Star Wars Episode VIII: Some things I would like to have known before seeing it

Hi everyone,

So, you haven't seen Star Wars: The Force Awakens yet? Good... That Galaxy far far away is a pretty big place, and a lot has happened since we last visited it in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi.

There are spoilers in here, but they come later and regard Princess Leia and the Resistance only, I will warn you before that happens.

The Battle of Endor saw a decisive victory for the Alliance to Restore the Republic, with the destruction of the Second Death Star and the death of Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader.

The Alliance reformed into the New Republic and sent messages to planets, encouraging them to rebel against the Imperial Garrisons on their planets. However, not every planet did so and the Empire held on to some of them. This led to the Civil War.

If you remember in the trailer the desert planet, Jakku, not Tatooine, that is where the final battle of the Civil War between the now massively expanded New Republic, thus the Star Destroyers littering the desert.

After this the Empire retreated to the unknown territory planets, and eventually signed a disarmament treaty with the New Republic. The Republic [and supposedly the Empire] then began to retire their large fleets, leading to the position we come to in the movie.

Meanwhile, the New Republic had to prove it was different from the Galactic Republic that the Empire replaced. The first way it did this was not to move the Senate back to the old building (seen in the prequels) on Coruscant (as far as I know it stayed part of the Empire, but I could be wrong).

Instead, the Senate of the New Republic moves to different host countries, also the Chancellor is no longer called the Supreme Chancellor (too Imperialistic, I guess). At the time of the Force Awakens the Chancellor is a guy called Lanever Villecham and the Senate presently sits on a planet called Hosnian Prime.


Ok, so spoilers (potentially, not really) will be below so stop reading and come back afterwards if you would prefer.













General Leia is not part of the Republic Senate in the Force Awakens. This is because she was suspicious of the Empire and believed, unlike the Republic, that they wouldn't disarm. This is why the Resistance force is so small in the movie, like ten X-Wings. It actually isn't sanctioned, fully, by the Republic. Leia actually has become annoyed with how slow the Republic Senate is to make decisions, just like her mother was when she voted no confidence in the Supreme Chancellor of her day!

The Senate began to see Leia as irrational and stuck in the past, thinking there would be war when the New Republic attempted to tell everyone there would be peace. Leia and the Senate eventually parted ways, though she still has a representative there. She then contacted the retired Admiral Ackbar, who first fought for the Republic in the Clone Wars, then for the Alliance and was drawn out of retirement to lend his military knowledge to the Resistance.

Operation Janus

Hey all, I have recently been reading the book The Martian, which I would highly recommend, and these missions named after Greek deities has inspired me to make all the problems in my flat a little more fun by giving them NASA style mission names and numbers. Janus and Eris, Chaos and Discord, ODDs 2 spoiler!

So, firstly, the whole thing is called Operation Janus because Janus was the Greek god of chaos and it seems like the flat is just living proof of entropy, or the theory that everything tends towards chaos. So Janus is like Apollo or something, it is the overarching group of missions.

Within operation Janus we presently have five other smaller missions.

Operation Triton - aka "the stinky bathroom". This is so named because Triton was a god of the sea and the bathroom has to do with water.

Operation Eris - the continuing struggle for hot water. So named because Eris was the goddess of discord and unshowered housemates can lead to discord.

Operation Hestia - there have been these leaks and wet carpets resulting. Hestia was the goddess of architecture and the hearth/home. Thought it was an apt name trying to stop leaking pipes and make this place a home again.

Operation Hephaestus - The fixing of the washing machine. Hephaestus was the god of blacksmiths and craftsmen and this is a technology problem.

Operation Pan - Wild mushrooms appearing! Inside. Pan was the god of the wild and nature.



Janus 1 was involved with Operation Triton and Operation Athena (the fixing of the internet, as she was the goddess of wisdom and the internet gives access to such).

Result: Operation Triton ongoing, Operation Athena sorted out by us getting in our own internet and not using the building's.

Operation Athena has been officially declared successful.

Janus 2 involved Operations Triton, Hestia and Hephaestus.

Result: Triton was ignored, Hestia was attempted to be fixed by replacing the cylinder and Hephaestus was fixed by me getting in a repair man.

Janus 3 again involved Operation Hestia, or Hestia 2, but was ignored. As were Operation Hestia 3 to 7.

Janus 4. This involved Hephaestus 4 and Hestia 8. The result was the leak causing Hestia eight that was then wetting our carpets (and also feeding Operation Pan) was sorted out.

Operation Hestia is officially declared successful!

