Religion
How do animals and women fit in? Why do evil and viruses exist?
How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?
What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?
No further word from God? Only containing God's words? What about the errors?
Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be legend? Help from outside the bible...?
How dangerous is wealth? What about forgiving the unrepentant? Can euthanasia be Christian? What makes a church a sect?
Is Jesus the one to follow? Did Jesus rise bodily? Jesus and the Holy Spirit? How is Christ coming back? A synthesis of traditions?
Am I a real disciple of Jesus? What do I do when I am tempted? Why should Christians suffer? Why are other Christians a problem?
The last section of Richard Bewes' book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions takes a different turn. Bewes aims to explain the fifty most difficult passages within the bible. Likewise, to my previous articles, I'll be offering my views on some of these passages.
1. Genesis 1 - Six 'days' of creation? Are we now to understand the days of Creation in the light of scientific advance?
One of the most controversial facets of Christianity is how the universe began. Did God create it? Or was it the Big Bang? Is there a way to rationalise one by the other?
Richard Bewes argues that you cannot balance the two against each other. He believes that this is because of the fluid nature of science. Science is built on cumulative knowledge with old theories constantly being disproved and replaced by older ones. In contrast, the biblical account of Creation has remained the same for millennia. "Millions of modern readers accept and are inspired by Genesis 1 just as much as the ancient peoples were." Bewes concludes by asserting that if we try to match up creationism with scientific theory, then we would run into trouble, as science, unlike Genesis, would eventually move on.
I agree with Bewes that science is fluid. It is indeed built on ever-changing research. However, there are scientific paradigms. There are theories and laws, which cannot be questioned. Like gravity. Like Heliocentricism. Like natural selection. Like the earth being spherical. If you question these ideas, then you'll be ridiculed and stigmatised, just like the Flat Earth society. While I can understand why Bewes argues you can't correlate Creationism and scientific advice, I don't believe or agree with it. Not all of science is fluid.
2. Genesis 2:7 - Can Evolution be accommodated? 'The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being.' Could this imply an evolutionary process?
In relation to religion, Evolution is just as controversial as Creationism. Did we evolve from single-celled beings or did God create us?
According to Richard Bewes, Genesis 2:7 doesn't necessarily disallow evolution. Rather it argues that it has to be allowed:
"to make its own point, namely, that - in physical terms - we derive from the very materials that make up this earth and its contents. It needs to be balanced by Genesis 1:27 that tells us of the image of God in which we have been made. The two statements complement each other, and stand forever, irrespective of how evolutionary theories themselves may develop. [...] What unites us, of course, is our common belief in an original creation, and the truth that the whole human race comes from single stock (Acts 17:26) Our past mistake has been in spending fruitless hour defending a position, rather than proclaiming the massive truth - that men and women are not simply collections of biochemical reactions. We have been brought into this world as god-like beings - made for eternal fellowship with the Creator!"
I'm not sure how much I subscribe to Bewes' argument. To me, it sounds like he is dancing around the question, rather than answering it directly. He's saying that Evolution can and cannot be accommodated without coming down on either side of the argument. Rather, he concentrates on a bigger philosophical issue. It isn't how we exist that's important, it's why we exist. We're more than just atoms and molecules. We're "god-like beings - made for eternal fellowship with the Creator!"
I also don't agree with Bewes. From my understanding of Christianity, human beings can never be "god-like beings." There is only one God, which you should follow. You shouldn't aim to be better than him. You shouldn't aim to be god-like. You can't expect to be god-like. To do so would be assuming you have an authority over him. That you know more than him, which is impossible.
3. Genesis 4:14 - Other populations than Adam's? Cain - on his banishment to be a wanderer on earth, following his murder of Abel - laments, 'whoever finds me will kill me.' Doesn't this indicate other early populations on earth, besides Adam's?
This question addresses a major concern that I have always had with Creationism. If Adam and Eve were the first and only human beings, how did they reproduce enough to become 8 billion people? The bible itself doesn't explain it. Instead, there's a long genealogy of xx begetting xx.
This issue is addressed in more detail within the next question, but for now, Bewes offers a variety of timid explanations, but nothing really definitive. Firstly, he argues that Cain's killers could be wild animals instead of people. He also asserts that maybe Adam and Eve weren't necessarily the first human beings, but the first of "the highest type of the human race, and had been preceded by the production of inferior races, now widely scattered." Bewes also argues that these killers could be referring to future populations.
However, Bewes' final and "most natural explanation" is that "Cain's fears were groundless." From his perspective, he couldn't have known whether anybody else existed, other than Adam and his family. He couldn't have known whether there were other people around who could have attacked him. "Thus the sign and promise that God gives Cain is a gracious accommodation of the fugitive in his ignorant fears."
I'm not too convinced by these arguments. Wild animals makes sense, but the second one doesn't. I think it contradicts a major part of Genesis. I have always been taught that Adam and Eve were the first human beings. There wasn't any inferior humans before them. If there were, this would indicate major problems within the teachings of Genesis. Furthermore, Richard Bewes' description of
"Adam's creation [being] not that of Genesis 1:27, but of the highest type of the human race, and [having] being preceded by the production of inferior races, now widely scattered,"
sounds dangerously close to evolution. Adam and Eve were the first homosapiens. Everyone else that came before were just neanderthals. As for Bewes' "most natural explanation," this sounds a little too unfounded for me. It sounds like he is basing his ideas on "what if" scenarios, rather than anything tangible. For me, this makes it too difficult to subscribe to.
4. Genesis 4:17 - Who was Cain's wife? With Cain and Abel as the two brothers - and there being no other peoples outside Adam's family - how was it, then, that Cain, on being banished to the land of Nod, finds a wife there? Who was she?
As we've already discussed, I have always been sceptical about this section of the bible. Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel are the only humans. Who did Cain reproduce with? The bible doesn't explain this. He just has a wife out of nowhere. The only logical explanation is that Cain intermarried with another of Adam and Eve's children.
And this is the explanation that Bewes provides. Firstly, he clarifies that Cain did not find a wife in Nod. Rather he had sex with her in Nod. But secondly, he argues that Cain and Abel were only the first children of Adam and Eve. Over their long lives, they had countless other sons and daughters, one of which Cain married "when necessity demanded some intermarrying at a time when the race yet to increase."
Although I can understand this in the short-term, I don't see how it can apply in the long run. This also isn't the only case of incest in the bible. After Lot and his daughters escaped from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, they get him drunk and rape him, to ensure the continuation of their family.
6. Genesis 11:5-7 Does God feel threatened? "If...they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language...' This reads like the panic action of a threatened tyrant, but surely God is not like this?
I can understand where this reader is coming from. The first time I read the bible, I had this perspective of God, as an arrogant, self-obsessed dictator who feeds off validation. However, Bewes argues that while God's actions have been interpreted like this, this is not the truth. Rather his actions are of a parent who wants the best for his child.
The question addresses the Tower of Babylon where the people tried building a tower to reach God in heaven, rather than carrying out his commandments. In punishment, God scatters them and makes me speak all different languages, to prevent them from uniting like this again. According to Bewes, God did this was to prevent an evil person or power to exercise unlimited power without restraint. Although God wants us to work together, if we leave him out of the process, then frustration and ruin will surely ensue.
I agree with Bewes' argument to an extent. I have heard the comparison of God being a parent to a misbehaving child before. All he wants is the best for his child, but he keeps being disobeyed, so he has to punish him to enact his authority. But, I still think God is quite arrogant.
10. Exodus 4:21 - Unfair on Pharoah? I feel sorry for Pharoah, faced by Moses and the plagues of Egypt. Why did God 'harden Pharoah's heart' so that he could not repent?
This is another example of why I find God arrogant. One of Moses' most important missions was freeing the Israelites who had been enslaved by the mighty Pharoah of Egypt. Moses promises plague after plague, if Pharoah doesn't release them. However, Pharoah refuses to do this, because God repeatedly hardens his heart. I have always thought this to be a gross display of power. It's God's way of showing off his omnipotence.
Richard Bewes argues that Pharoah doesn't deserve our pity. Even though, he wanted respite from the plagues, he wasn't prepared to repent. Pharoah is given ten chances to repent, but God knew that he never would. "Every time Pharoah hardened his heart against the revealed truth of God's message, it was a further tightening of the noose upon him."
I don't subscribe to this. To me, it sounds like Bewes is shifting the blame away from God onto Pharoah, forgetting that it was God who hardened his heart in the first place. Look at his wording, Bewes says that it was "every time Pharoah hardened his heart," not God, but Pharoah. Observe Exodus 9:12, where God unleashes the plagues of boils and hail:
"And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharoah, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had spoken unto Moses."
Exodus Chapter 10 begins like this:
"And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharoah: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him"
During the plague of Locusts, Pharoah says this:
"Then Pharoah called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against you. Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and entreat the LORD your God, that he may take away from me this death only." Exodus 10:16-17
This is God's response:
"But the Lord hardened Pharoah's heart, so he would not let the children of Israel go." Exodus 10:20
As we can see from this scripture, Pharoah is willing to repent, but God hardens his heart. I still don't understand why he does this. I don't understand why God would want his followers suffering in slavery, any longer than necessary. To me, it still seems like a grotesque display of power.
However, I could very well be wrong. If you think I am, then please comment below. Just keep it mature. Keep it respectful. Keep it intelligent.
