So its playoff time and I thought I'd write a hockey blog today.

Before I say anything, I really don't want to offend any Canucks fan out there and I just want to type down my honest opinion like a respectable human being.

That being said, most of you know that I am NOT a Canucks fan even though I live in Vancouver. Don't get my wrong, I grew up being a Canucks fan and I still cherish the memories of seeing them in the finals in 1994 and collecting hockey cards of Alexander Mogilny, Kirk McLean, and others. In addition, I've also enjoyed the sheer amusment of seeing Donald Brasheer get into countless fights. Plus there were other great times watching playoff games while I was on one of my high school band trips. So the question is what made me stop being a Canucks fan? Apart from the countless disappointing seasons. there are a number of reasons. I started to ask myself, why am I practically worshipping a team that a. hasn't won a Stanley Cup b. has mostly players that aren't really top of the league talent (except Luongo) c. is one of the most inconsistent performing teams I've seen (one moment they lose, the next moment they're suddenly the hottest team out there) and d. is really just a "bandwagon." It is these qualities that I found pretty annoying after a while which left me either watching other sports or cheering for other NHL teams. So here's some elaboration on these points:

a. hasn't won a Stanley Cup

- Honestly, other than 1994 and 1982, there's not much history for me fall back on when the Canucks are losing badly and having a lack lustre season. Everytime the Canucks had a bad season, I found myself always saying "oh we had a good run in 94 wish we could get back to that." Its just not that motivating for me to keep cheering for the Canucks.

b. has mostly players that aren't really top of the league talent (except Luongo)

-This is pretty self explanatory. I think even a die hard Canuck fan would know this. Apart from Sundin and Luongo, I don't think any of the current players are high profile material. Yet what bugs me is that a lot of Canuck fans tend of overrate these players. Let's be honest here, not every Canuck is a superstar player. Besides, Sundin isn't exactly scoring as much as other people hoped he would. Yet he was paid a whack load of money in the hopes that he would.

c. is one of the most inconsistent performing teams I've seen (one moment they lose, the next moment they're suddenly the hottest team out there)

-Do I need to remind everyone that last year the Canucks completely melted down and didn't even make the playoffs? and the other times when we're knocked out of the first or second rounds? Yeah, I got tired of it. Besides, even though they are performing well now, I'm not taking any chances by getting my hopes up by setting myself up for disappointment if they lose.

d. is really just a "bandwagon."

-I find it kind of odd that the fan base is called the "Canucks Bandwagon" and Canuck fans seem okay with it. To me, "bandwagon" is a negative connotation because it just highlights that when Canucks are losing, practically NOBODY is cheering for them (except for die hards). I was volunteering at GM place when I was in high school, and there were some games where it almost felt like an away game because the Canucks were losing that badly back then. So, I respect die hard Canuck fans who are willing cheer for their team even when they lose.

Hence, I am not willing be a die hard Canuck fan. Unless they somehow give me a good reason to cheer for them.

Again, I do not want to offend any Canuck fans. This is just entertainment and every fan is entitled to cheer for their favourite team. My favourite team just happens to not be the home team. Yes, I am very sad that the Habs Centennial season has been cut to an ugly short ending. But with all the rich history of Stanley Cups, great players and the upside in the current players in Montreal, it is just a team that I don't mind cheering for even when they lost as badly as they did this season.

Ever since I've bene caught up in discussions and other battles of words, I always desired to have a position of verious issues that every Christian should have a position on. I feel like I'm not giving God a good representation if I don't put up a good fight to any aetheist out there. Unfortunately, I am a sinful being and there are many arguments that I have to say that I don't have an answer to. Intellectual defenses have never been my strong point. But God gave me a mind to do something. So I might as well use it as much as I can.

So our small group has been going through Romans 9 and every time the question about Predestination vs Armenianism (or Free Will as most people know it as) comes up, I say that its going to be a while till the night is over. But if there was one chapter to bring it up, it would be Romans 9. So we talked and talked till we finally came to the conclusion that God is sovereign and that no matter how much we think try to think through everything, we are all like Job in that we were never there at the beginning of time and space when everything was created and that to try to understand everything is beyond our reach. Whether it is Armenianism or Predestination, the approach is still the same. Be a disciple of Christ and make disciples of all nations. Besides, to my knowledge, I don't think it necessarily has to be exclusively free-will or exclusively predestination. I think they both exist in their own forms to complement each other. Exactly how they complement each other, I haven't read enough to know what I'm talking about yet. All I know is that I think God definitely chooses certain people to be saved and lead a great and holy lives and that he does give us free-will out of love so that there is a chance that others who were not chosen to make the right choice. You can point out whatever flaws I have in that argument but either way we all end up with the same objective which is that is to glorify God with all our hearts.

Now the other debate I'm thinking about is the creation vs evolution debate. I've been listening to John MacArthur's Theology of Creation Sermon. After listening to that, it is starting to make sense that to take the account in Genesis 1 as a literal 7 days of creation. To have any other position on it would just take away from the supernatural wonder of Creation. One may try to put all these scientific evolutionary arguments on it but even evolution has its own holes like where the heck is the animal between the short necked version of the giraffe and the giraffe we know today? Also, if we actually whole heartedly bought into the ideology of evolution, the world would be a very scary place. Remember when we learned in school about survival of the fittest and natural selection? I guess it was scary when the whole eugenics movement developed in Nazi Germany where people with mental disabilities and other "undesirable" traits were systematically eliminated from society. Obviously we're smarter than that now. But why is it that so many people still buy into evolution? I guess not many people necessarily equate eugenics with evolution but it is a scary thought. And by the way, I refuse to believe that my work with autistics kids is useless according to evolutionary theory. But like the salvation camps, whether God created us through Creation or Evolution (assuming that you believe that God created us either way), the result is still the same. We're here, and we have a whole world to see, hear and smell and we're alive.