Janus 5. Continuing from Janus 4 in many ways as Hephaestus 4 failed and Hephaestus 5 failed. Meaning Hephaestus is very much ongoing. This, however, also included Eris 2 and Pan 3. Operation Pan was thought to be dealt with but was found to be ongoing near the toilet and the sink. Operation Triton has been worked on by Andy extensively, but it is too early to declare it a success as of yet.

Result: Hephaestus ongoing. Eris 5, 6 and 7 have all been declared successful, though, for some reason, our immersion works by a completely different method than it did before Eris 2. Operation Pan ongoing.

Operation Eris has been officially declared successful, even if it was a completely unforeseen method.


Ongoing Missions:

Operation Hephaestus

Operation Pan

Operation Triton

The Parable of Austerity and Debt Forgiveness

Jesus tells a Parable about a man, 

who will be called Greece, 

who was burdened by billions of Euro worth of debt, and he had defaulted. 

There was nothing he could do, 

                                         no referendums, 

                                                                no negotiating tables, 

                                                                                               just debt and no way to pay it. 

He was called up for it.

Heading into the European Central Bank office he knew he was in trouble. He pleaded with Mario Draghi (President of the ECB) to give him more time and not kick him out of the Euro.

Having mercy on the man in tonnes of debt, the entire debt was written off!

There was no way the man could pay it, but there was kindness and mercy shown to him.

Later on the same day, Greece met Germany who owed him some rent money since World War II (supposedly),

when Germany said she couldn’t pay, Greece made Nazi posters and posted them on the Internet of Germany, publicly shaming her.

The European Central Bank got wind of the story and brought Greece back to another meeting.

Greece was told that even though all their debt had been written off, the ECB was disappointed with Greece for what they had done to Germany,

"Don't you know what you put on the Internet stays there forever?" Mario asked Greece. "All your debt was forgiven, but you could not pay it forward, and humiliated Germany. You wicked, wicked man."

Consequentially, Greece was forced to bring in reforms that created more austerity and worse conditions for living, until all the debt was paid off.

- Matthew 18: 24-34

Should Christians Vote Yes in May?

I clearly no longer agree with a younger, dumber, slightly brainwashed version of myself. But I wanted to leave this here so people can see how humans and knowledge and acceptance can develop in an individual.

Yay, more controversial topics that I feel like I don't want to talk about, but I have something to say on it and I think I should say it "out loud" If you look at this and think "Flip, that's long", skip to point three, it's the most important one and the actual reason I wrote this.

I have thought and prayed about the issue of the referendum on the 22nd of May 2015. I have thought and prayed about what I, personally, would vote; what I think about the entire issue; what I think other people should vote; etc. etc. For some time now I have come to some conclusions and for some time I have been debating putting them on this blog.

Previously I have written a post titled "TotD: Why I'm Against Gay Marriage", which can be found on: http://waveysthoughts.blogspot.ie/2013/05/totd-why-im-against-gay-marriage.html. This post will nearly sound contradictory to that previous post. However, it is looking at things from a different perspective, I believe. I still stick by the majority of what I have said there.

The main [Christian] objections against Same-Sex Marriage are as follows:

1. The Bible condemns homosexuality.
2. Think of the children!
3. Marriage is a symbol of Christ and the Church, it is a religious institution from God and should only be between one man and one woman. Same-Sex Marriages (SSM) destroy the sanctity of marriage.
4. Religious liberty...

I will try and deal briefly with the first two of these but the third is the one I want to spend the most time on. The fourth may have to be its own post and I have sort of dealt with it before in "Response to the Asher Bakery vs Equality Commission.", which can be found at: http://waveysthoughts.blogspot.ie/2014/07/response-to-asher-bakery-vs-equality.html

1. Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Should that change how I vote?

Yes, the Bible does in fact condemn homosexuality. It condemns it in all its forms; going as far as to use words that are understood as the male person in a homosexual relationship that gives and the one who takes... Sorry for the imagery.

Based on the above should a Christian vote 'no'?

I don't think this fact has any bearing on what to vote in the referendum in May.

Firstly, if you personally have a problem with homosexuality and you think it is wrong, then don't be homosexual [I know it's not that simple, I don't want to get into it more here]. But really, how does a couple of young men, or a couple of young women getting married affect you personally? Yes, it affects them, yes as a Christian I believe that there are serious consequences for people who chose to ignore God [in any and every issue] and live their lives their own way, and yes there is a responsibility to warn people of the things that lie ahead if they keep on this pathway of ignoring God.

