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.
Monday, 10 April 2017
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,
Thursday, 30 March 2017
Should Christians use force? Marriage - a submission? The rights of an unborn child? Sex before marriage? Homosexuality in Christianity?
Religion
How do women and animals fit into the bible? 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? What about the errors? Only 'containing' God's words?
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 church a sect?
The next five questions of Richard Bewes' The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions, engages with some contentious issues such as abortion and homosexuality.
71. Should Christians use force? How can people of peace, like Christians, contemplate the use of force?
We've already discussed the atrocities in the bible. The endless violence and genocide that has always seemed so abhorrent to me. But can this force ever be justified?
According to Richard Bewes, he believes that force in the form of punishment should exist. That is to say that for any society to function, there needs to be rules and there needs to be punishments for when the rules are broken. Without such restraints, then society would descend into anarchy, such as the books of Kings or Judges, where the Israelites constantly turn away from God.
What Bewes thinks we should be wary of is ensuring that we are not excessive in our use of force. The police have a duty to use force to protect us, but if they begin becoming repressive, then this is wrong. This is when their 'force' becomes violence. Bewes argues that:
"the Believer should shun all forms of violence, but should be committed to the disciplined use of force. A great deal of muddled thinking takes place - especially during times of international conflict - when the debate fails to take account of the different between violence and force. Force is concerned with the upholding of law. Violence is concerned with the overthrow of law.
I agree with this. As we've already discussed, a society needs rules and consequences to function. But where the trouble arises, as Bewes rightly points out, is where do we draw the line between force and violence. What exactly qualifies as an overuse of force? If a paedophile who rapes a ten year old is then killed by vigilante justice, is this an excessive use of force? Or just desserts? What about those who the justice system fails? What about the victims of Brock Turner? Is it fair that all he received was three months probation? Or would it be fairer if he received an appropriate punishment for his crime? Bewes would argue that this vigilante justice is over-excessive, but from a moral viewpoint, the situation isn't as black and white.
My Christian friend Naomi argues that whilst we shouldn't be looking for a fight, we are also quite right to use force in self-defence. When it comes to muddier topics like war, sometimes it is right. Sometimes it isn't.
73. Marriage - a Submission? I find words like 'submission' and 'obey' very unattractive in the context of Christian marriage. Surely we've moved on from that?
Bewes quite rightly answers this question by arguing that "it depends if we are culturally conditioned, rather than biblically taught."
Based on wedding vows, it is easy to argue that Christian marriage and, to a further extent, Christianity is patriarchal. But this isn't the case.
Ephesians 5:22-24 teaches:
"wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the superior. Now as the Church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
However, Ephesians then goes onto say:
"husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her [...] Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." (5: 25, 28)
Whilst women should submit themselves to their husbands, this submission should not be one-sided. Husbands should return this love and devotion.
75. The rights of an unborn child? At what point does an unborn child gain the right to live? How does this affect the issue of abortion?
Abortion. To say that this is a controversial debate would be an understatement. The pro-life/pro-choice debate continues to rage on, and I cannot hope to conclude it here. However, what I can do is offer both Richard Bewes' and my views.
Richard Bewes is against abortion. He argues that in Ancient Greece or Rome, abortion was commonplace. Infants were killed as it was deemed that
"a child only acquired true identity at a period after birth, that its value lay only in its potential usefulness to society, and that only the likelihood of physical wholeness gave it a right to live. Personhood had to be earned."
Bewes later contends this point by arguing that "at no point of an embryo's existence can the purely biological be separated from the spiritual." What Bewes is arguing is that as soon as the embryo is formed, it's alive. It has a biological existence and a spiritual existence. He concludes by asserting that "nearly always, there is a better alternative to the unwanted or abnormal pregnancy than abortion."
Naomi agrees with Bewes. She believes that, with the exception of medical emergency, abortion is wrong. The Bible teaches that physical life and a soul begins at the point of conception.
Do I agree with this? I'm not so sure. When does an embryo become a person? I don't know. But I do think that the decision should always lie the mother. Yes. I'm pro-choice. It's easy to say that an unwanted baby can be put up for adoption. but it's not as simple as that. As a male, I will obviously never know the experience of pregnancy, but I do know that it can be an intensely trying experience. To make a woman carry a child for 9 months and then make her give up seems unfair. Things become even muddier if a child is conceived of rape. Is it right to make a woman carry a child that she didn't even want in the first place? I don't think it is, but the decision is not mine. It is the woman's.
76. Is sex restricted to marriage? Hasn't the Church been terribly repressed about sex? Is sexual expression really restricted to marriage?
Bewes begins by arguing that sex before marriage was common in paganism, as well as Ancient Greece and Rome. However, this was then replaced by Christian ideas of chastity. He quotes 1 Thessalonians 4:3 : "avoid sexuality, that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honourable."
Bewes believes that we should be "holy in regard to our responsibility towards God, and honourable in our responsibility towards or neighbours."
Bewes then points to Genesis 2:24 : "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
He argues that this gives "us God's orm for the direction that is to be given to the sexual impulse. It amounts to fidelity in marriage, and celibacy outside marriage. This is what our creator has given, as the right, the safest way to channel the human sexual instinct."
Do I think that sex should be restricted to marriage? No. Of course not. Whilst for some, sex is nothing more than a way of getting a quick dopamine rush, for others it is a deeply emotional experience. It is an expression of their love and they shouldn't have to wait until marriage to demonstrate it.
77. Same sex inclinations? I am a Christian, and am beginning to wonder whether I am of homosexual orientation. Is there perhaps a church group of people similar to myself that I ought to join?
If we were to listen solely to the West Boro Baptist Church, then we would think all of Christianity is against homosexuality. But this is as ridiculous as arguing that every right-wing person is a Fascist Nazi or every left-winger is a Communist.
Richard Bewes offers a more convoluted answer. Firstly, he argues that the labels of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are completely socially constructed. Returning to Genesis, the only labels that have ever existed are "man" and "woman." Homosexuality isn't a gene that can be inherited.
Secondly, he argues that there is the divine ideal of a one man/ one woman monogamous lifetime marriage. Christians should hold to this, rejecting all extra-marital sexual relationships (including homosexual activity)
Lastly, he argues that despite how the Anglican World 'Lambeth Conference' of 1998 rejected homosexuality "as incompatible with Scripture, it also called for a sensitive and pastoral ministry to people of every sexual disposition."