Monday, 24 April 2017
Monday, 17 April 2017
Robot Wars Grand Final Recap
Episode 5
Episode 4
Episode 3
Episode 2
Episode 1
Welcome to the Robot Wars grand final. The past five weeks have been building up to the crowning of the second Robot Wars champion. Our finalists are:
Aftershock: the reincarnation of last year's finalists Shockwave. They are armed with a vicious 3,500 RPM. 23 kg vertical flywheel
Eruption: a flipper robot that has sent all of its opponents flying from the arena. It can flip with over a tonne of force.
Concussion: complete newbies to the Robot Wars arena. They are armed with a drum spinner and took out last year's finalist Thor on their way to the final.
Ironside 3: yet another spinner with an 18kg spinning bar mounted on the top of their robot.
Carbide: King of the Spinners. Carbide were last year's runners-up and were armed with a destructive 23kg horizontal spinner bar that span at 2,300 RPM. That's about 250mph.
The sixth place in the final was given to a wildcard robot chosen by the judges out of the runners-up of this series. This means that they were picking from Thor, Pulsar, Cherub, Sabretooth and, last year's champions, Apollo. Firstly, I don't like how it was up to the judges over who went through. I think all five robots should have had one massive melee and the last man standing would go through to the final.
But alas, things did not happen like this. The judges picked a runner-up and unsurprisingly that runner-up was Apollo. I think Apollo was picked just for sheer entertainment factor. They had a powerful flipper and I think the judges were hoping for another rematch between them and Carbide. I'm not sure Apollo was the right choice, but that's just me. Do you agree with the judge's decision? I think it would have been interesting to see Pulsar again and see Eruption go up against five very different spinners, instead of four.
But that's enough talking...
LET THE WARS BEGIN
The structure of the final remained the same. Firstly, there were two group battles with three robots each. The first robot to be immobilised were out and the winners would go through to the mini league, with the top two robots fighting one last chance to decide the winner.
Apollo Vs Eruption vs Aftershock
The first group battle saw champions Apollo seeking to defend their crown. The battle began quietly with all three robots sizing each other up. Aftershock went in for a tentative attack on Apollo, but Apollo managed to flip them up and over. Aftershock went skittering across the arena, with their spinning disc damaging the arena floor. They managed to self-right and slammed into Apollo, leaving them with a massive scar down their back. However, as the arena floor was damaged, it had to be fixed before the fight could continue.
The fight resumed and all three robots were very timid. That was until Aftershock and Apollo slammed together. Apollo were sent flying away and were rendered immobile. They were champions no more. Aftershock and Eruption were through with Eruption having done nothing. But in the post-match interview, they explained that this was tactical. They didn't want to risk their machine becoming damaged. I think they were just scared.
Concussion Vs Carbide vs Ironside 3
Time for three very different spinners to face off. Concussion had a spinning drum. Carbide had a horizontal spinning bar that was mounted inside the machine, while Ironside's spinning bar was mounted on top of the machine.
Concussion, perhaps sensing they were the weakest robot, went straight for the pit release. Unfortunately, Carbide went straight for them. With one blow, Concussion were looking worse for wear. Carbide then targeted Ironside 3 knocking out their self-righting mechanism. However, Ironside 3 still had enough life in them to hit Concussion one more time. Poor little Concussion could not stand up to this onslaught and one final almighty blow from Carbide were enough to immobilise them. Concussion were out.
A lot of emphasis has been placed on how well Concussion have done despite being complete newbies. And they have done well and more, they're good sports too. I hope to see them again next series. But for now, Carbide and Ironside 3 are through to the head to heads.
Eruption Vs Ironside 3
Time for only non-spinner to fight the first of the powerful spinners. Ironside 3 began this fight by tactically running away, which I've noticed is their main tactic. However, Eruption didn't allow them a chance to escape. They flipped Ironside halfway across the arena. Ironside managed to get a few blows in before they started running away again. Eruption pursued them towards the arena wall, where one more flip inverted Ironside. With their self-righting mechanism out of action, Ironside couldn't self-right and they had lost. Impressive display by Eruption.
Aftershock Vs Carbide
This battle saw the two most powerful spinners come together in one epic tousle. Aftershock had the faster spinner, but Carbide's was heavier. The two of them went straight for it, charging towards each other. But only Carbide left unscathed. Aftershock had a severe case of Aftershock, as they bounced away. Their armour pannelling had been sheared off and their electronics were hanging out. Carbide slammed into Aftershock again. This attack sent Aftershock's side armour pannelling flying into the arena side wall, where it became embedded. The arena wall is polycarbonate, bulletproof glass, which is there to protect the live studio audience. However, there is a second arena wall, meaning that nobody was actually hurt.
Carbide Vs Eruption
Even though Eruption won their last fight, they still received some damage to their flipper. However, they were able to repair this damage.
Carbide had one tactic in this fight. Go for Eruption's sides, where their armour was the weakest. And this is exactly what Carbide did. They slammed into Eruption and were sent flying away. They slammed into them and were sent rocking away. Eruption managed to withstand both of these blows. But then Carbide hit them again and then hit them on their flipper. Eruption's CO2 was venting and their armour was buckelling. They were out.
Aftershock Vs Ironside 3
Aftershock were so badly damaged after their fight with Carbide that they didn't have enough time to weld their armour back on. Instead, they taped it on with duct tape. You heard me right. Duct tape.
Despite this, they began the battle very strongly. They crashed into Ironside sending it flying through the air and bouncing down. However, the force of Aftershock's weapon ripped away the duct tape, exposing their insides. Bad driving then sent them crashing into the arena wall, where their weapon short-circuited. Ironside 3 took full advantage of this weakness and pushed them onto the arena spikes, which toppled Aftershock. Unable to self-right, they had lost.
Carbide Vs Ironside 3
Carbide were through to the final at this point and were keen to take as little damage as possible. Carbide absolutely dominated this battle. They got the first blow in on Ironside and the sparks flew. It was like being at a fireworks display. It was awesome. Carbide then hit Ironside again, prompting Ironside to employ their usual tactic of running away. But Carbide slammed into them again. And again. And again. The sparks continued flying and Ironside's weapon was stopped. They were almost caught by the house robots, but managed to escape. However, they escaped only to be bashed once more by Carbide. Ironside 3 were immobilised and out.
Aftershock Vs Eruption
With Carbide already through to the final, Aftershock needed to beat Eruption to have any chance of going through to the final. If Aftershock won, then there would be a 3 way tie between them, Eruption and Ironside 3, and the judges would then pick a winner to go through. I again don't like the judges interfering like this. In the event of a tie, I think there should be a 3 way melee, and the winner would go through to the final. It's Robot WARS, after all. Not Robot "oh let the judges pick a suitable robot to go through."
Onto the actual fight. Eruption started on top. They flipped Aftershock into the pit release button, inverting them in the process. As Aftershock bounced down, their mighty spinning disc damaged the arena floor yet again. However, quite weirdly, they were allowed to continue fighting, even though the arena hadn't been repaired.
The second half of the fight was far more even. Aftershock got a blow in on Eruption, pushing them onto the arena spikes. Eruption were toppled, but quickly managed to self-right. Both robots then drove into the CPZ, where they did this bizarre dance of death with Dead Metal. I'm not sure why Eruption and Aftershock did this, probably inexperienced driving.
Once they had escaped, Aftershock hit Eruption, but Eruption then flipped Aftershock across the arena. Aftershock recovered with great style. Aftershock managed to get another blow in before being flipped over again. For a minute, it looked like they were down and out, but they recovered. Aftershock then put more pressure on Eruption, scaring them enough to activate the pit release. But then, Aftershock then disappointingly conked out. I think Aftershock were on top for most of the battle. They rained blow after blow onto Eruption's flipper and armour. It's just a shame that Aftershock broke down.
Eruption vs Carbide
And we have arrived at the grand final of the second season of Robot Wars. The most powerful spinner of this new Robot Wars - Carbide and the most powerful flipper - Eruption.
3...2...1 ACTIVATE
Carbide began this fight the stronger. Slamming into Eruption's flipper and making the sparks fly. Both robots ricocheted away, before Carbide came onto the attack again. They crashed into Eruption, shredding their armour. Carbide's spinning bar continued to tear into Eruption's armour an there was little the flipperbot could do. They tried getting a few flips in but missed. All this allowed for was for Carbide to get more hits in. However, Carbide then started getting a little complacent, as Eruption were able to flip them.
But Carbide quickly learnt from this and continued battering Eruption. CO2 began venting and deep gashes were appearing in Eruption's bodywork. Electronics were hanging out. Wires were trailing. Metal was buckling. Eruption was a beaten machine. And Carbide was a very worthy winner. Runners-up last year, winners, this year. Well done to the Carbide team and also to runners-up Eruption.
Compared to the original Robot Wars, the robots here are so much more powerful. Spinners, even the legendary Hypno-Disc or S7 X-Terminator, were never this powerful. Carbide is a ferocious machine and brilliant winners.
Dim the lights,
scream your applause,
Carbide are your new champions
on Robot Wars.
Episode 4
Episode 3
Episode 2
Episode 1
Welcome to the Robot Wars grand final. The past five weeks have been building up to the crowning of the second Robot Wars champion. Our finalists are:
Aftershock: the reincarnation of last year's finalists Shockwave. They are armed with a vicious 3,500 RPM. 23 kg vertical flywheel
Eruption: a flipper robot that has sent all of its opponents flying from the arena. It can flip with over a tonne of force.
