Note: Somebody (not me, I promise) linked this article in the Philowiki. (http://www.philowiki.com/wiki/index.php/Book_Debate_Guide:_That's_Just_Your_Interpretation) Since that hopefully means I will get some more readership of this article, I recently had this article re-proofed and a few arguments revised for clarity.
Paul Copan's That's Just Your Interpretation asks the question, "What is reality?" from a Christian perspective. As it so happens, I find such questions interesting to contemplate. Therefore, I was interested in how Copan might approach these questions from a Christian perspective. Though occasionally I found some of the ideas he presented to be valid, or at least plausible, most of his ideas I found to be simply untenable.
In some parts, Copan raises points that seem valid and logical. Therefore, I conclude that Copan does, indeed, have a reasonable grasp of logic principles. And yet, all too often, he presents arguments that, in my view, are just flat-out preposterous. I found it frustrating to read the sections that in my view displayed poor logic, considering that Copan clearly has a good understanding of logic. I'm at a loss to understand why, but it seems that many perfectly intelligent and logical thinkers often throw logic out the door when it comes to their faith.
I've written a moderately well-known critique of Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith. How I came to know about Copan's book is that one Christian wrote a defense of Strobel's book, and used Copan's book for source material in a few places. Copan covers some of the same topics that Strobel does, but also many topics he does not. Where the topics of the books overlap, they generally come to similar conclusions. But Copan brings a somewhat different perspective and style to the table. I do think that many Christians would find these books complementary. Therefore, I encourage readers of this critique to also read my critique of Strobel's book.
By the way, many readers of my critique of Strobel's book assume that I expected to find it poor, and intended to tear it down. That is flatly not true. I considered myself a Christian, albeit a weak one, when I read it. I really hoped Strobel had found good answers; I just felt forced to conclude he did not. But I must confess that by the time I read Copan's book, I no longer held out any significant hope of finding good answers. I admit that I had the bias of not expecting to be swayed by Copan's arguments. However, I did do the best I could to put aside my bias and evaluate his arguments on their own merits. I can't say that I did so perfectly. But then, I don't think anybody can. All I can say to the reader is, feel free to read Copan's book, and my counter-arguments, and decide for yourself which is better.
I must confess to being an "amateur." I have no formal study in the topics of theology or philosophy, aside from one freshman-level course. I am a computer programmer by trade, and consider logical thinking to be one of my strong points. My critique of Copan's book is based purely on whether or not his arguments impress me as being logical and consistent. It is, of course, up to the reader to judge whether I have presented my arguments logically and consistently or not.
Copan's book had 21 chapters, each one generally fairly short. On some topics I have a lot to say; on others, not so much. In the following critique, I list each chapter by title, and my commentary on that chapter.
The theme of this chapter is repeated many times throughout the book. Copan rails against "relativism" and says it is self-contradictory--a claim that "everything is relative" is itself a claim of absolute truth. Therefore, to deny truth and reality affirms some form of truth and reality. I can agree that there is some valid logic to this line of argument by Copan. And to some degree, I do agree with Copan. For example, I believe that either I am typing on my computer, or I am not. The statement "I am typing on my computer at this moment" is either true, or false. But a big question that Copan never seems to address is, how do you determine what is reality? How do I determine for certain whether I am typing on my computer or not?
In this chapter (and again in Chapter 4), Copan makes references to a couple of popular movies, The Matrix and The Truman Show. It so happens that, as a child, I regularly fantasized that my life was scripted, like in The Truman Show. Because of this childhood fantasy of mine, I am an enthusiastic fan of the movie. After mentioning these movies, Copan says that they "raise interesting questions about reality." And then Copan drops the ball and drops the discussion. Dang! Just when he was starting to say something interesting! Seriously, I can't help but think that the reason he dropped the discussion is because to continue it further would have led to conclusions that would be contrary to the conclusions he wanted to make. How can we know for certain that we do not exist in The Matrix? How do we know for certain that our lives aren't scripted like in The Truman Show? My conclusion is that we don't and can't know for certain.
How do we know that God didn't create the universe five minutes ago, complete with memories? How could we disprove it? Basically, I believe that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, but certain possibilities are sufficiently unlikely that it is not worth considering the possibility of them being true. There is a concept known as Occam's Razor that is often paraphrased something like, "All other things being equal, the simpler solution is preferred." I can't know for certain that God didn't create the universe five minutes ago complete with memories, but it is an excessively complex answer to the explanation of our current reality.
Though I disagree with Copan on whether or not we can really know for certain what reality is, based on Occam's Razor, I think we can determine what reality "probably" is. Also, I believe that humans have a desire to understand truth, and to try to best determine what truth and reality is. I'm not sure if Copan would say I'm close to agreeing with him or not. But, I think there is some degree of agreement between us here. He seems to say that truth and reality can be determined absolutely, while I say that it can be determined within a reasonable doubt. I suppose that is as close to agreement as we are going to get.