Bewes' answer doesn't make sense to me, as he contradicts himself. He argues that we should reject homosexuality, but the Christian ministry should be sensitive to people of all sexuality. He concludes that all a person needs is "a group simply of Bible-loving Christian people." This I do agree with. Some denominations of Christianity are more progressive than others and I am sure there are some are who are fully supportive of Christianity.
I do not claim to be an expert in these issues. If you have your own opinion, criticism or thought then please comment then. Just keep it mature. Keep it respectful. Keep it intelligent.
How do women and animals fit into the bible? 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? What about the errors? Only 'containing' God's words?
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 church a sect?
The next five questions of Richard Bewes' The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions, engages with some contentious issues such as abortion and homosexuality.
71. Should Christians use force? How can people of peace, like Christians, contemplate the use of force?
We've already discussed the atrocities in the bible. The endless violence and genocide that has always seemed so abhorrent to me. But can this force ever be justified?
According to Richard Bewes, he believes that force in the form of punishment should exist. That is to say that for any society to function, there needs to be rules and there needs to be punishments for when the rules are broken. Without such restraints, then society would descend into anarchy, such as the books of Kings or Judges, where the Israelites constantly turn away from God.
What Bewes thinks we should be wary of is ensuring that we are not excessive in our use of force. The police have a duty to use force to protect us, but if they begin becoming repressive, then this is wrong. This is when their 'force' becomes violence. Bewes argues that:
"the Believer should shun all forms of violence, but should be committed to the disciplined use of force. A great deal of muddled thinking takes place - especially during times of international conflict - when the debate fails to take account of the different between violence and force. Force is concerned with the upholding of law. Violence is concerned with the overthrow of law.
I agree with this. As we've already discussed, a society needs rules and consequences to function. But where the trouble arises, as Bewes rightly points out, is where do we draw the line between force and violence. What exactly qualifies as an overuse of force? If a paedophile who rapes a ten year old is then killed by vigilante justice, is this an excessive use of force? Or just desserts? What about those who the justice system fails? What about the victims of Brock Turner? Is it fair that all he received was three months probation? Or would it be fairer if he received an appropriate punishment for his crime? Bewes would argue that this vigilante justice is over-excessive, but from a moral viewpoint, the situation isn't as black and white.
My Christian friend Naomi argues that whilst we shouldn't be looking for a fight, we are also quite right to use force in self-defence. When it comes to muddier topics like war, sometimes it is right. Sometimes it isn't.
73. Marriage - a Submission? I find words like 'submission' and 'obey' very unattractive in the context of Christian marriage. Surely we've moved on from that?
Bewes quite rightly answers this question by arguing that "it depends if we are culturally conditioned, rather than biblically taught."
Based on wedding vows, it is easy to argue that Christian marriage and, to a further extent, Christianity is patriarchal. But this isn't the case.
Ephesians 5:22-24 teaches:
"wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the superior. Now as the Church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
However, Ephesians then goes onto say:
"husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her [...] Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." (5: 25, 28)
Whilst women should submit themselves to their husbands, this submission should not be one-sided. Husbands should return this love and devotion.
75. The rights of an unborn child? At what point does an unborn child gain the right to live? How does this affect the issue of abortion?
Abortion. To say that this is a controversial debate would be an understatement. The pro-life/pro-choice debate continues to rage on, and I cannot hope to conclude it here. However, what I can do is offer both Richard Bewes' and my views.
Richard Bewes is against abortion. He argues that in Ancient Greece or Rome, abortion was commonplace. Infants were killed as it was deemed that
"a child only acquired true identity at a period after birth, that its value lay only in its potential usefulness to society, and that only the likelihood of physical wholeness gave it a right to live. Personhood had to be earned."
Bewes later contends this point by arguing that "at no point of an embryo's existence can the purely biological be separated from the spiritual." What Bewes is arguing is that as soon as the embryo is formed, it's alive. It has a biological existence and a spiritual existence. He concludes by asserting that "nearly always, there is a better alternative to the unwanted or abnormal pregnancy than abortion."
Naomi agrees with Bewes. She believes that, with the exception of medical emergency, abortion is wrong. The Bible teaches that physical life and a soul begins at the point of conception.
Do I agree with this? I'm not so sure. When does an embryo become a person? I don't know. But I do think that the decision should always lie the mother. Yes. I'm pro-choice. It's easy to say that an unwanted baby can be put up for adoption. but it's not as simple as that. As a male, I will obviously never know the experience of pregnancy, but I do know that it can be an intensely trying experience. To make a woman carry a child for 9 months and then make her give up seems unfair. Things become even muddier if a child is conceived of rape. Is it right to make a woman carry a child that she didn't even want in the first place? I don't think it is, but the decision is not mine. It is the woman's.
76. Is sex restricted to marriage? Hasn't the Church been terribly repressed about sex? Is sexual expression really restricted to marriage?
Bewes begins by arguing that sex before marriage was common in paganism, as well as Ancient Greece and Rome. However, this was then replaced by Christian ideas of chastity. He quotes 1 Thessalonians 4:3 : "avoid sexuality, that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honourable."
Bewes believes that we should be "holy in regard to our responsibility towards God, and honourable in our responsibility towards or neighbours."
Bewes then points to Genesis 2:24 : "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."
He argues that this gives "us God's orm for the direction that is to be given to the sexual impulse. It amounts to fidelity in marriage, and celibacy outside marriage. This is what our creator has given, as the right, the safest way to channel the human sexual instinct."
Do I think that sex should be restricted to marriage? No. Of course not. Whilst for some, sex is nothing more than a way of getting a quick dopamine rush, for others it is a deeply emotional experience. It is an expression of their love and they shouldn't have to wait until marriage to demonstrate it.
77. Same sex inclinations? I am a Christian, and am beginning to wonder whether I am of homosexual orientation. Is there perhaps a church group of people similar to myself that I ought to join?
If we were to listen solely to the West Boro Baptist Church, then we would think all of Christianity is against homosexuality. But this is as ridiculous as arguing that every right-wing person is a Fascist Nazi or every left-winger is a Communist.
