Alternative Culture: Bad Genius Review

Bank (left) confronts Lynn (right) over her cheating plan.

At the moment I am enjoying Netflix. Netflix had brought to my attention a slew of films I would have otherwise missed out on as they are non-Hollywood or widely advertised in Singapore. I have mainly been watching Sword Art Online: Ordinal Scale, the Wandering Earth and Modest Heroes. The film I do want to do a theological review today is the 2017 Thai film Bad Genius.

The paper chase

In Asian society, formal education is highly valued. Thus the competition for grades and scholarships is highly intense in Thailand. Seeing a business opportunity, poor Thai student Lynn decides to help her schoolmates cheat using a code system in return for cash. To increase her earnings, she decided to include more clients into her cheating scheme.

Later in the movie, she was engaged to help cheat during the international standardised university test called the  STIC (analogous to the SAT or GRE). Realising she could not come up with a cheating system alone, she decides to recruit Bank (another smart student) into her schemes.

The surest way to hell

Interestingly Lynn, who had prided herself in her intelligent and practical schemes, started to feel increasing guilty as her participation in cheating deepens. On the other hand, Bank who had earlier held fast to his morality, was willing to dive deeper and deeper into cheating.

The movie seems to make the following statement: People who are most sure about their goodness are more likely to fall into the path of evil. Those who recognise their sinfulness are more likely to be take the path of redemption.

Parable of the debtors

I am surprised to see this movie's parallels to the parable of the debtors (Luke 7:40-47):

Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."

He said, "Teacher, say on."

"A certain lender had two debtors. The one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they couldn't pay, he forgave them both. Which of them therefore will love him most?"

Simon answered, "He, I suppose, to whom he forgave the most."

He said to him, "You have judged correctly." Turning to the woman, he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered into your house, and you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head. You gave me no kiss, but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss my feet. You didn't anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little." He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

Let's us not take pride in our self-righteousness and remind ourselves that we too have potential for great good or evil.

With due respect: What about Christians? What about ...?

Pikachus are cute, right?
What about Charmanders?

Has it happened to you?
Recently I was explaining to a friend why socialism was a bad idea.

"Well what about theocracies?"

I was confused. So I asked him to elaborate.

He explained that modern day theocracies like Saudi Arabia are not pleasant to live in. I pointed out that (a) we were not talking about Saudi Arabia, and (b) a theocracy being bad does not justify socialism being good.

"Well then, what about the United States? It is a corrupt capitalistic democracy."

I signed. My friend suffered from a case of "whataboutism".

But what about ...?

Whataboutism is a form of logical fallacy. It seeks to discount an argument by raising irrelevant points or obscure examples without any attempt disprove the argument's claim.

I have seen many a friend, Christian and atheist, Singaporean and American and even scientist and artist, fall into this into this trap.

For instance,

"Mao killed around 45 million people."
"What about the United States? They massacred people at Kent Ridge?"

"The religious crusades killed many people."
"What about Stalin?"

For more examples:

Alternative Culture: Joshua Harris and Marty Sampson

Gracia Hosokawa, a Japanese Christian. She did not apostatise despite intense persecution in Japan. 

Recently, two leading Christians had expressed doubts in their faith. One is Joshua Harris, author of the Christian book I Kissed Dating Goodbye and the other is Marty Simpson, the lead singer of Hillsong (a Christian Worship band).

Both men had expressed doubts in their faith, and felt that there were hard questions that Christianity could not satisfy. In this post I will writing about apostasy. I do not know neither Harris nor Simpson, so if you want to hear opinions on them, please go to another site.

What I want to address is some learning points about apostasy (leaving the faith).

Lesson 1:
Apostasy happens and is not as uncommon as we think

Even in the early church, apostasy existed. In 2 Timothy 4:10, Paul the apostle writes.

"for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica."

Even though Demas had worked with someone as faithful and dedicated as Paul (Demas was mentioned in Paul's other letters), he left the faith. Thus we should not be surprised that even hardworking church workers may renounced their faith.

Lesson 2:
Christians need to move beyond "spiritual milk"

In 1 Cor 3:2, Paul writes,

"I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready."

The meaning is clear -- followers of Christ cannot always stay in the state of an immature faith. In fact, one of my Indonesian students pointed out that many Christians around her are simply satisfied with surface catechisms, rather than dig down deep. Such unexplored territory and unwrestled questions led to Simpson losing his faith. As he stated on his Instagram,

"This is a soapbox moment so here I go … How many preachers fall? Many. No one talks about it. How many miracles happen. Not many. No one talks about it. Why is the Bible full of contradictions? No one talks about it. How can God be love yet send four billion people to a place, all ‘coz they don’t believe? No one talks about it. Christians can be the most judgmental people on the planet—they can also be some of the most beautiful and loving people. But it’s not for me."

Conclusion
This is not some new crisis, but a lesson for us to guard our faith and to continually explore uncomfortable questions. Only then may we find our God is truth.