This chapter seems to have at least two different things in mind, but was unclear. Is Copan talking about interpretation of the Bible? Secular laws? Morals? He does not make it clear exactly what we are trying to "interpret."
Copan says that when someone says, "Hey, that's just your interpretation," a response might be, "Do you mean that your interpretation should be preferred over mine? If so, I'd like to know why you have chosen your interpretation over mine." Again, what are we interpreting? If the people in question are Christians, and they are talking about what a particular Bible verse means, I suppose that would be a valid approach. But, if we are talking about laws and rights in society, I'm not sure that is a valid approach. If someone has a question about what a law means, perhaps a discussion with a lawyer or other professional might be a better plan. And if we are talking about morals, well, I'm not ready to broach that subject yet. So, I'll just leave that topic for now. The bottom line for me is that what exactly Copan is trying to say or to interpret is far from clear. And I don't believe that his proposed methodology is valid for all possible contexts of interpretation.
It is true that a lot of people say things along the lines of, "You create your own reality." And there are, indeed, some people who believe this quite literally; they believe that all sensory data is imaginary. There is no "real" reality. But I'm pretty sure this is a very rare point of view. Rather, I think that most people who say, "You create your own reality," mean this in a much less literal way. Somebody could look at the 9/11 tragedy and focus on the loss of lives. Somebody else could look at the same event and see how fortunate it was that most people got out of the buildings. People have the ability to choose what parts of reality to focus on more. The person who looks at the loss of lives in the 9/11 tragedy could conclude, "Reality is unfair." The person who looks at the number of people that survived 9/11 could conclude, "Reality is miraculous." This is what I think most people who say, "You create your own reality," really mean. Copan's arguments in this chapter deal with the extreme position that there literally is no genuine reality. I can agree with Copan in that I believe this extreme position to be rather bizarre. But I believe that the more figurative meaning of, "You create your own reality," is quite valid, and Copan didn't actually address this.
Copan does, of course, recognize that many things are, indeed, beyond our control. The point of this chapter is more about whether or not we can make an objective assessment of our reality. Copan makes a particular point over and over and over again. He says that anyone who says that objective reality is impossible is contradicting him or herself, because they are making the claim that it is objectively true that objective reality is impossible. And I concede some logic to this argument. But, I believe that it is simply a fact that some things are a mix of subjective and objective, and that they are not always separable.
Here is an example. Are Fords better than Chevys? Most of us would say that is a subjective call. For one person, a Ford may be better, but for another, a Chevy may be better. But a Ford fan might get out statistics on reliability, horsepower, and maintenance and try to make a claim that Fords are objectively better than Chevys. But, it is not likely that in every objective category, Fords are always better than Chevys. Perhaps one brand has better reliability statistics, while the other has better safety statistics. So, which is better? It is subjective, isn't it?
Now, let's consider the question, are Fords better than Yugos? Most people would say that Yugos perform so poorly, in so many of the objective categories, that it is fair to say that Fords are, indeed, objectively better than Yugos. Of course, there is probably somebody, somewhere, who would object. Somebody must like Yugos, and say that they like Yugos better than Fords. But that person would be the rare person. Most people would say that whether Fords are better than Chevys is subjective, but that Fords are better than Yugos is objective. The point being, many things have objective and subjective components, and completely separating them is not always possible.
Copan claims that when people say something like, "We are nothing more than the product of our genes and our environment," they don't really believe it. Well, I do say it, and I do believe it. I must confess that I don't happen to like it--but I do believe it. I, therefore, must concede that Copan is right, in that I have to agree that both our views are the products of our genes and our environment. If I say that I think my views are correct and his aren't, am I saying that somehow my genes or environment are "better" than his? And this is the best answer I have, which I admit might not be completely compelling. But here it goes. I believe that we each have differing degrees of intelligence, and differing degrees of experience. For that reason, some of us are better able to discern truth from fiction in some areas, but perhaps not others. If I am correct, and I have deduced more correctly than Mr. Copan has in regards to these subjects that I am writing about, it is still quite likely that there are other subjects that he is better able to evaluate than I am. Further, the sphere of human knowledge grows via peer review. It may be true that he will never be convinced that I am more right, and that I may never be convinced that he is more right. I may claim that my view is more right, but my claiming it does not make it so. But perhaps, with both of our opinions available for review, who is more right between us can be deduced over time.
In these chapters, Copan discounts some religious beliefs that differ from his own. I don't believe them either. So, more-or-less, I agree with Copan on these topics. Not exactly, of course, but I see no point in elaborating any further.
Chapter 7: If God Made the Universe, Who Made God?
This is a brief rendition of the Cosmological Argument. I have a separate paper on this, so I shall not go into too much detail here. But one thing I'd like to point out is that Copan makes an oft-stated claim that Big Bang cosmology "greatly resembles the account in Genesis 1:1." Really? Genesis 1 has God creating the stars after the Earth. Doesn't look like a great resemblance to me. For more information, please follow this link to my paper on this topic.