Richard Bewes offers a more convoluted answer. Firstly, he argues that the labels of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" are completely socially constructed. Returning to Genesis, the only labels that have ever existed are "man" and "woman." Homosexuality isn't a gene that can be inherited.
Secondly, he argues that there is the divine ideal of a one man/ one woman monogamous lifetime marriage. Christians should hold to this, rejecting all extra-marital sexual relationships (including homosexual activity)
Lastly, he argues that despite how the Anglican World 'Lambeth Conference' of 1998 rejected homosexuality "as incompatible with Scripture, it also called for a sensitive and pastoral ministry to people of every sexual disposition."
Bewes' answer doesn't make sense to me, as he contradicts himself. He argues that we should reject homosexuality, but the Christian ministry should be sensitive to people of all sexuality. He concludes that all a person needs is "a group simply of Bible-loving Christian people." This I do agree with. Some denominations of Christianity are more progressive than others and I am sure there are some are who are fully supportive of Christianity.
I do not claim to be an expert in these issues. If you have your own opinion, criticism or thought then please comment then. Just keep it mature. Keep it respectful. Keep it intelligent.
Tuesday, 28 March 2017
Robot Wars Episode Four Recap
To quote pit reporter Angela Scanlon, this episode was "the battle of the spinners."
LET THE WARS BEGIN
Battle 1
Supernova Vs Wyrm Vs Frostbite Vs Hi5
Supernova is armed with a spinning disc and has competed before in the old wars. They've achieved some success reaching the heat final in Series 6 and being runners-up in the Third World Championship. They've also experienced a lot of failure. In Series 5 and Series 7, they went out in the first round. They competed last year, but bad driving sent them straight into the pit.
Wyrm were armed with a lifting wedge. They competed last year with the wooden robot Overdozer. Yes. You read that correctly. They competed with a WOODEN ROBOT. Unsurprisingly, they went home in a bin bag. Lesson here? Don't compete with a WOODEN ROBOT. Thankfully, the team had learned from their mistakes and had entered a metal robot. Although, Wyrm had very limited armour. But all credit to the Wyrm team, they were very good sports.
Thirdly, there was Frostbite who had a spinning bar and Hi5 who had a lifting arm.
3...2...1...ACTIVATE
Supernova was the only robot that really did anything in this fight. They ripped away Frostbite's poor armour, exposing their vulnerable innards. Supernova's power cannot be understated. Their 22kg spinning disc sheared away Frostbite's 6mm polycarbonate armour, also damaging one of their tyres.
Hi5 also went out early. I'm not quite sure who took them out really. It looked like they had just broken down. As for Wyrm, poor driving sent them crashing into the arena wall, knocking themselves out. Supernova were the obvious winners with Frostbite staying alive long enough to go through. But wow. The power of Supernova's spinning disc was just awesome.
Battle 2
Crushtacean vs Ironside 3 Vs Pulsar Vs Apex
Crushtacean are another robot veteran, although they've never achieved any real success. They're modelled on a crab and are armed with claws, which are controlled by a pair of motion-sensor claws. They were still driven by the same father and son team as they were in the original Robot Wars and it was crazy seeing the little boy all driven up.
Ironside 3 had also competed last year, going out in their heat. They had a mighty bar spinner and a newly added self-righting mechanism. Their opponents were old rivals Pulsar who were grand finalists Pulsar who took out Ironside on their way to the final. Pulsar were armed with a lethal drum spinner, which spun at 8700 RPM. Finally, there was Apex who had a metre-long, 37kg spinning bar.
Against three spinners, Crushtacean never stood a chance. Their weak aluminium armour was no defense against Ironside's spinning bar. Meanwhile, Pulsar slammed into Apex who were looking very impressive up until that moment. Pulsar's spinning drum stopped Apex in their tracks. They were immobilised. And for good measure, Pulsar also slammed into Ironside 3, but Pulsar and Ironside were through to the head to heads.
Head to Heads
Supernova Vs Frostbite
Although this battle started slowly, it soon heated up. Supernova was awesome in this fight. They completely demolished Frostbite. Taking out their weapon. Their armour. Their wheels. Pretty much everything. Frostbite couldn't recover and were rendered immobile. This battle actually reminded me of when Hypno-Disc destroyed Splinter all the way back in the Fourth Wars.
This fight was regarded as one of the most destructive in Robot Wars history.
Having said that, Supernova's sheer power also caused it problems. The chain for their spinning disc came off. Would this cause problems later on?
Ironside 3 Vs Pulsar
Considering that Pulsar took Ironside out last series, this was a grudge match. This battle began with some bad driving by Ironside. Firstly, they drove into the CPZ and then onto the floor flipper. This allowed Pulsar to get some good hits in, but Pulsar also had driving problems. Just like Ironside, they also drove into the CPZ and were attacked by Sir Killalot.
What the problem with Pulsar is that their spinning drum is too low mounted. This stopped them from causing any serious damage. Meanwhile, Ironside 3 began attacking them, stopping their drive on one side. It was quite funny really. Pulsar kept hopping up one wheel, as if it were dancing across the arena. And then this is where the controversy started.
Ironside 3 believe that Pulsar was immobile and was being counted out, and thus they didn't finish Pulsar off. However, this wasn't the case at all and the decision went to the judges. The judges realised that a technical fault had caused the Ironside team to incorrectly see the 10 second countdown. Because of this, the judges decided the fight was a draw and awarded both teams 2 points.
Pulsar Vs Supernova
This was a short but sweet fight. Both robots powered up to full speed, before Supernova slammed into Pulsar. Supernova was sent flying away. The shockwave was so powerful that I felt it through my TV. It was so destructive that Supernova was taken out in one blow. Their spinning disc was no match for Pulsar's spinning drum. This head-on collision completely immobilised Supernova.
Intermission
To break up the Robot Wars fights, Dara O'Briain or Angela Scanlon interview one of the judges about advances in the robotics industry. Generally, I don't cover these segments, as I'm only interested in the robot battles, but this intermission was very interesting.
Angela Scanlon interviewed judge and chartered engineer Dr Lucy Rogers who explained the best materials to construct robots out off. Firstly, there was High Density Polyethylene (HDPE,) a form of plastic, which chopping boards are made out of. This means they're good at absorbing energy from axe blows, but are useless against spinners.