Concussion: complete newbies to the Robot Wars arena. They are armed with a drum spinner and took out last year's finalist Thor on their way to the final.
Ironside 3: yet another spinner with an 18kg spinning bar mounted on the top of their robot.
Carbide: King of the Spinners. Carbide were last year's runners-up and were armed with a destructive 23kg horizontal spinner bar that span at 2,300 RPM. That's about 250mph.
The sixth place in the final was given to a wildcard robot chosen by the judges out of the runners-up of this series. This means that they were picking from Thor, Pulsar, Cherub, Sabretooth and, last year's champions, Apollo. Firstly, I don't like how it was up to the judges over who went through. I think all five robots should have had one massive melee and the last man standing would go through to the final.
But alas, things did not happen like this. The judges picked a runner-up and unsurprisingly that runner-up was Apollo. I think Apollo was picked just for sheer entertainment factor. They had a powerful flipper and I think the judges were hoping for another rematch between them and Carbide. I'm not sure Apollo was the right choice, but that's just me. Do you agree with the judge's decision? I think it would have been interesting to see Pulsar again and see Eruption go up against five very different spinners, instead of four.
But that's enough talking...
LET THE WARS BEGIN
The structure of the final remained the same. Firstly, there were two group battles with three robots each. The first robot to be immobilised were out and the winners would go through to the mini league, with the top two robots fighting one last chance to decide the winner.
Apollo Vs Eruption vs Aftershock
The first group battle saw champions Apollo seeking to defend their crown. The battle began quietly with all three robots sizing each other up. Aftershock went in for a tentative attack on Apollo, but Apollo managed to flip them up and over. Aftershock went skittering across the arena, with their spinning disc damaging the arena floor. They managed to self-right and slammed into Apollo, leaving them with a massive scar down their back. However, as the arena floor was damaged, it had to be fixed before the fight could continue.
The fight resumed and all three robots were very timid. That was until Aftershock and Apollo slammed together. Apollo were sent flying away and were rendered immobile. They were champions no more. Aftershock and Eruption were through with Eruption having done nothing. But in the post-match interview, they explained that this was tactical. They didn't want to risk their machine becoming damaged. I think they were just scared.
Concussion Vs Carbide vs Ironside 3
Time for three very different spinners to face off. Concussion had a spinning drum. Carbide had a horizontal spinning bar that was mounted inside the machine, while Ironside's spinning bar was mounted on top of the machine.
Concussion, perhaps sensing they were the weakest robot, went straight for the pit release. Unfortunately, Carbide went straight for them. With one blow, Concussion were looking worse for wear. Carbide then targeted Ironside 3 knocking out their self-righting mechanism. However, Ironside 3 still had enough life in them to hit Concussion one more time. Poor little Concussion could not stand up to this onslaught and one final almighty blow from Carbide were enough to immobilise them. Concussion were out.
A lot of emphasis has been placed on how well Concussion have done despite being complete newbies. And they have done well and more, they're good sports too. I hope to see them again next series. But for now, Carbide and Ironside 3 are through to the head to heads.
Eruption Vs Ironside 3
Time for only non-spinner to fight the first of the powerful spinners. Ironside 3 began this fight by tactically running away, which I've noticed is their main tactic. However, Eruption didn't allow them a chance to escape. They flipped Ironside halfway across the arena. Ironside managed to get a few blows in before they started running away again. Eruption pursued them towards the arena wall, where one more flip inverted Ironside. With their self-righting mechanism out of action, Ironside couldn't self-right and they had lost. Impressive display by Eruption.
Aftershock Vs Carbide
This battle saw the two most powerful spinners come together in one epic tousle. Aftershock had the faster spinner, but Carbide's was heavier. The two of them went straight for it, charging towards each other. But only Carbide left unscathed. Aftershock had a severe case of Aftershock, as they bounced away. Their armour pannelling had been sheared off and their electronics were hanging out. Carbide slammed into Aftershock again. This attack sent Aftershock's side armour pannelling flying into the arena side wall, where it became embedded. The arena wall is polycarbonate, bulletproof glass, which is there to protect the live studio audience. However, there is a second arena wall, meaning that nobody was actually hurt.
Carbide Vs Eruption
Even though Eruption won their last fight, they still received some damage to their flipper. However, they were able to repair this damage.
Carbide had one tactic in this fight. Go for Eruption's sides, where their armour was the weakest. And this is exactly what Carbide did. They slammed into Eruption and were sent flying away. They slammed into them and were sent rocking away. Eruption managed to withstand both of these blows. But then Carbide hit them again and then hit them on their flipper. Eruption's CO2 was venting and their armour was buckelling. They were out.
Aftershock Vs Ironside 3
Aftershock were so badly damaged after their fight with Carbide that they didn't have enough time to weld their armour back on. Instead, they taped it on with duct tape. You heard me right. Duct tape.
Despite this, they began the battle very strongly. They crashed into Ironside sending it flying through the air and bouncing down. However, the force of Aftershock's weapon ripped away the duct tape, exposing their insides. Bad driving then sent them crashing into the arena wall, where their weapon short-circuited. Ironside 3 took full advantage of this weakness and pushed them onto the arena spikes, which toppled Aftershock. Unable to self-right, they had lost.
Carbide Vs Ironside 3
Carbide were through to the final at this point and were keen to take as little damage as possible. Carbide absolutely dominated this battle. They got the first blow in on Ironside and the sparks flew. It was like being at a fireworks display. It was awesome. Carbide then hit Ironside again, prompting Ironside to employ their usual tactic of running away. But Carbide slammed into them again. And again. And again. The sparks continued flying and Ironside's weapon was stopped. They were almost caught by the house robots, but managed to escape. However, they escaped only to be bashed once more by Carbide. Ironside 3 were immobilised and out.
Aftershock Vs Eruption
With Carbide already through to the final, Aftershock needed to beat Eruption to have any chance of going through to the final. If Aftershock won, then there would be a 3 way tie between them, Eruption and Ironside 3, and the judges would then pick a winner to go through. I again don't like the judges interfering like this. In the event of a tie, I think there should be a 3 way melee, and the winner would go through to the final. It's Robot WARS, after all. Not Robot "oh let the judges pick a suitable robot to go through."
Onto the actual fight. Eruption started on top. They flipped Aftershock into the pit release button, inverting them in the process. As Aftershock bounced down, their mighty spinning disc damaged the arena floor yet again. However, quite weirdly, they were allowed to continue fighting, even though the arena hadn't been repaired.
The second half of the fight was far more even. Aftershock got a blow in on Eruption, pushing them onto the arena spikes. Eruption were toppled, but quickly managed to self-right. Both robots then drove into the CPZ, where they did this bizarre dance of death with Dead Metal. I'm not sure why Eruption and Aftershock did this, probably inexperienced driving.
Once they had escaped, Aftershock hit Eruption, but Eruption then flipped Aftershock across the arena. Aftershock recovered with great style. Aftershock managed to get another blow in before being flipped over again. For a minute, it looked like they were down and out, but they recovered. Aftershock then put more pressure on Eruption, scaring them enough to activate the pit release. But then, Aftershock then disappointingly conked out. I think Aftershock were on top for most of the battle. They rained blow after blow onto Eruption's flipper and armour. It's just a shame that Aftershock broke down.
Eruption vs Carbide
And we have arrived at the grand final of the second season of Robot Wars. The most powerful spinner of this new Robot Wars - Carbide and the most powerful flipper - Eruption.
3...2...1 ACTIVATE
Carbide began this fight the stronger. Slamming into Eruption's flipper and making the sparks fly. Both robots ricocheted away, before Carbide came onto the attack again. They crashed into Eruption, shredding their armour. Carbide's spinning bar continued to tear into Eruption's armour an there was little the flipperbot could do. They tried getting a few flips in but missed. All this allowed for was for Carbide to get more hits in. However, Carbide then started getting a little complacent, as Eruption were able to flip them.
But Carbide quickly learnt from this and continued battering Eruption. CO2 began venting and deep gashes were appearing in Eruption's bodywork. Electronics were hanging out. Wires were trailing. Metal was buckling. Eruption was a beaten machine. And Carbide was a very worthy winner. Runners-up last year, winners, this year. Well done to the Carbide team and also to runners-up Eruption.
Compared to the original Robot Wars, the robots here are so much more powerful. Spinners, even the legendary Hypno-Disc or S7 X-Terminator, were never this powerful. Carbide is a ferocious machine and brilliant winners.
Dim the lights,
scream your applause,
Carbide are your new champions
on Robot Wars.
Sunday, 16 April 2017
L.A Confidential Review
Number 112 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Neo-Noir Crime flick L.A Confidential (1997)
Set in the 1950s, L.A Confidential follows the intertwining lives of three very different LAPDs. Firstly, there is Det. Lt Ed Exxley (Guy Pearce) an ambitious young cop who vows to remain an honest cop. Then there is Officer Wendell "Bud" White, (Russell Crowe) a copper who is prepared to do anything to get get his man. He is also particularly tough on wife-beaters. Lastly, there is Dt. Sgt Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey) who in his spare time works as a technical advisor on police show Badge of Honour. When a shoot-out in a diner leaves White's partner dead, all three cops believe that there is more to the massacre than meets the eye. Supporting characters include police Captain Dudley Smith (James Cromwell) high-class prostitute Lynn Bracken (Kim Basinger) and sleazy journalist Sid Hudgens. (Danny DeVito)
I've watched a few crime films from the '50s like Double Indemnity, and I think that L.A Confidential did a great job at recreating the atmosphere. This was obviously down to the brilliant production design and use of props. For example, Jack Vincennes was never seen without a cigarette in his hands. But it was always present due to the brutal attitudes of the police officers. This film was set 13 years before Miranda Rights came into effect, explaining why the police were able to get away with such nastiness.