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” -- John *:31-32

Theology 1.0: Theology shout outs in contemporary English

One of the interesting about looking at ancient myths from other cultures is to notice its reference to modern day cultures. After all, the shoe brand Nike is name after the Greek goddness of victory, and car brand Mazda is named after the God of the Zoroastrian religion.

In this post, I will list some of the common references.

Days of the week

Thursday is named after the Norse god of thunder, Thor. He is not the only one.

Wednesday is named after Odin, Tuesday after Tyr (god of war) and Friday after Freya (goddess of magic).

Planets

The planets are named after the Roman gods. Mars (god of war), Uranus (god of the sky), Neptune (god of the sea) and even Jupiter (god of lightning) are all examples.

Even our own planet Earth, is sometimes known as Gaia (Greek goddess of the land) or Terra (Roman goddess of land).


Elements

Some of the chemical elements are named after gods. Titanium was named after the Greek titans, and Selenium was named after Selene (Greek goddess of night).

Conclusion
As much as our world is secular, we owe much to our religious past.

My Confessions: Reflection of Job 1-2

Recently, I read the Book of Job again. When I was younger, I was rarely heard a sermon on the book of Job. I understand why -- the topic of suffering is difficult to talk about.

If you have no idea what I am talking about, read Job.


In this post, I will not be handling the issue whether the Book of Job was meant to be a literal or a metaphorical story. I will merely be reflecting on the issue of Job's relationship with God. I will be reflecting on the Book of Job for this series of posts.

Synopsis on Job 1-2
Job was a wealthy man in the land of Uz. When God pointed out to Satan that Job was blameless and rightous, Satan retorted that Job only worships God because Job is blessed. Satan is then allowed to to destroy Job's wealth.

After Job loses his childen and lifestock, he remains faithful. From Job 1:21,

and [Job] said:
“Naked I came from my mother’s womb,
    and naked I will depart.
The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away;
    may the name of the Lord be praised.”

As Job still remains faithful to God, Satan then asks permission to harm Job directly. Job is then inflicted with sores. Job's wife asked Job to curse God, but in Job 2:9

He replied, “You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?”

Still Job did not leave his faith in God.

Job was then comforted by three of his friends, Eliphaz, Bilad and Zophar.

My reflections
Satan has to have permission to harm us
What is striking to me is that Satan has to seek permission from God to harm people. This means that Satan is not even close to God in power and authority.

If God can allow Satan to cast evil upon us, it still means that Satan has his limits (i.e. what God allows). And God loves us.

Satan has a real point.
Like a good deceiver, Satan does hide a token of truth. He points out that people only stay loyal to God because they receive good things from God. In other words, they do not really love God; they only follow God due to the benefits they get from him.

Upon self-reflection, I realise this is true for me for most days. It is very easy to forget God when things do not go my way. I must be vigilant in keep my faith. I should love God for who He is, and not just because of the stuff he blessed me with.


Conclusion
Will we hang on to God even in the tough times?

References

Book of Job

With Due Respect: Men should not have a say in abortion!

Recently, the American state of Alabama voted to ban abortion in the state. Regardless of whatever our stand on abortion is, I feel there is always a debate and conversation to be had. Unfortunately, lots of the discussion seemed to be spend blaming white men lawmakers for making the decision.

In this post I will examine the question posted by the BBC, "should men have a say in the abortion debate?"

Arguments based on identity, not logic

The authors of this question are committing a logical fallacy in their statement. Since men do not under pregnancy or abortion, the argument is that men do not have a right to set the law.

The best form of the argument is this :

1) Men do not go through pregnancy or abortion
2) Abortion law should be only set by individuals who go through pregnancy or abortion
3) Therefore only women should set the law since it only concerns the women.

However, this line of argument is flawed.

Logical failure: Does not match reality

We would not apply this line of logic to any other circumstance. Imagine making the following statements:

"We cannot set animal rights because we are not animals."

"We cannot make laws concerning illegal immigration because we were never immigrants."

"We cannot set laws concerning burials because we were never dead or buried."

All these statements are obviously incorrect yet when it comes to abortion, we are more than happy to follow it.

Logical failure: Your identity makes you more virtuous

The argument also assumes that the identity of speaker or lawmaker is essential to the support of the argument.

Let me make this clear: arguments are valid or invalid regardless of a person's gender, race, ethnicity, eye colour, height, weight etc. An argument should be weighted on logical consistency and real-world application, rather than identity.

Allowing such shenanigans would set a dangerous precedent -- we would have no common ground of logic to reach a proper discussion.

Conclusion

It is irresponsible and rather quite disappointing that the BBC chooses to promote identity as a narrative in their articles.

Alternative Culture: Battle Royale Review

A band of school girls discuss how to survive the slaughter

One of the greatest things about being adult is that I can watch all the films that were previously restricted to me when I was a child. I wanted to watch many films as a youth such as Saving Private Ryan, The Passion of Christ and Battle Royale.

Thus when given a chance to watch the 2000 film Battle Royale recently, I jumped at it.