Next there was wood, which is useless in the arena, but good for prototypes. *COUGH COUGH* Overdozer *COUGH COUGH*
Then we moved onto the metals. Firstly, there is aluminium. Aluminium is popular for armour, due to how light it is, but if you want something stronger, then you should go for mild steel. Mild steel is much more affordable than Hard Ox, although not as durable. Lucy said that if she were to build a robot then she would use a combination of Hard Ox and HDPE.
Frostbite vs Ironside 3
Even though Frostbite were supposed to compete here, they just couldn't repair the damage they had sustained in their fight with Supernova. This meant that they had to withdraw and Wyrm were reinstated.
Wyrm was systematically destroyed by Ironside 3. Firstly, Ironside sheared off their lifting wedge. And then one wheel. And then the other. And then the armament. By the end of the fight, there was very little left. A convincing win for Ironside 3.
Pulsar Vs Wyrm
Whilst repairing Wyrm, the team found that they had botched it somewhere. The front controls now reversed the robot and vice versa. This was hardly a good start against a powerful robot like Pulsar.
Things didn't get any better as Wyrm's lifting wedge fell off straight away. However, Pulsar faced their own problems, as their robot began smoking, as their drive motors began smoking. However, Wyrm's bad driving sent them into Dead Metal's clutches, which was enough to immobilise them. Soon afterwards, Wyrm was thrown into the skip.
Supernova Vs Ironside 3
Ironside 3 played this battle very cleverly. They targeted Supernova's exposed tyres and avoided their spinning disc. This tactic work, as Supernova could not recover from the first few powerful slams. Their wheels were buckled and broken and their chain broke again. And then the sparks started flying. Ironside 3 were through to the heat final, but all credit to Supernova. They were a good machine.
Ironside 3 Vs Pulsar
Although Pulsar were well-armoured and had a powerful weapon, they've been plagued by technical problems. These technical problems seriously hindered them in this fight. Ironside 3 immediately got the upper hand by taking out one of Pulsar's wheels. Then another hit on a sweet spot completely immobilised Pulsar.
Next week is the last heat before the grand final. Judging from the trailers, we're going to see last year's runner-ups and winner, Apollo and Carbide, having a grudge match. It looks like it's going to be a cracker.
LET THE WARS BEGIN
Battle 1
Supernova Vs Wyrm Vs Frostbite Vs Hi5
Supernova is armed with a spinning disc and has competed before in the old wars. They've achieved some success reaching the heat final in Series 6 and being runners-up in the Third World Championship. They've also experienced a lot of failure. In Series 5 and Series 7, they went out in the first round. They competed last year, but bad driving sent them straight into the pit.
Wyrm were armed with a lifting wedge. They competed last year with the wooden robot Overdozer. Yes. You read that correctly. They competed with a WOODEN ROBOT. Unsurprisingly, they went home in a bin bag. Lesson here? Don't compete with a WOODEN ROBOT. Thankfully, the team had learned from their mistakes and had entered a metal robot. Although, Wyrm had very limited armour. But all credit to the Wyrm team, they were very good sports.
Thirdly, there was Frostbite who had a spinning bar and Hi5 who had a lifting arm.
3...2...1...ACTIVATE
Supernova was the only robot that really did anything in this fight. They ripped away Frostbite's poor armour, exposing their vulnerable innards. Supernova's power cannot be understated. Their 22kg spinning disc sheared away Frostbite's 6mm polycarbonate armour, also damaging one of their tyres.
Hi5 also went out early. I'm not quite sure who took them out really. It looked like they had just broken down. As for Wyrm, poor driving sent them crashing into the arena wall, knocking themselves out. Supernova were the obvious winners with Frostbite staying alive long enough to go through. But wow. The power of Supernova's spinning disc was just awesome.
Battle 2
Crushtacean vs Ironside 3 Vs Pulsar Vs Apex
Crushtacean are another robot veteran, although they've never achieved any real success. They're modelled on a crab and are armed with claws, which are controlled by a pair of motion-sensor claws. They were still driven by the same father and son team as they were in the original Robot Wars and it was crazy seeing the little boy all driven up.
Ironside 3 had also competed last year, going out in their heat. They had a mighty bar spinner and a newly added self-righting mechanism. Their opponents were old rivals Pulsar who were grand finalists Pulsar who took out Ironside on their way to the final. Pulsar were armed with a lethal drum spinner, which spun at 8700 RPM. Finally, there was Apex who had a metre-long, 37kg spinning bar.
Against three spinners, Crushtacean never stood a chance. Their weak aluminium armour was no defense against Ironside's spinning bar. Meanwhile, Pulsar slammed into Apex who were looking very impressive up until that moment. Pulsar's spinning drum stopped Apex in their tracks. They were immobilised. And for good measure, Pulsar also slammed into Ironside 3, but Pulsar and Ironside were through to the head to heads.
Head to Heads
Supernova Vs Frostbite
Although this battle started slowly, it soon heated up. Supernova was awesome in this fight. They completely demolished Frostbite. Taking out their weapon. Their armour. Their wheels. Pretty much everything. Frostbite couldn't recover and were rendered immobile. This battle actually reminded me of when Hypno-Disc destroyed Splinter all the way back in the Fourth Wars.
This fight was regarded as one of the most destructive in Robot Wars history.
Having said that, Supernova's sheer power also caused it problems. The chain for their spinning disc came off. Would this cause problems later on?
Ironside 3 Vs Pulsar
Considering that Pulsar took Ironside out last series, this was a grudge match. This battle began with some bad driving by Ironside. Firstly, they drove into the CPZ and then onto the floor flipper. This allowed Pulsar to get some good hits in, but Pulsar also had driving problems. Just like Ironside, they also drove into the CPZ and were attacked by Sir Killalot.
What the problem with Pulsar is that their spinning drum is too low mounted. This stopped them from causing any serious damage. Meanwhile, Ironside 3 began attacking them, stopping their drive on one side. It was quite funny really. Pulsar kept hopping up one wheel, as if it were dancing across the arena. And then this is where the controversy started.
Ironside 3 believe that Pulsar was immobile and was being counted out, and thus they didn't finish Pulsar off. However, this wasn't the case at all and the decision went to the judges. The judges realised that a technical fault had caused the Ironside team to incorrectly see the 10 second countdown. Because of this, the judges decided the fight was a draw and awarded both teams 2 points.