Like many of the films on this list, L.A Confidential was boosted by strong performances. Director Curtis Hanson chose Kevin Spacey for the role of Jack Vincennes, as he felt the character was a movie-star among cops Thus he needed an actor that had movie-star charisma. This is exactly what Spacey has. To this role, he brought the same charisma and magnetism that he brought to his roles in American Beauty, The Usual Suspects and Se7en. Danny DeVito was also great as journalist Sid Hudgen. He was sleazy, dirty-handed and entertaining to watch. The evolution of each character felt right as well. White progressively became softer, as he embarked on a relationship with Lynn Bracken, and Exxley had to employ more dirty tactics, in his pursuit of the truth.
Overall, this was a good film with strong performances, a tangible atmosphere and plenty of plot-twists, It wasn't the easiest to follow, but this made me like it more. I was trusted to put everything together myself, rather than have it handed to me.
Set in the 1950s, L.A Confidential follows the intertwining lives of three very different LAPDs. Firstly, there is Det. Lt Ed Exxley (Guy Pearce) an ambitious young cop who vows to remain an honest cop. Then there is Officer Wendell "Bud" White, (Russell Crowe) a copper who is prepared to do anything to get get his man. He is also particularly tough on wife-beaters. Lastly, there is Dt. Sgt Jack Vincennes (Kevin Spacey) who in his spare time works as a technical advisor on police show Badge of Honour. When a shoot-out in a diner leaves White's partner dead, all three cops believe that there is more to the massacre than meets the eye. Supporting characters include police Captain Dudley Smith (James Cromwell) high-class prostitute Lynn Bracken (Kim Basinger) and sleazy journalist Sid Hudgens. (Danny DeVito)
I've watched a few crime films from the '50s like Double Indemnity, and I think that L.A Confidential did a great job at recreating the atmosphere. This was obviously down to the brilliant production design and use of props. For example, Jack Vincennes was never seen without a cigarette in his hands. But it was always present due to the brutal attitudes of the police officers. This film was set 13 years before Miranda Rights came into effect, explaining why the police were able to get away with such nastiness.
Like many of the films on this list, L.A Confidential was boosted by strong performances. Director Curtis Hanson chose Kevin Spacey for the role of Jack Vincennes, as he felt the character was a movie-star among cops Thus he needed an actor that had movie-star charisma. This is exactly what Spacey has. To this role, he brought the same charisma and magnetism that he brought to his roles in American Beauty, The Usual Suspects and Se7en. Danny DeVito was also great as journalist Sid Hudgen. He was sleazy, dirty-handed and entertaining to watch. The evolution of each character felt right as well. White progressively became softer, as he embarked on a relationship with Lynn Bracken, and Exxley had to employ more dirty tactics, in his pursuit of the truth.
Overall, this was a good film with strong performances, a tangible atmosphere and plenty of plot-twists, It wasn't the easiest to follow, but this made me like it more. I was trusted to put everything together myself, rather than have it handed to me.
Friday, 14 April 2017
Am I a real disciple of Jesus? What do I do when I am tempted? Why should Christians suffer? Why are Christians a problem?
Religion
How do animals and women fit in? Why do evil and viruses exist?
How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?
What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?
No further word from God? Only containing God's words? What about the errors?
Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be legend? Help from outside the bible...?
How dangerous is wealth? What about forgiving the unrepentant? Can euthanasia be Christian? What makes a church a sect?
Is Jesus the one to follow? Did Jesus rise bodily? Jesus and the Holy Spirit? How is Christ coming back? A synthesis of traditions?
Time to tackle the last few questions of Richard Bewes' book: The Top Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions
Q.91 Am I a real disciple of Jesus? How can I be sure that my faith is genuine, and that I won't turn out to be a fraud?
Richard Bewes has three answers for those who are doubting their faith.
Firstly, he argues that we have to rely on the word of God, not on our inner feelings. This is because the Word of God is constant, while our feelings are constantly changing. We must open ourselves to Jesus and invite him into our lives. This is enough sign for God to transfer us to his kingdom.
Secondly, he argues that through Christ's sacrifice, our sins were washed clean. We were freed from our guilt, which allowed us to be fully accepted by God. This has ensured our salvation. If we question it, or wish to add any further contribution, then we are insulting it.
Lastly, Richard Bewes argues that we can confirm our faith through the feelings of the Holy Spirit. By allowing the Holy Spirit to fill us, we are allowing it to further confirm our faith.
My Christian friend Naomi quoted Romans 8:16
"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."
She argued that the more you dwell on the issue, the more likely you are to doubt yourself. This is because that the human capacity to doubt is always present. If you genuinely believe in the core beliefs of Christianity, then you shouldn't have to worry whether you're a real disciple of Jesus or not.
Q. 94 What do I do when I am tempted? I hear addresses on the power we are given to overcome our sins. But practically what should I do when I sense the Devil's presence?
Richard Bewes offers a very interesting answer to this question. He argues that it is up to us, not Christ, to resist temptation. However, we are unmotivated to this, as it is too personally inconvenient for us to do so. Bewes identifies the use of active verbs in the New Testament, which encourage us to fight our own battles. He says that "when the Liberator comes, he doesn't set us free from the fight. He sets us free for the fight."
I quite like this idea. There is a silly misconception of religious people, as mindless sheep. However, this demonstrates that they have personal agency and freedom of choice.
Q. 95 Why should Christians suffer? Why is it that following Jesus seems in every quarter to be so unpopular? Is it inevitable that we must suffer as Christians?
This is a question that we have already encountered in a number of forms, such as "why do evil and viruses exist?" And, according to Richard Bewes, Christians must suffer.
The crux of Bewes' argument hinges on the idea that suffering is a key part of faith. Adversity is necessary to achieve spiritual growth. Christians think that adversity is an unnecessary interruption to "normal Christian life," but it's actually an integral part of life. It is a gateway into personal growth. Suffering and glory belong together. The Cross was initially a tool of suffering, but now it has become a symbol of strength.
Naomi argued that there will always be a certain mystery about why we suffer, which she thinks could be why it's so painful. If we knew why we were suffering, would it hurt as much? However, she also offers some potential reasons for why we may suffer. She argues that Christians suffer due to the original sin that Adam and Eve committed. Suffering is also a tool that God uses to make us more like Jesus.
I can see the logic of both arguments. We improve ourselves by making mistakes and learning from them. If you'll allow a pretentious sounding analogy, then you could think of people like lumps of coal. It is only through extreme pressure and a lot of cutting can we be turned into diamonds. Tragedies like terrorist attacks or natural disasters are great unifiers. People are united by their grief and their suffering. Suffering helps to bring people together that may otherwise stay separated. After all, what doesn't kill you can only make you stronger.
Q.98 Why are Christians a problem? I have to tell you that I find non-Christian acquaintances easier to get on with than my fellow-believers. Why is is that so often the non-Christians are nicer, more hard-working and even more honest than the Christians?
When whomever asked this question, I'm sure they weren't generalising their comments to the wider population. You get nice Christians just as much as you get disrespectful Atheists and vice versa.
However, Richard Bewes argues that there is a "precedent for this pattern." The early Church in Corinth was full of Christians who were sexually immoral and committed idolatry and adultery. Bewes quotes Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:3
"You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere human beings?"
Bewes continues with the idea of "mere men." To err is to be human. It is natural for us to make mistakes, as we are imperfect. He says that it is natural to expect this in any church. In fact, it is a healthy sign that a church should welcome such people, rather than "quarantine [themselves] from outside influences." We shouldn't want a New Testament church to be completely pure.
I would agree with this, as it demonstrates Christianity as being accommodating and open-minded. It allows the more troubled people a chance to engage with Christianity, rather than rejecting them completely.
As Naomi has constantly done, don't be afraid to tell me I'm wrong. Criticise me and leave below your own comments. Just keep it mature. Keep it intelligent. Keep it respectful.
How do animals and women fit in? Why do evil and viruses exist?
How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?
What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?
No further word from God? Only containing God's words? What about the errors?
Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be legend? Help from outside the bible...?
How dangerous is wealth? What about forgiving the unrepentant? Can euthanasia be Christian? What makes a church a sect?
Is Jesus the one to follow? Did Jesus rise bodily? Jesus and the Holy Spirit? How is Christ coming back? A synthesis of traditions?
Time to tackle the last few questions of Richard Bewes' book: The Top Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions
Q.91 Am I a real disciple of Jesus? How can I be sure that my faith is genuine, and that I won't turn out to be a fraud?
Richard Bewes has three answers for those who are doubting their faith.
Firstly, he argues that we have to rely on the word of God, not on our inner feelings. This is because the Word of God is constant, while our feelings are constantly changing. We must open ourselves to Jesus and invite him into our lives. This is enough sign for God to transfer us to his kingdom.
Secondly, he argues that through Christ's sacrifice, our sins were washed clean. We were freed from our guilt, which allowed us to be fully accepted by God. This has ensured our salvation. If we question it, or wish to add any further contribution, then we are insulting it.
