying "You think differently than I do, and you ought to change to think more like me?" Isn't that the exact same thing?
Look, the Christ-followers who are happy that those who aren't connected to Christ are headed to a God-less eternity need to be slapped down, absolutely. And there surely are arrogant Christ-followers just like there are arrogant athiests, agnostics, Muslims, Scientologists, whatever. But is there anything arrogant about believing something? Do you believe that there is? Is that arrogant?
Christ-followers shouldn't be throwing stones at those who believe differently, and a lot of them (us, to be honest) have done way too much of it. But it just makes no more sense for those who think differently than us to throw stones at us for believing differently.
Can we please agree on that?
Anyway, at the end they had an audience question bit. I always hate those. They just never go well when the average person tries to expose the brilliant person (that goes for both sides of this, as well as most any other, issue). Anyway, one woman directed a comment to Driscoll that his belief that Jesus is the only way to God was arrogant and narrow-minded (or some variation of thereof). My question is simply, "Can we do away with this once and for all?"
At the heart of the idea is, essentially, the belief that, if you think you're right and others are wrong, you should think differently and be more open/tolerant/whatever of different beliefs. Isn't it really the same as saying "You think differently than I do, and you ought to change to think more like me?" Isn't that the exact same thing?
Look, the Christ-followers who are happy that those who aren't connected to Christ are headed to a God-less eternity need to be slapped down, absolutely. And there surely are arrogant Christ-followers just like there are arrogant athiests, agnostics, Muslims, Scientologists, whatever. But is there anything arrogant about believing something? Do you believe that there is? Is that arrogant?
Christ-followers shouldn't be throwing stones at those who believe differently, and a lot of them (us, to be honest) have done way too much of it. But it just makes no more sense for those who think differently than us to throw stones at us for believing differently.
Can we please agree on that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