Pulsar Vs Supernova
This was a short but sweet fight. Both robots powered up to full speed, before Supernova slammed into Pulsar. Supernova was sent flying away. The shockwave was so powerful that I felt it through my TV. It was so destructive that Supernova was taken out in one blow. Their spinning disc was no match for Pulsar's spinning drum. This head-on collision completely immobilised Supernova.
Intermission
To break up the Robot Wars fights, Dara O'Briain or Angela Scanlon interview one of the judges about advances in the robotics industry. Generally, I don't cover these segments, as I'm only interested in the robot battles, but this intermission was very interesting.
Angela Scanlon interviewed judge and chartered engineer Dr Lucy Rogers who explained the best materials to construct robots out off. Firstly, there was High Density Polyethylene (HDPE,) a form of plastic, which chopping boards are made out of. This means they're good at absorbing energy from axe blows, but are useless against spinners.
Next there was wood, which is useless in the arena, but good for prototypes. *COUGH COUGH* Overdozer *COUGH COUGH*
Then we moved onto the metals. Firstly, there is aluminium. Aluminium is popular for armour, due to how light it is, but if you want something stronger, then you should go for mild steel. Mild steel is much more affordable than Hard Ox, although not as durable. Lucy said that if she were to build a robot then she would use a combination of Hard Ox and HDPE.
Frostbite vs Ironside 3
Even though Frostbite were supposed to compete here, they just couldn't repair the damage they had sustained in their fight with Supernova. This meant that they had to withdraw and Wyrm were reinstated.
Wyrm was systematically destroyed by Ironside 3. Firstly, Ironside sheared off their lifting wedge. And then one wheel. And then the other. And then the armament. By the end of the fight, there was very little left. A convincing win for Ironside 3.
Pulsar Vs Wyrm
Whilst repairing Wyrm, the team found that they had botched it somewhere. The front controls now reversed the robot and vice versa. This was hardly a good start against a powerful robot like Pulsar.
Things didn't get any better as Wyrm's lifting wedge fell off straight away. However, Pulsar faced their own problems, as their robot began smoking, as their drive motors began smoking. However, Wyrm's bad driving sent them into Dead Metal's clutches, which was enough to immobilise them. Soon afterwards, Wyrm was thrown into the skip.
Supernova Vs Ironside 3
Ironside 3 played this battle very cleverly. They targeted Supernova's exposed tyres and avoided their spinning disc. This tactic work, as Supernova could not recover from the first few powerful slams. Their wheels were buckled and broken and their chain broke again. And then the sparks started flying. Ironside 3 were through to the heat final, but all credit to Supernova. They were a good machine.
Ironside 3 Vs Pulsar
Although Pulsar were well-armoured and had a powerful weapon, they've been plagued by technical problems. These technical problems seriously hindered them in this fight. Ironside 3 immediately got the upper hand by taking out one of Pulsar's wheels. Then another hit on a sweet spot completely immobilised Pulsar.
Next week is the last heat before the grand final. Judging from the trailers, we're going to see last year's runner-ups and winner, Apollo and Carbide, having a grudge match. It looks like it's going to be a cracker.
Wednesday, 22 March 2017
Snatch Review
Number 110 on the top 1000 greatest films of all time is Guy Ritchie's brilliant 2000 film Snatch. Snatch is a British crime comedy film.
The film follows two intertwining narratives. The first follows boxing promoter and arcade owner Turkish (Jason Statham) and his partner Tommy (Stephen Graham) as they try to survive the fiery temper of local gangster Brick-Top (Alan Ford.) Their narrative sees them engage with Irish Traveller or Pikey, Mickey O'Neill (Brad Pitt) who is a bare-knuckle boxing champion.
The second narrative revolves around a diamond which every gangster in London wants to get their hands on. There is the ex-KGB agent Boris "the Blade," (Rade Serbedzija) small-time crooks Sol (Lennie James,) Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade,) American diamond jeweller Avi (Dennis Farina,) bounty hunter Bullet-Tooth Tony (Vinnie Jones) and Brick-Top.
Due to the film's vast ensemble cast and its two intertwining narratives, on the surface, Snatch looks unnecessarily complicated. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Everything comes excellently together due to some great editing, laugh-out-loud moments and larger than life characters. Snatch very much reminded me of Pulp Fiction due to its intricate double plot, great music choices and many different ironic twists involving chance and causality.
The best example of this would be when we have three different sets of characters all driving along the same set of road. After Boris takes the diamond from Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, they track him down to see that he has been kidnapped by Avi and Bullet-Tooth Tony. They follow Avi and Tony along the road in the hopes of stealing the diamond back. Tommy and Turkish are coincidentally driving along the same stretch of road. When Tommy throws Turkish's carton of milk out of the window, it splashes over the windscreen of Tony's car leading him to crash. In the ensuing chaos, Boris escapes, but he is promptly run over by Sol, Vinny and Tyrone. This scene was just so ridiculous, but it worked well, and it was one of the funnier moments of the film.
Another funny moment comes from Sol, Vinny and Tyrone who botch the robbery of a bookie's so badly that they could be contenders for world's dumbest criminals. From Tyrone crashing the getaway car into a van to Sol having his shotgun taken from him by the very person he was robbing, this was the funniest moment of the film. It's made even funnier due to how the person they were supposed to rob was gambler Frankie Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) who had stolen the diamond in the first place. However, the van that Tyrone crashed into contained Frankie Four Fingers who was knocked unconscious by the blow.
Snatch is also set in London, which made a refreshing change of pace to the Wild West or Hollywood. It was great seeing the grey buildings and the grey weather, but also great hearing the familiar accents. Speaking of accents, a quick aside to mention Brad Pitt's Irish accent. Although the Independent deemed it one of the worst ten accents to grace the silver screen, it added a lot to the film's humour. It was so bad that it was absolutely indecipherable, which was supposed to be the point. Not only did the audience have trouble understanding him, but also the other characters. To quote Turkish:
"Now there is a problem with Pikeys and gypsies. You can't really understand much of what is being said. It's not Irish. It's not English. It's just well.. Pikey."
I also know Stephen Graham and Lennie James best from Boardwalk Empire and The Walking Dead respectively, so it was great hearing them speak with their regular accents - well more regular than a New Yorkian or Georgian accents anyway.