Premise
In alternate future of fascist Japan, delinquency rates skyrocketed. In response the government picked a class of high school students each year to dump them on an island. The students have to kill each other, and the last remaining student will be allowed to return to society. If they fail to do that within three days, their collars would detonate and kill them all. Yes, the Hunger Games took inspiration from this film.

The reaction of the students differ. How do you respond to such a horrible situation?

Response 1: Play the game

Mitsuko, one of the female students decided to play the game. Using her assets like her good looks and acquired weapons, she sees no wrong in attempting to win the game by killing as many as possible. After all if she refuses to win, there was nothing to stop others from killing her.

Response 2: Avoid reality

Another female student, Megumi refuses to engage the game and seeks refuge into her own little world. In doing no harm, she hopes in vain. She forgets that there are people out there who are willing to kill her to ensure their well-being.

Response 3: Find another way

Some of the students like Yukie is determined to find a way to defeat their captors non-violently. They attempt find a flaw within the captivity system and save as many as they can.

How do we respond to the world?

I am not sure what the intent of creator of Battle Royale was. Yet I find similarities between my observations of real people and the students in the film.

There are many who resort to response 1 in which they seek to gain as much from the world in terms of power, wealth or any other gain. These are the high achievers we admire in our mundane lives.

Yet there are others who seek response 2 because they reject real truth for the fantasy of comfort. These are the hedonist aka the pleasure seekers.

But both response 1 and 2 cannot save us.

Yet Jesus offers us a way out of the struggle of everyday life.

This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,  and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

-- Romans 3:22-24

So why not choose response 3 and explore Christianity?

Alternative Culture: Spectral review

Overcoming the odds

Ever so in history we encounter a black swan event, or an out-of-context problem. The Japanese of World War 2 knew they were outclassed when they faced atomic annihilation. The warmongering New World Aztecs had no counter to the visiting Spanish steel and horses. The medieval Europeans experienced it as when they had their first encounter with Black Death.

No amount of thinking could have prepared them for the disasters that followed. After all, how could you fight a problem that did not even think exists?

That is the premise of the 2015 film Spectral, which I caught on Netflix recently. Military scientist Clyne travels to war-torn Moldova as reports of soldiers dropping dead mysteriously reach him. Using advanced visual equipment, Clyne discovers that the soldiers were being attacked by spirit-like entities called "spectrals". After deducing the composition of the spectrals, Clyne and the remaining soldiers have to come up with a plan to counter the spectrals before they overrun the world.

Analysing the situation

At one point of the film, Clyne argued about the solution to defeating the spectrals. The local villagers believed the spectrals were supernatural entities. The CIA analyst, on the other hand, concludes that the spectrals were a form of advanced camouflagued. Clyne, however suspends judgement till more evidence is gathered. He accurately points out that his counterparts were more interested in solutions rather than actual problem identification, leading the team to implement faulty methods to deal with their new threat.

Later in the film, Clyne notices that the spectrals had human forms yet intangible, could move through walls yet not ceramic, and had no compulsion in killing children yet felt pain. This helped him construct an effective counter against the spectrals.

Unlike how Clyne's counterparts often read their biases into the situation, we Christians must be cautious about interpreting the Bible according to our fancies. I have seen too many a time where my fellow Christians haphazardly apply the Bible verses from Jeremiah and Habakkuk into their lives. Bible verses should be read with little personal bias as possible with much prayer and understanding of context.

Making moral decisions

Late in the movie, Clyne also had to make a decision to end the generation of spectral. Acknowledging his decision was beyond science, he delved into the realm of morality before making his decision.

Similarly, we Christians must acknowledge that we are incapable of making all decisions rationally. Ultimately if we honest with ourselves, there are things beyond the pure reason. Thank God He is charge of everything.

Conclusion

Spectral is a thrilling movie, with predictable plot twists. Do watch it if you have the time.

With Due Respect: Jesus was not born on Christmas Day, so therefore Jesus did not exist

As Christmas passes, I find myself dealing with yet another objection to Christianity. After all to throw doubt into the existence of Jesus would diminish Christian belief.

One of my atheist friends love to point out every Christmas that Jesus was not born on December 25th. This proves strong doubt that Jesus existed since his birth date is unknown. Furthermore, the Christian Romans set aside the date to coincide with the winter festival. Therefore 25th December was chosen for cultural and political purposes, and therefore not an accurate dating.

A red herring

Let's relook his line of logic:

1. Jesus's birthday was made to coincide with the Winter Festival and was not the actual date that Jesus was born on.
2. Since Jesus's birthday is unknown, we cannot be sure that Jesus was born
3. Therefore if we cannot be sure whether he was born, we cannot be sure Jesus exist.

Immediately, you should spot the error. Whether 25th December was the actual date is irrelevant to the truth of Jesus's birth.

To give an analogy, let's say I am unsure when my grandmother was born. This does not change the fact that my grandmother was born.

This fallacy (false logic) is also known as a red herring. In other words, the objection is irrelevant to the point made.

So when was Jesus born exactly?

No one really knows. According to Wikipedia, it could be September or October.

Conclusion

Whenever Jesus's exact birthday was, we can know that he was born.