Lastly, Richard Bewes argues that we can confirm our faith through the feelings of the Holy Spirit. By allowing the Holy Spirit to fill us, we are allowing it to further confirm our faith.
My Christian friend Naomi quoted Romans 8:16
"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."
She argued that the more you dwell on the issue, the more likely you are to doubt yourself. This is because that the human capacity to doubt is always present. If you genuinely believe in the core beliefs of Christianity, then you shouldn't have to worry whether you're a real disciple of Jesus or not.
Q. 94 What do I do when I am tempted? I hear addresses on the power we are given to overcome our sins. But practically what should I do when I sense the Devil's presence?
Richard Bewes offers a very interesting answer to this question. He argues that it is up to us, not Christ, to resist temptation. However, we are unmotivated to this, as it is too personally inconvenient for us to do so. Bewes identifies the use of active verbs in the New Testament, which encourage us to fight our own battles. He says that "when the Liberator comes, he doesn't set us free from the fight. He sets us free for the fight."
I quite like this idea. There is a silly misconception of religious people, as mindless sheep. However, this demonstrates that they have personal agency and freedom of choice.
Q. 95 Why should Christians suffer? Why is it that following Jesus seems in every quarter to be so unpopular? Is it inevitable that we must suffer as Christians?
This is a question that we have already encountered in a number of forms, such as "why do evil and viruses exist?" And, according to Richard Bewes, Christians must suffer.
The crux of Bewes' argument hinges on the idea that suffering is a key part of faith. Adversity is necessary to achieve spiritual growth. Christians think that adversity is an unnecessary interruption to "normal Christian life," but it's actually an integral part of life. It is a gateway into personal growth. Suffering and glory belong together. The Cross was initially a tool of suffering, but now it has become a symbol of strength.
Naomi argued that there will always be a certain mystery about why we suffer, which she thinks could be why it's so painful. If we knew why we were suffering, would it hurt as much? However, she also offers some potential reasons for why we may suffer. She argues that Christians suffer due to the original sin that Adam and Eve committed. Suffering is also a tool that God uses to make us more like Jesus.
I can see the logic of both arguments. We improve ourselves by making mistakes and learning from them. If you'll allow a pretentious sounding analogy, then you could think of people like lumps of coal. It is only through extreme pressure and a lot of cutting can we be turned into diamonds. Tragedies like terrorist attacks or natural disasters are great unifiers. People are united by their grief and their suffering. Suffering helps to bring people together that may otherwise stay separated. After all, what doesn't kill you can only make you stronger.
Q.98 Why are Christians a problem? I have to tell you that I find non-Christian acquaintances easier to get on with than my fellow-believers. Why is is that so often the non-Christians are nicer, more hard-working and even more honest than the Christians?
When whomever asked this question, I'm sure they weren't generalising their comments to the wider population. You get nice Christians just as much as you get disrespectful Atheists and vice versa.
However, Richard Bewes argues that there is a "precedent for this pattern." The early Church in Corinth was full of Christians who were sexually immoral and committed idolatry and adultery. Bewes quotes Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:3
"You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere human beings?"
Bewes continues with the idea of "mere men." To err is to be human. It is natural for us to make mistakes, as we are imperfect. He says that it is natural to expect this in any church. In fact, it is a healthy sign that a church should welcome such people, rather than "quarantine [themselves] from outside influences." We shouldn't want a New Testament church to be completely pure.
I would agree with this, as it demonstrates Christianity as being accommodating and open-minded. It allows the more troubled people a chance to engage with Christianity, rather than rejecting them completely.
As Naomi has constantly done, don't be afraid to tell me I'm wrong. Criticise me and leave below your own comments. Just keep it mature. Keep it intelligent. Keep it respectful.
Monday, 10 April 2017
Is Jesus the only one to follow? Did Jesus rise bodily? Jesus and the Holy Spirit? How is Christ coming back? A synthesis of tradition?
Religion
How do animals and women fit in? Why do evil and viruses exist?
How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?
What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?
No further word from God? Only containing God's words? What about the errors?
Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be legend? Help from outside the bible...?
How dangerous is wealth? What about forgiving the unrepentant? Can euthanasia be Christian? What makes a church a sect?
The final twenty questions of Richard Bewes' book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions engages with the Christ we follow.
81. Jesus - the only to follow? How can I be confident that Jesus is the ultimate figure in all history, for us to follow?
With the plethora of religious choice that we have now, how are we supposed to know that Jesus is the right one to follow? Richard Bewes provides three different answers.
Firstly, he argues that Christ has a unique character. He had an innate goodness that was endorsed by closest of his friends. He himself claims that he is sinless, which is a vast contrast to any religious leaders that came before or after him. As these religious leaders advanced in character, they became progressively more aware of their own moral imperfections.
Secondly, Bewes argues that Christ sets the ultimate standard to follow. He forgave those who sinned against him. He forgave those who he never even met.
Lastly, Bewes argues that Christ made unparalleled claims. He made numerous claims like he was "the Son of God, "universal judge" and "the Centre of all Truth."
Although these are all logical points, I think the problem I have with them is that they are not unique to Christianity. Monotheistic religions like Christianity all claim to have the monopoly of the truth. They all claim to be the epicentre of morality and truth. What separates Christianity from these other religions?
85. Did Jesus rise bodily? Must we be held to the crudeness of a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ? Is it not enough to describe the Easter event as a wonderful metaphor of the Christian hope?
Richard Bewes argues that the story of Christ's resurrection mixes both literal and metaphorical language. He definitely died and was raised from the dead. However, the idea that he appeared to his disciples on the third day is completely metaphorical.
But what Bewes stresses is the inherent meaning behind Christ's resurrection. What is most important is the fact that he returned from the dead at all. His return helped to unite his disciples who at this point were a broken mess. Judas had killed himself and Peter, Jesus' most loyal follower, had denied any association with Christ at all. It was only through Christ's return were the Apostles inspired to go and spread the word of God through the Roman empire. Christ's resurrection cemented his longevity.
AMENDMENT:
Bewes concludes by arguing that the depiction of Jesus' resurrection mixes metaphorical and literal language:
"Do the metaphor theorists think Jesus actually died? Yes, yes. Was buried? Sure. Was raised on the third day? (always that insistence on the 'third day'!") Er, no - that's metaphorical. Appeared? No, that's metaphorical too. So within a single sentence, Paul can switch from factual language to metaphorical language? Please!..."
Naomi and I have debated heavily over what this passage means. I thought it was an acknowledgement about how the bible shouldn't be taken 100% literally. I know that I've said this before, and I know that my Christian friend Naomi doesn't like this point, but I don't believe that all of the bible happened. Other than the parables which are just stories, I think that while parts of the bible was based on factual events, a lot of it is prophecy, poetry and parable, which should be considered as such. Not as fact.
However, Naomi absolutely lambasted this point. She argued that Jesus' resurrection happened. It was not a metaphor. It inspired the birth of the early church. Many early Christians were so inspired by Jesus' sacrifice that they would allow themselves to be persecuted and executed for their faiths, rather than renounce it. Would they have allowed themselves to be martyred for a mere metaphor?
Naomi quoted 1 Corinthians 15:6
"then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep."
She argued that Jesus had to have appeared to his disciples, as how else would we have witnesses to prove his resurrection. It was written as a historical account and should be acknowledged as such. Even though a lot of the bible is poetry and prophecy, it can still be used to describe the truth.
I would agree with this and acknowledge that I was wrong in my initial interpretation of Richard Bewes' argument. I think he was criticising the people like me who believed that the resurrection and other biblical events were just mere metaphors.
88. Jesus - and the Holy Spirit? What was happening at Pentecost? Is this an extra dimension, on top of following Jesus and being born again?
This question is addressing the relationship between Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and I have to admit, at times I've not been too sure of the difference.
Firstly, Bewes states that the Pentecost was an important event in its own right. It was an opportunity for the early Christians to hear the Gospels in their own language and then spread the word. The Pentecost allowed the Gospels an international stage.
In John 14:16-18, Jesus promises the coming of the Holy Spirit:
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you for ever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."
The Holy Spirit is not a different advisor to Jesus, but a second advisor, "who would be the 'other,' unseen presence of Jesus himself."
Although Christ's death removed him from the few, it allowed him to become accessible to the masses. "Through 'another Counsellor' (the third Person of the Trinity), the very presence of Christ himself is brought into your one-room flat but [...] right into your heart and life."
Bewes concludes by arguing that the "Spirit magnifies Christ." The purpose of the Spirit is to continue where Jesus left off. To encourage us to forgive our enemies and to know the love of Jesus.
From what I understand of the Holy Spirit, this makes perfect sense to me. I know that the Holy Spirit is the third part of the Holy Trinity and it resides in all living beings. It is what leads people to begin believing in Christ. Naomi had a similar argument. She said that Pentecost was when the Holy Spirit was given to the church. It empowers Christians to live out the Christian life.
89. How is Christ coming back? Isn't the idea of Jesus of Nazareth returning to earth quaint to accept, in our computerised world of e-mails and the Internet?
Unsurprisingly, as a Rector, Richard Bewes is undoubtedly sure that the Second Coming will happen. He argues that "the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ will take place personally, powerfully, bodily, visibly, publicly - and instantly. [...] It will be quicker than any email."