But the best evidence of this point would be Mickey O'Neill. Originally, Turkish had agreed to have "Gorgeous George" compete in a boxing match arranged by Brick-Top. However, after O'Neill knocks him unconscious, Turkish enters O'Neill instead. Brick-Top isn't happy about this and only agrees if O'Neill throws the fight in the fourth round. What O'Neill does instead is knock-out his opponent straight away.
Brick-Top gives O'Neill one more chance, but he refuses to fight again unless Turkish buys a new caravan for his mother. However, Brick-Top has stolen Turkish's money, as compensation for O'Neill failing to throw the fight. After Turkish tells Brick-Top about O'Neill's hesitation, Brick-Top burns down Mrs O'Neill's caravan, killing her in the process. Brick-Top also threatens to kill the rest of the pikeys if O'Neill doesn't fight. O'Neill agrees to fight.
The day of the fight comes and when it looks like O'Neill is going to go down in the fourth, he knocks out his opponent. Just when Brick-Top is ordering his men to gun down the rest of the Irish travellers, we see him being shot down by an unseen assailant. It is then revealed that O'Neill has been masterminding a revenge plan of his own. Suspecting that Brick-Top will go after the rest of his community, he orders his friends to ambush and shoot Brick-Top's men. The assailant who kills Brick-Top is another of the pikeys. This was a great way of bringing the film full-circle and it was a great illustration of the close-knit community that Irish Travellers have.
Although this film with its large ensemble cast and intricate double plotline might seem daunting at first, it is a great film. It's low-budget, with some hilarious moments and great performances. One of the best British films I've seen in a while.
The film follows two intertwining narratives. The first follows boxing promoter and arcade owner Turkish (Jason Statham) and his partner Tommy (Stephen Graham) as they try to survive the fiery temper of local gangster Brick-Top (Alan Ford.) Their narrative sees them engage with Irish Traveller or Pikey, Mickey O'Neill (Brad Pitt) who is a bare-knuckle boxing champion.
The second narrative revolves around a diamond which every gangster in London wants to get their hands on. There is the ex-KGB agent Boris "the Blade," (Rade Serbedzija) small-time crooks Sol (Lennie James,) Vinny (Robbie Gee) and Tyrone (Ade,) American diamond jeweller Avi (Dennis Farina,) bounty hunter Bullet-Tooth Tony (Vinnie Jones) and Brick-Top.
Due to the film's vast ensemble cast and its two intertwining narratives, on the surface, Snatch looks unnecessarily complicated. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Everything comes excellently together due to some great editing, laugh-out-loud moments and larger than life characters. Snatch very much reminded me of Pulp Fiction due to its intricate double plot, great music choices and many different ironic twists involving chance and causality.
The best example of this would be when we have three different sets of characters all driving along the same set of road. After Boris takes the diamond from Sol, Vinny and Tyrone, they track him down to see that he has been kidnapped by Avi and Bullet-Tooth Tony. They follow Avi and Tony along the road in the hopes of stealing the diamond back. Tommy and Turkish are coincidentally driving along the same stretch of road. When Tommy throws Turkish's carton of milk out of the window, it splashes over the windscreen of Tony's car leading him to crash. In the ensuing chaos, Boris escapes, but he is promptly run over by Sol, Vinny and Tyrone. This scene was just so ridiculous, but it worked well, and it was one of the funnier moments of the film.
Another funny moment comes from Sol, Vinny and Tyrone who botch the robbery of a bookie's so badly that they could be contenders for world's dumbest criminals. From Tyrone crashing the getaway car into a van to Sol having his shotgun taken from him by the very person he was robbing, this was the funniest moment of the film. It's made even funnier due to how the person they were supposed to rob was gambler Frankie Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro) who had stolen the diamond in the first place. However, the van that Tyrone crashed into contained Frankie Four Fingers who was knocked unconscious by the blow.
Snatch is also set in London, which made a refreshing change of pace to the Wild West or Hollywood. It was great seeing the grey buildings and the grey weather, but also great hearing the familiar accents. Speaking of accents, a quick aside to mention Brad Pitt's Irish accent. Although the Independent deemed it one of the worst ten accents to grace the silver screen, it added a lot to the film's humour. It was so bad that it was absolutely indecipherable, which was supposed to be the point. Not only did the audience have trouble understanding him, but also the other characters. To quote Turkish:
"Now there is a problem with Pikeys and gypsies. You can't really understand much of what is being said. It's not Irish. It's not English. It's just well.. Pikey."
I also know Stephen Graham and Lennie James best from Boardwalk Empire and The Walking Dead respectively, so it was great hearing them speak with their regular accents - well more regular than a New Yorkian or Georgian accents anyway.
Although there was a wide range of characters, they all were easily distinguishable from each other. The characterisation was good. Although I was a little confused as to who was who at first, I soon got my head around over who everybody was. What was also really interesting was how the film lacked any clearly-cut good characters. Turkish was supposed to be the protagonist, but even he was an anti-hero of sorts. All of the rest were crooks, gangsters or pikeys. Despite this, except for Brick-Top who was the obvious antagonist, I think the characters were well-developed to make them three-dimensional. They were all given redeemable features of sorts. For example, the tough as nails Bullet-Tooth Tony was unwilling to cut open the dog who had swallowed down the diamond and Avi had a deep devotion to his bodyguard Rosebud.
But the best evidence of this point would be Mickey O'Neill. Originally, Turkish had agreed to have "Gorgeous George" compete in a boxing match arranged by Brick-Top. However, after O'Neill knocks him unconscious, Turkish enters O'Neill instead. Brick-Top isn't happy about this and only agrees if O'Neill throws the fight in the fourth round. What O'Neill does instead is knock-out his opponent straight away.
Brick-Top gives O'Neill one more chance, but he refuses to fight again unless Turkish buys a new caravan for his mother. However, Brick-Top has stolen Turkish's money, as compensation for O'Neill failing to throw the fight. After Turkish tells Brick-Top about O'Neill's hesitation, Brick-Top burns down Mrs O'Neill's caravan, killing her in the process. Brick-Top also threatens to kill the rest of the pikeys if O'Neill doesn't fight. O'Neill agrees to fight.