However, you cannot force Christian beliefs on non-Christians. We cannot make peoples' choices for them. As the cliched saying goes: "God's law for God's people." Christians cannot, and should not, expect people who do not share our beliefs and convictions to share our rules; where they are not also the laws of the State.

I get that it is a scary time for "Christendom". Christians have been in power in European society for many centuries; it has only been in the most recent ones that the power of the Church has begun to decline.

This terrifies Christians, however, we have to remember that for the first three centuries of the Christian Church it was the minority in society, and it flourished. People said it would die out, be wiped out, etc. It wasn't! The acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire is probably one of the worst things that happened to the church, as it opened the doors for people to join the church who didn't believe in Jesus or give a monkeys about any Christian beliefs or doctrines, but had to because of fear of punishment from the Emperor.
Christians see the decline in Christian influence on society as steps backwards, however, "every crisis is also an opportunity", and instead of focusing on "maintaining the status quo" Christians should be asking what "new thing" is God doing in this new day, and how can Christianity be relevant in it.

With that said, Christians need to see a separation between society and the church, a separation that hasn't really existed for a long time; but certainly does now.

Therefore, I don't see the biblical understanding of homosexuality as a reason for voting no.




2. Think of the children!

Another big argument I have heard, from both Christians and non-Christians, against SSM is the children, and how they need both a male and a female parent. Many arguments have been made against this, it is not my interest to present them or join in the debate on their side. In my previous posting, listed above, item three is about children. I abide by that statement, it is my own personal conviction.

However,
The issue of adoption and artificial insemination or surrogacies is not an issue that even comes into the referendum on 22nd of May. Many people, who really should do some reading before they vote, think it is.
In reality, you are not voting on the issues in the paragraph above. Unfortunately, Christian, you don't get a say in whether a homosexual couple are allowed to adopt children, or 'have' children at all. Believe it or not the President is about to sign all those things you are freaking out about into law, it will be law whether you vote yes or no.

You see, earlier in the year the Government brought forward what is called "The Children and Family Relationships" Bill. This grants homosexual couples rights of adoption and clears up some things about surrogacy and artificial insemination and all that jazz.

I think you know where this is going:
Therefore, the issue of the redefinition of the family, and the rights of gay people to "have" or adopt children is not relevant to the referendum this May. It should not come into your decision whether to vote yes or no.
There is no reason, based on convictions about what you think could happen to children brought up by two parents of the same-sex, to vote no in the referendum in May.



3. Marriage is a symbol of Christ and the Church, it is a religious institution from God and should only be between one man and one woman. Same-Sex Marriages (SSM) destroy the sanctity of marriage.

Finally, on to the main reason for writing this blog. Thanks for sticking with it.

The Sanctity of Marriage.

Again, I must reiterate my complete agreement with the Christian doctrine of the sanctity of marriage and express the importance of what a marriage is, how it is seen by God, and what it is a picture of.

In his book Is God Anti-Gay? [one of the best books I have read on the topic of homosexuality and Christianity, and written by someone who knows what they are talking about, and it's only 90 pages] Sam Allberry talks about why he doesn't agree with gay marriage.

He says: “Human marriage is a reflection of this supreme, heavenly marriage between Christ and his people. It is one of the reasons why Christians are resistant to allowing marriage to be defined in such a way as to include gay couples. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot reflect the union of Christ and the church, instead only reflecting Christ and Christ or church and church.” (22-3)

^Just so we are clear, I agree with him. I loved this so much that I took the time to type it out as I thought it would be useful later; and it was :D

So, here's the big revelation I have had recently, the thing I want to share with you all:

Civil Marriage is not the same thing as a Church Marriage.

In case you didn't get that, voting yes in May will not damage the sanctity of marriage. If you think that it does you are still living in a time when you think church and state aren't separate and you haven't yet 'divorced' them in your head.

Civil marriages have long ago ruined the sanctity of marriage. Take the below image as an extreme example of such:

Okay, if this blog wasn't controversial enough for you, it gets worse.

My belief is that every Christian could vote yes, or abstain from voting, without any conscience issues [I don't see any benefit in voting no, and I question the morality behind someone who would, having understood all that is contained in this post, besides for point 4 reasons]. Christian ministers, preachers and pastors should then opt to leave the civil registrars of solemnisers. [This is not the word sodomiser, in case anyone is getting irate at seeing it, a solemniser is someone registered in Ireland to conduct civil marriage ceremonies, the other is a derogatory term for a homosexual. It is not the latter I am using.]