It won't be a localised occurrence, but rather a sign of the end of history. A signal of the final judgment. It will bring about a new heaven and a new earth. Bewes also criticises those who waste their time trying to calculate when the apocalypse will happen. Apparently, it's going to end on the 27th of August. And who could forget Harold Camping who has consistently got it wrong when predicting the end of the world.
Bewes argues that Matthew 24: 42-44 teaches that we should not try to anticipate when the apocalypse will happen. It is impossible for us to guess. Instead we should use our time to live our lives. To work, to watch, to witness.
Do I agree with this? Do I agree that one day Christ will come back and the world will end? Well, the world will end one day, but I don't think it will be because of Christ. With global warming, pollution, war, gas attacks, terrorism and environmental damage, we could destroy the world because Christ has a chance.
90. A synthesis of traditions? Is there anything against holding multi-religious services? After all, would it not be helpful to combine the best of the world's beliefs?
One of the biggest criticisms I hear of Christianity or of any religion is the idea that it is mono-theistic. They believe that their religion is the only one that you should worship to. Three of the ten commandments all revolve around not worshipping other gods or idols. And this is what makes it so incompatible with science. While there are definite paradigms in science that can't be questioned like evolution or gravity, science is largely built on cumulative knowledge. Old theories are constantly disproved and replaced with new theories.
AMENDMENT
Naomi offered an interesting counter-argument to this. She believed that Christianity and science are compatible. As God was the creator of everything, he also created scientific processes. Science isn't a separate entity, but rather a means of understanding the world. This is why different theories arise, as we can misunderstand the scientific process.
END OF AMENDMENT
However, this idea of religion being narrow-minded and hostile to external ideas is an over-simplified perspective. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are known as the Abrahamic religions, as they stemmed from Abraham. As such they all share the same prophets, the same stories and the same ideas. In Islam, Jesus is a prophet, although obviously not the son of God. Isaac, Jacob and David also feature in the Qu'ran. Furthermore, it is possible to follow one faith and be respectful of others. My favourite example of this is during the Egyptian Revolution, a group of Christians formed a human chain around praying Muslims. The Muslims later returned the favour. The fact that I am writing these articles show that I believe in religious tolerance. I ask my Christian friends Naomi and Juan for help, as I respect their beliefs and their ideas.
Richard Bewes begins his argument by also calling for religious tolerance. He argues that our attitudes towards other faiths should be one of courtesy, grace and firmness. We should learn as much as we can about these different religions and we should have open discussion about it. There is nothing wrong with Christians attending talks about Islam or Judaism, as long as they're there to observe and not to participate.
However, he says that we should also not be afraid to challenge these people. He says that we need to remember that everyone who rejects Jesus are outside of his covenant. They need to hear the word of Christ to be saved. This dichotomy of respecting other people's beliefs, but also wanting them to become Christian might seem strange, but I think it makes sense. Naomi is always praying that I will hear the word of Jesus and become Christian. Although, I'm not sure whether this will happen, I like how she's doing this. It's sweet of her to wish this upon me.
And of course, these ideas don't just apply to Christianity. You may have a friend who doesn't like to read Young Adult fiction. While you respect this, you are constantly recommending them different titles in the hopes that you'll change their minds.
As always, I am not an expert. If you have a differing belief then comment it below. Just keep it mature. Keep it intelligent. Keep it respectful.
How do animals and women fit in? Why do evil and viruses exist?
How big was the flood and why doesn't God intervene?
What is the Trinity to other religions? Where does Jesus fit in? Does purgatory exist?
No further word from God? Only containing God's words? What about the errors?
Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be legend? Help from outside the bible...?
How dangerous is wealth? What about forgiving the unrepentant? Can euthanasia be Christian? What makes a church a sect?
The final twenty questions of Richard Bewes' book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions engages with the Christ we follow.
81. Jesus - the only to follow? How can I be confident that Jesus is the ultimate figure in all history, for us to follow?
With the plethora of religious choice that we have now, how are we supposed to know that Jesus is the right one to follow? Richard Bewes provides three different answers.
Firstly, he argues that Christ has a unique character. He had an innate goodness that was endorsed by closest of his friends. He himself claims that he is sinless, which is a vast contrast to any religious leaders that came before or after him. As these religious leaders advanced in character, they became progressively more aware of their own moral imperfections.
Secondly, Bewes argues that Christ sets the ultimate standard to follow. He forgave those who sinned against him. He forgave those who he never even met.
Lastly, Bewes argues that Christ made unparalleled claims. He made numerous claims like he was "the Son of God, "universal judge" and "the Centre of all Truth."
Although these are all logical points, I think the problem I have with them is that they are not unique to Christianity. Monotheistic religions like Christianity all claim to have the monopoly of the truth. They all claim to be the epicentre of morality and truth. What separates Christianity from these other religions?
85. Did Jesus rise bodily? Must we be held to the crudeness of a literal resurrection of Jesus Christ? Is it not enough to describe the Easter event as a wonderful metaphor of the Christian hope?
Richard Bewes argues that the story of Christ's resurrection mixes both literal and metaphorical language. He definitely died and was raised from the dead. However, the idea that he appeared to his disciples on the third day is completely metaphorical.
But what Bewes stresses is the inherent meaning behind Christ's resurrection. What is most important is the fact that he returned from the dead at all. His return helped to unite his disciples who at this point were a broken mess. Judas had killed himself and Peter, Jesus' most loyal follower, had denied any association with Christ at all. It was only through Christ's return were the Apostles inspired to go and spread the word of God through the Roman empire. Christ's resurrection cemented his longevity.
AMENDMENT:
Bewes concludes by arguing that the depiction of Jesus' resurrection mixes metaphorical and literal language:
"Do the metaphor theorists think Jesus actually died? Yes, yes. Was buried? Sure. Was raised on the third day? (always that insistence on the 'third day'!") Er, no - that's metaphorical. Appeared? No, that's metaphorical too. So within a single sentence, Paul can switch from factual language to metaphorical language? Please!..."
Naomi and I have debated heavily over what this passage means. I thought it was an acknowledgement about how the bible shouldn't be taken 100% literally. I know that I've said this before, and I know that my Christian friend Naomi doesn't like this point, but I don't believe that all of the bible happened. Other than the parables which are just stories, I think that while parts of the bible was based on factual events, a lot of it is prophecy, poetry and parable, which should be considered as such. Not as fact.
However, Naomi absolutely lambasted this point. She argued that Jesus' resurrection happened. It was not a metaphor. It inspired the birth of the early church. Many early Christians were so inspired by Jesus' sacrifice that they would allow themselves to be persecuted and executed for their faiths, rather than renounce it. Would they have allowed themselves to be martyred for a mere metaphor?
Naomi quoted 1 Corinthians 15:6
"then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep."
She argued that Jesus had to have appeared to his disciples, as how else would we have witnesses to prove his resurrection. It was written as a historical account and should be acknowledged as such. Even though a lot of the bible is poetry and prophecy, it can still be used to describe the truth.
I would agree with this and acknowledge that I was wrong in my initial interpretation of Richard Bewes' argument. I think he was criticising the people like me who believed that the resurrection and other biblical events were just mere metaphors.
88. Jesus - and the Holy Spirit? What was happening at Pentecost? Is this an extra dimension, on top of following Jesus and being born again?
This question is addressing the relationship between Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and I have to admit, at times I've not been too sure of the difference.
Firstly, Bewes states that the Pentecost was an important event in its own right. It was an opportunity for the early Christians to hear the Gospels in their own language and then spread the word. The Pentecost allowed the Gospels an international stage.
In John 14:16-18, Jesus promises the coming of the Holy Spirit:
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you for ever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you."
The Holy Spirit is not a different advisor to Jesus, but a second advisor, "who would be the 'other,' unseen presence of Jesus himself."
Although Christ's death removed him from the few, it allowed him to become accessible to the masses. "Through 'another Counsellor' (the third Person of the Trinity), the very presence of Christ himself is brought into your one-room flat but [...] right into your heart and life."
Bewes concludes by arguing that the "Spirit magnifies Christ." The purpose of the Spirit is to continue where Jesus left off. To encourage us to forgive our enemies and to know the love of Jesus.
From what I understand of the Holy Spirit, this makes perfect sense to me. I know that the Holy Spirit is the third part of the Holy Trinity and it resides in all living beings. It is what leads people to begin believing in Christ. Naomi had a similar argument. She said that Pentecost was when the Holy Spirit was given to the church. It empowers Christians to live out the Christian life.
89. How is Christ coming back? Isn't the idea of Jesus of Nazareth returning to earth quaint to accept, in our computerised world of e-mails and the Internet?
Unsurprisingly, as a Rector, Richard Bewes is undoubtedly sure that the Second Coming will happen. He argues that "the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ will take place personally, powerfully, bodily, visibly, publicly - and instantly. [...] It will be quicker than any email."
It won't be a localised occurrence, but rather a sign of the end of history. A signal of the final judgment. It will bring about a new heaven and a new earth. Bewes also criticises those who waste their time trying to calculate when the apocalypse will happen. Apparently, it's going to end on the 27th of August. And who could forget Harold Camping who has consistently got it wrong when predicting the end of the world.
Bewes argues that Matthew 24: 42-44 teaches that we should not try to anticipate when the apocalypse will happen. It is impossible for us to guess. Instead we should use our time to live our lives. To work, to watch, to witness.