The day of the fight comes and when it looks like O'Neill is going to go down in the fourth, he knocks out his opponent. Just when Brick-Top is ordering his men to gun down the rest of the Irish travellers, we see him being shot down by an unseen assailant. It is then revealed that O'Neill has been masterminding a revenge plan of his own. Suspecting that Brick-Top will go after the rest of his community, he orders his friends to ambush and shoot Brick-Top's men. The assailant who kills Brick-Top is another of the pikeys. This was a great way of bringing the film full-circle and it was a great illustration of the close-knit community that Irish Travellers have.
Although this film with its large ensemble cast and intricate double plotline might seem daunting at first, it is a great film. It's low-budget, with some hilarious moments and great performances. One of the best British films I've seen in a while.
How dangerous is wealth? What about forgiving the unrepentant? Can euthanasia be Christian? What makes a church a sect?
Religion
How do animals and women fit into the bible? Why does evil and viruses exist?
How big was the flood? 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? What about the errors? Only containing 'God's' words?
Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be a legend? Help from outside the bible?
The next section of Richard Bewes' book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions engages with how Christians are supposed to behave.
Q.6 How dangerous is wealth? What are the moral issues surrounding the topic of wealth creation?
The mantra that money is a corrupting influence is a common one. "Sell your souls to the highest bidder," is a derogatory term that we use regularly. However, Bewes argues that:
"there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wealth in itself. And poverty is not an indispensable mark of the believer. It is not God's will that poverty should be the rule of life across the world."
Bewes then mentions Max Weber's book The Protestant Ethic and the Spread of Capitalism. Weber argues that the "ethos of Protestantism, promoted, as nothing else could have done, the spirit of the entrepreneur." It encourages wealth creation for charitable purposes and not for self-development.
I completely agree with this thinking. We tend to see money, as the root of all evil. it is a corruptible, cruel force that can turn friends against each other. But it isn't money that is doing this, but greed and the love of money. What we need to remember is:
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Timothy 6:10
There is nothing wrong with having money, but there is something wrong with squandering your money on yourself. If you're buying yachts and caviar, while your fellow man is starving, then that is a problem. The bible tells us that we have a Christian duty to use our money to help our fellow man. After all, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God," (Matthew 19:24)
My Christian friend Naomi poses the interesting argument that "money gets dangerous when it becomes your God." If you are poor, then you shouldn't feel a desire to chase money. Money does not make you. Rather you should be worried if you have a desire to make money, not for charitable purposes, but materialistic ones.
Q.64 What about forgiving the unrepentant? Is it biblical to forgive those who show no remorse for their actions?
One of the greatest things that Christ taught us is to forgive our enemies. It is easy to be nice to our friends, but the true make of a man is whether he can be kind to those who wrong him.
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Matthew 5:39
But how can you forgive someone who feels no guilt for his crimes?
Bewes argues that journalists often ask victims this question? Do they forgive their attackers? Bewes thinks this question is unfair. as it unnecessarily pressures the victim. How could you expect them to forgive a burglar for stealing things, especially if they have showed no remorse for their actions.
However, Bewes believes that the most important thing is that we are willing to forgive in the first place, regardless if the ones we're forgiving feel no remorse. Jesus Christ forgave those who crucified him and we should follow in his example.
Naomi believes that whilst we shouldn't forgive the unrepentant in the same way we forgive the repentant, what we should do is put aside our anger for them. Holding a grudge against them is dangerous, as it is easy to become bitter towards them.
I can see the logic behind both of these arguments. Whilst it is far easier said than done, forgiveness is important. It signifies understanding and and maturity on your part. It is also important for your own mental progression. Holding onto the same grudge for years on end could damage your mental health. You could go mad through your own resentment and bitterness.
65. Can euthanasia be Christian? Is it not only human, but compassionately Christian, to follow the Dutch medical trend towards assisting in the termination of a life not worth living?
This is a hotly debated question amongst Christians and Atheists alike. Is it ever right to help somebody to die? If they are in agony, wouldn't the right thing to do would be end their suffering?
Richard Bewes provides 4 arguments as to why this might not be the case. Firstly, he argues that it should be nobody but the patient's decision as to whether they want to die. Doctors have no right to say when a person's life is no longer worth living.
Secondly, he argues that there is a difference between removing suffering and removing the sufferer. Doctors who follow the hippocratic oath are breaking it by killing their patients.
Thirdly, he asserts that "there s a difference between valuing someone for who they 'once' were, and valuing them for who they always are."
Lastly, he argues that we always need to consider the effect on those left behind. The death of someone will undoubtedly affect their loved ones. Instead we should offer palliative care to allow people to live out the rest of their days.
Bewes' first argument is perfectly logical. We should all be allowed to die on our own terms. Nobody has any right to tell us that our lives worth living. If somebody asked me to help end their suffering, then I would do it. Otherwise, I'd be keeping them in pain, which is unfair and cruel. However, things become muddier, once we begin discussing non-voluntary euthanasia. But if a person if beyond hope, their closest family should make the decision.
As for Bewes' last argument, the problem with palliative care would be the sheer cost. I know this may sound cold-hearted; how could you possibly put a price on somebody's life? But surely it's just as cold-hearted to use supplies on somebody who is beyond hope, at the expense of somebody who could be saved.
Q. 68 What makes a church a sect? Any church is surely prone to error? But at what point does false teaching turn a church into a sect?
It is no secret that there have been some sects inspired by Christianity. I've already mentioned the People's Temple, but there is also Mormonism and the Church of Latter-Day Saints.
Bewes provides a few explanations as to what makes a church a sect.
Firstly, he argues that they warp the truth. Instead of telling their followers everything, they tell them part-truths, or even lies. They also target certain Christians: the young, the elderly, the ignorant. As they have no spiritual power backing up their beliefs, they are forced to piggyback legit groups and pick off their most vulnerable members.
Next, they attach a novelty to the bible. They dazzle their followers with some false truth, before distorting common Christian beliefs to deceive and divert the unwary. They also exclude themselves from the rest of society and Christianity. They disregard common Christian beliefs, claiming they have the one and only truth. Lastly, they're power-brokers. Power is concentrated in one charismatic individual whose authority can never be questioned. More often than not, these preachers will see themselves as gods.