For a long time, there has been a distinction between a Christian marriage and a civil one; perhaps it is time to make that distinction even clearer and a church leader should marry people in the eyes of God and the church, and a civil registrar could marry someone in the eyes of the State. I know, for a lot of smaller Christian churches in Ireland, that up until recently this was the case; I believe my own parents' wedding was conducted as such. Would it really be that difficult to go back to that system?

If we believe in the sanctity of marriage, as Christians keep talking about, then we should respect marriage enough to have nothing to do with civil marriages; which, whether heterosexual or homosexual, have been known to damage the sanctity of marriage [not that Christian ones don't as well].

This would also stop the foreseeable problem for ministers and church leaders when this referendum does return a yes vote [which it will, don't lie to yourself], of a church leader being asked to conduct an SSM, as they are on the list of registered solumnisers. They won't be on the list, so there is no problem.

Okay, but they are calling them 'Same-Sex Marriages", surely as Christians we cannot stand for that term being used for such a thing... and if we follow what you are outlining here, surely we should start campaigning for all civil marriages to drop the term marriage. Should that be our campaign?

If you feel very strongly about the damage to the sanctity of marriage that an SSM or a civil marriage is doing then I suggest a change of wording or terminology is required. However, marriage and wedding are English translations of biblical terms that are much older.

If you feel strongly about the word, perhaps it should be the original words you feel strongly about, not their translation.

Allow the State to have the words wedding and marriage. Let the Christian church, now pulled out from all civil marriages, instead use the Greek terms Gamos. [If it is that important to you].

Is the sanctity of marriage a reason to vote no in May?

Nope.

Should Christians do something to distinguish Christian marriages from Civil ones in order to protect the sanctity of marriage?

Yup:

• Separate from the civil distribution of marriage, creating a clear distinction.
• Do not Gamos couples in your church 'willy-nilly' as some Churches have a tendency to.
• Teach about the meaning of Gamos so that people will understand and will not enter into marriage lightly.

4. Religious Liberty.

I have one hesitation to voting yes in the referendum this May. That is religious liberty. If a yes is the outcome can a registered solemniser refuse to conduct a SSM if it is against their personal, and churches, religious convictions? Can someone who is not a church leader, but works as a Civil registrar?

These things are not being made clear, and are the things I would like to have cleared up. Is there a conscience clause in this referendum? I don't believe someone who does not agree with a wedding, be it between a couple of the opposite sex or the same-sex should have to conduct their wedding.

Were I a pastor I would not conduct the wedding of my non-Christian [or Christian] friends or congregants who have been cohabiting and sleeping together, unless they came to a point of repentance and understood that their actions were wrong [and they understood the thing they were entering into], nor would I conduct the wedding of two people of the same-sex. This, I believe, should be the attitude of the entire Christian community when it comes to weddings.

To a civil registrar I see the difficulties, but perhaps a clear distinction between marriage under God and a civil marriage would ease issues of conscience on providing a civil marriage for a Same-sex couple.

In Summary:

The reasons Christians have been giving for voting no, and opposing the same-sex referendum on 22nd of May 2015 are not valid ones, in least in what I can see.

The "Children and Family Relationships" Bill is legislating for gay couples to adopt and "have" children and so should not form part of the debate about the 22nd of May. Therefore the result of the referendum will not be a redefinition of 'the family'.

The sanctity of marriage is in tatters anyway. The Christian church needs to clean it up, and no amount of shouting at society that doesn't care what we say will do that. We need to remove the log from our own eye, treat marriage with the respect it deserves within the church first, before we can point to something like SSM destroying the sanctity of marriage. We need to distinguish Christian marriage from both opposite sex and same-sex Civil Marriages.

Questions about religious freedom, not about issues not pertaining to the referendum in May, need to be asked.

Do I advocate a yes?

Not necessarily. I don't understand why you would vote no, in my head it seems futile and pointless, and perhaps even cruel. This issue is to do with equal rights, in the eyes of the State, for our fellow citizens. It is wrong to oppress them, but it is also wrong to think of what they will be doing on the same level as a marriage between a man and a woman under God. So...

I am advocating an abstention, at the very least, if you can't vote yes. I am also advocating a clearing up of the results on religious freedom a yes vote will have, instead of an argument about things not pertaining to the bill; and I am advocating some thought put into the idea of marriage [from a Christian perspective].

Now, can we finally focus on the more important referendum coming in May? The changing of the age to run for President from 35 to 21; that has results that will effect us all more than this Same-Sex Marriage one... The next President of Ireland could be some young 'whipper-snapper'.