Do I agree with this? Do I agree that one day Christ will come back and the world will end? Well, the world will end one day, but I don't think it will be because of Christ. With global warming, pollution, war, gas attacks, terrorism and environmental damage, we could destroy the world because Christ has a chance.
90. A synthesis of traditions? Is there anything against holding multi-religious services? After all, would it not be helpful to combine the best of the world's beliefs?
One of the biggest criticisms I hear of Christianity or of any religion is the idea that it is mono-theistic. They believe that their religion is the only one that you should worship to. Three of the ten commandments all revolve around not worshipping other gods or idols. And this is what makes it so incompatible with science. While there are definite paradigms in science that can't be questioned like evolution or gravity, science is largely built on cumulative knowledge. Old theories are constantly disproved and replaced with new theories.
AMENDMENT
Naomi offered an interesting counter-argument to this. She believed that Christianity and science are compatible. As God was the creator of everything, he also created scientific processes. Science isn't a separate entity, but rather a means of understanding the world. This is why different theories arise, as we can misunderstand the scientific process.
END OF AMENDMENT
However, this idea of religion being narrow-minded and hostile to external ideas is an over-simplified perspective. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are known as the Abrahamic religions, as they stemmed from Abraham. As such they all share the same prophets, the same stories and the same ideas. In Islam, Jesus is a prophet, although obviously not the son of God. Isaac, Jacob and David also feature in the Qu'ran. Furthermore, it is possible to follow one faith and be respectful of others. My favourite example of this is during the Egyptian Revolution, a group of Christians formed a human chain around praying Muslims. The Muslims later returned the favour. The fact that I am writing these articles show that I believe in religious tolerance. I ask my Christian friends Naomi and Juan for help, as I respect their beliefs and their ideas.
Richard Bewes begins his argument by also calling for religious tolerance. He argues that our attitudes towards other faiths should be one of courtesy, grace and firmness. We should learn as much as we can about these different religions and we should have open discussion about it. There is nothing wrong with Christians attending talks about Islam or Judaism, as long as they're there to observe and not to participate.
However, he says that we should also not be afraid to challenge these people. He says that we need to remember that everyone who rejects Jesus are outside of his covenant. They need to hear the word of Christ to be saved. This dichotomy of respecting other people's beliefs, but also wanting them to become Christian might seem strange, but I think it makes sense. Naomi is always praying that I will hear the word of Jesus and become Christian. Although, I'm not sure whether this will happen, I like how she's doing this. It's sweet of her to wish this upon me.
And of course, these ideas don't just apply to Christianity. You may have a friend who doesn't like to read Young Adult fiction. While you respect this, you are constantly recommending them different titles in the hopes that you'll change their minds.
As always, I am not an expert. If you have a differing belief then comment it below. Just keep it mature. Keep it intelligent. Keep it respectful.
Tuesday, 4 April 2017
Robot Wars Episode 5 Recap
Episode 4
Episode 3
Episode 2
Episode 1
This episode featured the return of Apollo and Carbide. If you don't remember, Apollo were last year's champions and Carbide were the worthy runners-up.
This episode was all about manufacturing a grudge match between Carbide and Apollo, so much so, that all of the other robots were complete non-entities.
I didn't like how Apollo and Carbide were in the same heat. In the old wars, the champion and runners-up were kept apart for as long as possible, to ensure an explosive grand final. I think the same should have been done here. But that's enough talking.
LET THE WARS BEGIN
Battle 1
Apollo Vs Coyote Vs Rusty vs Ms Nightshade
We all know Apollo. It was last year's winner with its immensely powerful flipper that can toss robots six feet into the air.
Apollo was fighting the untested flipperbot Rusty and the more curious Ms Nightshade and Coyote.
Ms Nightshade had an inventive design. Standing at one metre high, they looked like an unopened rosebud, until it was time for them to bloom, which would send their petals or axes slamming down. Despite this novel design, Ms Nightshade looked unstable and was completely untested. The team wanted to be completely surprised by their own robot, which sounds silly. As Dara O'Briain said "you're supposed to surprise us, not yourselves."
Lastly, there was the dual-weaponed Coyote which had a crushing jaw that could clamp with a ton of force. Its secondary weapon was a chainsaw tail.
3...2...1 Activate
In this battle, Apollo fully proved why they were the champions. They began strongly by flipping Rusty across the arena. Meanwhile, Coyote took a ponderous glance at Ms Nightshade, before Apollo flipped Rusty again, sending some of their armour panelling off too. Rusty's own flipper was flimsy and no match for Apollo's. They tried flipping the champion, but missed and flipped themselves over. They were out. This was when Apollo went after Ms Nightshade and toppled it.. The rose-bud machine had no scrimech and they were out. This was a foolish mistake on their part.
This meant meant that Apollo and Coyote were through, despite the latter having done very little. However, Apollo weren't finished there. They flipped Coyote over, damaging their chainsaw tail and then Dead Metal tore into Coyote.
Battle 2
Carbide Vs Crackers 'N' Smash Vs Trolley Rage Vs Meggamouse
Carbide, last year's runners up were armed with a spinning bar that weighed 23kg and spun at 250 mph. With this fearsome weapon, they threatened to leave behind a trail of destruction.
Crackers 'N' Smash were a cluster bot. This is to say, there were two smaller robots, which operated as one team. Crackers was armed with a lifter and Smash, a spinning drum.
Trolley Rage was a robot that had been made out of scrap metal, including an old shopping trolley. They were armed with an axe and ramming spikes.
Lastly, there was Meggamouse who had a lifter. They also had a little clusterbot, shaped like a wedge of cheese to help them.
Just like Apollo dominated their group battle, Carbide dominated theirs.
Their first victim was Trolley Rage, which was absolutely battered. Its armour was buckled and the electricals were ripped out. It could not recover from this onslaught and were sent crashing out.
After this Carbide turned its attention to Crackers, which is where we saw the sparks start flying. However, the clusterbots managed to escape. This allowed Carbide to start attacking Meggamouse.
Meggamouse could not survive the attack. Their armour was broken, their flipper was sheared off and a wheel was sent into oblivion. It was a shame for Meggamouse as they began strongly, ramming into Crackers, but they were no match for Carbide who were through to the next round. Joining them were Crackers 'N' Smash, but more by luck than judgement.
Head to heads
Apollo Vs Carbide
The first head to head was the one that everyone has been waiting for. The rematch. Apollo vs Carbide. Both machines have been heavily upgraded since the last wars, so who knew what way this was going to go.
Apollo immediately tried taking the lead. I say try, because they messed up. They tried to flip Carbide, but they missed. This mistake was all Carbide needed to inflict devastating punishment and it was brutal.
Carbide tore away Apollo's armour pannelling and buckled their flipper. Apollo couldn't recover. They couldn't escape. One last assault from Carbide was enough to immobilise the reigning champions.
Crackers 'N' Smash Vs Coyote
Both robots entered the arena completely weaponless. Coyote's chainsaw tail was too badly damaged after their group battle with Apollo and Crackers 'N' Smash couldn't get their weaponry going after their encounter with Carbide.
Instead, both robots went for different tactics. Coyote began strongly, pushing Smash across the arena and into the claws of Dead Metal. They then went for the pit release. However, instead of the pit being lowered, the house robots went rogue.
This diversion was all Crackers 'N' Smash needed to regroup and gang up against Coyote. Crackers sent the house robots rogue again, leading to Matilda hitting Coyote with her flywheel. This was enough to immobilise Coyote.
Apollo Vs Coyote
Apollo entered this fight looking like a beaten machine. Their flipper was still buckled and their armour scarred. However, Coyote wasn't much better, as they were badly damaged from Matilda's attack.
However, if Apollo looked beaten, they certainly didn't act like it. They came racing out of the traps, flipping Coyote halfway across the arena. And then they flipped them again. With just two flips, Coyote were immobilised. However, Apollo weren't finished there. They flipped Coyote out of the arena and then tried flipping Sir Killalot and failed. The reason for this suicidal decision was because Sir Killalot is the only house robot that they haven't flipped.
Carbide Vs Crackers 'N' Smash
For this battle, Crackers 'N' Smash took a massive risk. They removed their weaponry to make themselves less of a target for Carbide. This worked about as well as bringing a wooden robot into the arena.
Carbide drove onto the low Crackers and used this as a perch to hit Smash. Once the clusterbots had escaped, Carbide slammed into them again. Its spinning bar bashed across the top of the smaller machines and the sparks flew. it was like a fireworks display.
And then one final attack sent Crackers spinning into the arena wall, breaking part of it. For safety reasons, the fight had to be stopped and the arena repaired. Usually, after the arena was repaired, the fight would resume as usual, but Crackers 'N' Smash tactically resigned to spare their machines anymore damage.
Carbide vs Coyote
Carbide were the top of the league table and Coyote was at the bottom. Their crushing jaw was no match for Carbide's spinning bar and their chainsaw tail was out of action. They needed a miracle to win. Instead they received a battering.
Carbide slammed into Coyote sending them spinning away. And then Carbide slammed into them again, sending them into the clutches of Sir Killalot, who roasted them over the flame pit. One more attack was enough to immobilise them. They were a buckled mess and they were out.
Apollo vs Crackers 'N' Smash
Even in Apollo's damaged condition, Crackers 'N' Smash were the massive underdogs.
The clusterbots began well. Crackers managed to get in and underneath Apollo, but they couldn't flip them. In revenge, Apollo flipped them into the clutches of Dead Metal who immobilised Crackers.