This description certainly matches the People's Temple. Its charismatic and mentally unstable leader Jim Jones amassed almost 1000 followers before moving them all to a secret hideout in Guyana. They were forced to leave behind their old lives and families and weren't allowed to leave the group.
Naomi argues that whilst different churches teach different things, they all have the same core beliefs: the bible is the infallible word of God, Jesus died for our sins et. Any church that teaches anything different is a sect.
How do animals and women fit into the bible? Why does evil and viruses exist?
How big was the flood? 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? What about the errors? Only containing 'God's' words?
Can it have different meanings? May a bible story be a legend? Help from outside the bible?
The next section of Richard Bewes' book The Top 100 Questions: Biblical Answers to Popular Questions engages with how Christians are supposed to behave.
Q.6 How dangerous is wealth? What are the moral issues surrounding the topic of wealth creation?
The mantra that money is a corrupting influence is a common one. "Sell your souls to the highest bidder," is a derogatory term that we use regularly. However, Bewes argues that:
"there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wealth in itself. And poverty is not an indispensable mark of the believer. It is not God's will that poverty should be the rule of life across the world."
Bewes then mentions Max Weber's book The Protestant Ethic and the Spread of Capitalism. Weber argues that the "ethos of Protestantism, promoted, as nothing else could have done, the spirit of the entrepreneur." It encourages wealth creation for charitable purposes and not for self-development.
I completely agree with this thinking. We tend to see money, as the root of all evil. it is a corruptible, cruel force that can turn friends against each other. But it isn't money that is doing this, but greed and the love of money. What we need to remember is:
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Timothy 6:10
There is nothing wrong with having money, but there is something wrong with squandering your money on yourself. If you're buying yachts and caviar, while your fellow man is starving, then that is a problem. The bible tells us that we have a Christian duty to use our money to help our fellow man. After all, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God," (Matthew 19:24)
My Christian friend Naomi poses the interesting argument that "money gets dangerous when it becomes your God." If you are poor, then you shouldn't feel a desire to chase money. Money does not make you. Rather you should be worried if you have a desire to make money, not for charitable purposes, but materialistic ones.
Q.64 What about forgiving the unrepentant? Is it biblical to forgive those who show no remorse for their actions?
One of the greatest things that Christ taught us is to forgive our enemies. It is easy to be nice to our friends, but the true make of a man is whether he can be kind to those who wrong him.
"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Matthew 5:39
But how can you forgive someone who feels no guilt for his crimes?
Bewes argues that journalists often ask victims this question? Do they forgive their attackers? Bewes thinks this question is unfair. as it unnecessarily pressures the victim. How could you expect them to forgive a burglar for stealing things, especially if they have showed no remorse for their actions.
However, Bewes believes that the most important thing is that we are willing to forgive in the first place, regardless if the ones we're forgiving feel no remorse. Jesus Christ forgave those who crucified him and we should follow in his example.
Naomi believes that whilst we shouldn't forgive the unrepentant in the same way we forgive the repentant, what we should do is put aside our anger for them. Holding a grudge against them is dangerous, as it is easy to become bitter towards them.
I can see the logic behind both of these arguments. Whilst it is far easier said than done, forgiveness is important. It signifies understanding and and maturity on your part. It is also important for your own mental progression. Holding onto the same grudge for years on end could damage your mental health. You could go mad through your own resentment and bitterness.
65. Can euthanasia be Christian? Is it not only human, but compassionately Christian, to follow the Dutch medical trend towards assisting in the termination of a life not worth living?
This is a hotly debated question amongst Christians and Atheists alike. Is it ever right to help somebody to die? If they are in agony, wouldn't the right thing to do would be end their suffering?
Richard Bewes provides 4 arguments as to why this might not be the case. Firstly, he argues that it should be nobody but the patient's decision as to whether they want to die. Doctors have no right to say when a person's life is no longer worth living.
Secondly, he argues that there is a difference between removing suffering and removing the sufferer. Doctors who follow the hippocratic oath are breaking it by killing their patients.
Thirdly, he asserts that "there s a difference between valuing someone for who they 'once' were, and valuing them for who they always are."
Lastly, he argues that we always need to consider the effect on those left behind. The death of someone will undoubtedly affect their loved ones. Instead we should offer palliative care to allow people to live out the rest of their days.
Bewes' first argument is perfectly logical. We should all be allowed to die on our own terms. Nobody has any right to tell us that our lives worth living. If somebody asked me to help end their suffering, then I would do it. Otherwise, I'd be keeping them in pain, which is unfair and cruel. However, things become muddier, once we begin discussing non-voluntary euthanasia. But if a person if beyond hope, their closest family should make the decision.
As for Bewes' last argument, the problem with palliative care would be the sheer cost. I know this may sound cold-hearted; how could you possibly put a price on somebody's life? But surely it's just as cold-hearted to use supplies on somebody who is beyond hope, at the expense of somebody who could be saved.
Q. 68 What makes a church a sect? Any church is surely prone to error? But at what point does false teaching turn a church into a sect?
It is no secret that there have been some sects inspired by Christianity. I've already mentioned the People's Temple, but there is also Mormonism and the Church of Latter-Day Saints.
Bewes provides a few explanations as to what makes a church a sect.
Firstly, he argues that they warp the truth. Instead of telling their followers everything, they tell them part-truths, or even lies. They also target certain Christians: the young, the elderly, the ignorant. As they have no spiritual power backing up their beliefs, they are forced to piggyback legit groups and pick off their most vulnerable members.
Next, they attach a novelty to the bible. They dazzle their followers with some false truth, before distorting common Christian beliefs to deceive and divert the unwary. They also exclude themselves from the rest of society and Christianity. They disregard common Christian beliefs, claiming they have the one and only truth. Lastly, they're power-brokers. Power is concentrated in one charismatic individual whose authority can never be questioned. More often than not, these preachers will see themselves as gods.
This description certainly matches the People's Temple. Its charismatic and mentally unstable leader Jim Jones amassed almost 1000 followers before moving them all to a secret hideout in Guyana. They were forced to leave behind their old lives and families and weren't allowed to leave the group.
Naomi argues that whilst different churches teach different things, they all have the same core beliefs: the bible is the infallible word of God, Jesus died for our sins et. Any church that teaches anything different is a sect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)