Apollo then had to finish off Smash. They flipped it around the arena, but worringly, could not immobilise them. The decision went to the judges who unsurprisingly awarded it to Apollo. This meant that the heat final would be a grudge match between Apollo and Carbide.
Apollo Vs Carbide
Although Apollo looked like they had recovered since their first fight with Carbide, this was not the case. Their flipper was still buckled and unable to flip Carbide.
Carbide took full advantage of this by destroying Apollo. The spinning hammer tore off Apollo's armour panelling and bent its chassis. As for the flipper, Carbide unleashed a furious attack and the sparks flew again. Apollo were left a broken mess and Carbide were through to the final.
They join Aftershock, Eruption, Concussion and Ironside 3 in the final. We have one flipper and four very different spinners. The sixth spot will be filled up by a runner-up of the judges' choosing. Their options are Sabretooth, Cherub, Thor, Pulsar and Apollo. I think they'll pick Apollo, so I'm not going to count the champions, down and out, just yet.
Episode 3
Episode 2
Episode 1
This episode featured the return of Apollo and Carbide. If you don't remember, Apollo were last year's champions and Carbide were the worthy runners-up.
This episode was all about manufacturing a grudge match between Carbide and Apollo, so much so, that all of the other robots were complete non-entities.
I didn't like how Apollo and Carbide were in the same heat. In the old wars, the champion and runners-up were kept apart for as long as possible, to ensure an explosive grand final. I think the same should have been done here. But that's enough talking.
LET THE WARS BEGIN
Battle 1
Apollo Vs Coyote Vs Rusty vs Ms Nightshade
We all know Apollo. It was last year's winner with its immensely powerful flipper that can toss robots six feet into the air.
Apollo was fighting the untested flipperbot Rusty and the more curious Ms Nightshade and Coyote.
Ms Nightshade had an inventive design. Standing at one metre high, they looked like an unopened rosebud, until it was time for them to bloom, which would send their petals or axes slamming down. Despite this novel design, Ms Nightshade looked unstable and was completely untested. The team wanted to be completely surprised by their own robot, which sounds silly. As Dara O'Briain said "you're supposed to surprise us, not yourselves."
Lastly, there was the dual-weaponed Coyote which had a crushing jaw that could clamp with a ton of force. Its secondary weapon was a chainsaw tail.
3...2...1 Activate
In this battle, Apollo fully proved why they were the champions. They began strongly by flipping Rusty across the arena. Meanwhile, Coyote took a ponderous glance at Ms Nightshade, before Apollo flipped Rusty again, sending some of their armour panelling off too. Rusty's own flipper was flimsy and no match for Apollo's. They tried flipping the champion, but missed and flipped themselves over. They were out. This was when Apollo went after Ms Nightshade and toppled it.. The rose-bud machine had no scrimech and they were out. This was a foolish mistake on their part.
This meant meant that Apollo and Coyote were through, despite the latter having done very little. However, Apollo weren't finished there. They flipped Coyote over, damaging their chainsaw tail and then Dead Metal tore into Coyote.
Battle 2
Carbide Vs Crackers 'N' Smash Vs Trolley Rage Vs Meggamouse
Carbide, last year's runners up were armed with a spinning bar that weighed 23kg and spun at 250 mph. With this fearsome weapon, they threatened to leave behind a trail of destruction.
Crackers 'N' Smash were a cluster bot. This is to say, there were two smaller robots, which operated as one team. Crackers was armed with a lifter and Smash, a spinning drum.
Trolley Rage was a robot that had been made out of scrap metal, including an old shopping trolley. They were armed with an axe and ramming spikes.
Lastly, there was Meggamouse who had a lifter. They also had a little clusterbot, shaped like a wedge of cheese to help them.
Just like Apollo dominated their group battle, Carbide dominated theirs.
Their first victim was Trolley Rage, which was absolutely battered. Its armour was buckled and the electricals were ripped out. It could not recover from this onslaught and were sent crashing out.
After this Carbide turned its attention to Crackers, which is where we saw the sparks start flying. However, the clusterbots managed to escape. This allowed Carbide to start attacking Meggamouse.
Meggamouse could not survive the attack. Their armour was broken, their flipper was sheared off and a wheel was sent into oblivion. It was a shame for Meggamouse as they began strongly, ramming into Crackers, but they were no match for Carbide who were through to the next round. Joining them were Crackers 'N' Smash, but more by luck than judgement.
Head to heads
Apollo Vs Carbide
The first head to head was the one that everyone has been waiting for. The rematch. Apollo vs Carbide. Both machines have been heavily upgraded since the last wars, so who knew what way this was going to go.
Apollo immediately tried taking the lead. I say try, because they messed up. They tried to flip Carbide, but they missed. This mistake was all Carbide needed to inflict devastating punishment and it was brutal.
Carbide tore away Apollo's armour pannelling and buckled their flipper. Apollo couldn't recover. They couldn't escape. One last assault from Carbide was enough to immobilise the reigning champions.
Crackers 'N' Smash Vs Coyote
Both robots entered the arena completely weaponless. Coyote's chainsaw tail was too badly damaged after their group battle with Apollo and Crackers 'N' Smash couldn't get their weaponry going after their encounter with Carbide.
Instead, both robots went for different tactics. Coyote began strongly, pushing Smash across the arena and into the claws of Dead Metal. They then went for the pit release. However, instead of the pit being lowered, the house robots went rogue.
This diversion was all Crackers 'N' Smash needed to regroup and gang up against Coyote. Crackers sent the house robots rogue again, leading to Matilda hitting Coyote with her flywheel. This was enough to immobilise Coyote.
Apollo Vs Coyote
Apollo entered this fight looking like a beaten machine. Their flipper was still buckled and their armour scarred. However, Coyote wasn't much better, as they were badly damaged from Matilda's attack.
However, if Apollo looked beaten, they certainly didn't act like it. They came racing out of the traps, flipping Coyote halfway across the arena. And then they flipped them again. With just two flips, Coyote were immobilised. However, Apollo weren't finished there. They flipped Coyote out of the arena and then tried flipping Sir Killalot and failed. The reason for this suicidal decision was because Sir Killalot is the only house robot that they haven't flipped.
Carbide Vs Crackers 'N' Smash
For this battle, Crackers 'N' Smash took a massive risk. They removed their weaponry to make themselves less of a target for Carbide. This worked about as well as bringing a wooden robot into the arena.
Carbide drove onto the low Crackers and used this as a perch to hit Smash. Once the clusterbots had escaped, Carbide slammed into them again. Its spinning bar bashed across the top of the smaller machines and the sparks flew. it was like a fireworks display.
And then one final attack sent Crackers spinning into the arena wall, breaking part of it. For safety reasons, the fight had to be stopped and the arena repaired. Usually, after the arena was repaired, the fight would resume as usual, but Crackers 'N' Smash tactically resigned to spare their machines anymore damage.
Carbide vs Coyote
Carbide were the top of the league table and Coyote was at the bottom. Their crushing jaw was no match for Carbide's spinning bar and their chainsaw tail was out of action. They needed a miracle to win. Instead they received a battering.
Carbide slammed into Coyote sending them spinning away. And then Carbide slammed into them again, sending them into the clutches of Sir Killalot, who roasted them over the flame pit. One more attack was enough to immobilise them. They were a buckled mess and they were out.
Apollo vs Crackers 'N' Smash
Even in Apollo's damaged condition, Crackers 'N' Smash were the massive underdogs.
The clusterbots began well. Crackers managed to get in and underneath Apollo, but they couldn't flip them. In revenge, Apollo flipped them into the clutches of Dead Metal who immobilised Crackers.
Apollo then had to finish off Smash. They flipped it around the arena, but worringly, could not immobilise them. The decision went to the judges who unsurprisingly awarded it to Apollo. This meant that the heat final would be a grudge match between Apollo and Carbide.
Apollo Vs Carbide
Although Apollo looked like they had recovered since their first fight with Carbide, this was not the case. Their flipper was still buckled and unable to flip Carbide.
Carbide took full advantage of this by destroying Apollo. The spinning hammer tore off Apollo's armour panelling and bent its chassis. As for the flipper, Carbide unleashed a furious attack and the sparks flew again. Apollo were left a broken mess and Carbide were through to the final.
They join Aftershock, Eruption, Concussion and Ironside 3 in the final. We have one flipper and four very different spinners. The sixth spot will be filled up by a runner-up of the judges' choosing. Their options are Sabretooth, Cherub, Thor, Pulsar and Apollo. I think they'll pick Apollo, so I'm not going to count the champions, down and out, just yet.
Sunday, 2 April 2017
The General Review
SPOILERS
Number 111 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1998 Irish biopic crime drama The General.
The General follows the story of real-life Irish crime boss Martin Cahill, also known as "The General." (Brendan Gleeson.) Beginning as a petty thief, he rises through the ranks to become a powerful crime lord who commits brazen robberies. During his journey, he attracts the unwanted attention of the IRA, the UVF and policeman Ned Kenny (Jon Voight.)
Lastly, I liked how the film ended. One of Cahill's most audacious criminal acts was stealing paintings that were worth millions. He then sold these to the UVF to help them fund their fight against the IRA. In retaliation, the IRA assassinate him. This was a nice portrayal of the cyclical nature of crime. What goes around comes around.
Overall, The General was a good film. It was entertaining to watch with strong performances. While it wasn't always the easiest to follow,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)