In short, the title of this chapter is quite appropriate. The title recognizes that there must be something that exists without any explanation. Either the natural universe(s) exist without explanation, or God exists without explanation. Copan, and other theists that use this line of argument, try to explain why the universe can't exist without explanation, but God can. But, these are always "ad-hoc" arguments, arguments formulated with the pre-determined conclusion that it must be God that exists without explanation. If you aren't already convinced that this is true, the arguments fall flat. The bottom line is, we know that the universe exists, but we don't know that God exists. Trying to use an unknown to explain a known can't possibly work.
The main thrust of this chapter is his argument that God knowing what will happen is not the same thing as making it happen. If it were possible for humans to know the future, and somebody a hundred years ago knew that today I'd be typing this, that person's knowledge didn't cause me to do today's typing. I believe that I can accept this line of argument, at least up to a point.
Of course, I know that bringing up Hitler is a cliché, but I guess he makes as good an example as any, so here it goes. If God knew that Hitler was going to kill millions of people, and had the power to stop him, but didn't, isn't God at least partly responsible? If I was a German in WWII and had the power to stop Hitler, but didn't, wouldn't I deserve some blame? Some say that God has decided not to interfere in people's free will, even if that means things like the holocaust will happen. But then, what is the point of prayer? If God won't interfere, then why pray? Anybody who had prayed for an end for WWII obviously prayed in vain, as God wouldn't do anything. The fact that the allies won was just good fortune for the allies; God apparently had nothing to do with it.
Copan goes on to argue that God knows not only everything that happens in this world and universe, but also everything that happens in all possible worlds and universes. And, therefore, God chose to manifest the world in which the maximum number of people are saved, and the minimum number are lost. My first question is, where the heck in the Bible does it say this? This seems to be completely "made-up stuff"--made up to try to gloss over glaring deficiencies of ordinary Christian theology.
So, Copan seems to be saying that of all possible worlds, we live in the "best" one, where "best" is defined as maximum people saved and minimum people lost. If this is, indeed, the "best" possible world (in our terms here) that means that God Himself could not create a "better" world than this one! Mr. Copan, are you really saying that God is incapable of making a better world than this one? One would think that omnipotence would not be so limited! A world ten times bigger, with ten times the population, should, in theory, generate more people saved, right?
In fact, doesn't this demonstrate a logical inconsistency with the concept of omnipotence? On one hand, it would seem that God should be capable of manifesting the best possible world, as Copan claims. On the other hand, no matter what universe God created, shouldn't infinite power be capable of creating a better one? Isn't this an impossible-to-solve inconsistency with the concept of "omnipotence"?
Now, for argument's sake, let's suppose that God were to come down and give a new revelation, in which He announces, "Oh, heck, I just chose to manifest a world at random, I never considered whether this world would have a maximum number of people saved or not." What would that say about God? That would say that He really isn't all that concerned with how many people get saved, would it not? Would you want to worship this God if He said that? And yet, can you honestly believe that this world is, indeed, the "best" possible world?
Copan goes on to claim that since this is the best possible world, then anybody lost in this world would have been lost in all possible worlds. He says such people suffer from "transworld depravity." I understand this is a concept originated by Alvin Plantinga. I have not read Plantinga's works, so I'm just going by what Copan says on the subject. And again, I must ask the question, where is this "transworld depravity" in the Bible? Again, it just looks to me to be "made-up stuff."
1. God wants to separate people who are "right" for heaven from those who are "wrong" for heaven. There are intrinsic differences between the two groups of people. These differences are eternal, which is why you spend eternity either in heaven or hell.
2. God wants people to freely choose Him. There is no intrinsic difference between those who do so and those who don't. Just some people do, and some people don't. Those who choose God go to heaven and those who don't, go to hell.
I will refer to these two salvation concepts as Goal 1 and Goal 2 for the rest of this chapter, and will also occasionally refer to them in subsequent chapters. I claim that these two possible goals of God exist in Christian apologetics. And I claim they are mutually incompatible. That they are incompatible seems self-evident; either there are intrinsic differences between those who go to heaven and those who go to hell, or there aren't.
So, where do I get evidence that these two conflicting concepts (goals) are present in Christian apologetics? Well, for one, this "transworld depravity" concept that Copan raises seems to be an argument for Goal 1. Also, I've read C. S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. Although the story is allegorical, there is one quote from the book that I believe is to be taken literally: "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'" Copan himself quoted this exact same line from The Great Divorce in a later chapter. The point of The Great Divorce, though allegorical, seems to be a contention that there are real, intrinsic differences between the saved and the unsaved. So Lewis seems to be arguing for Goal 1.
On the other hand, most apologetics that I've read seem to argue for Goal 2. In Copan's Chapter 11 (on hell), he argues that faith is a choice--either you choose to want to be with God, or you choose to not want to be with God. So, in that chapter, Copan seems to argue Goal 2. Also, I've been to church many times, in Methodist, Catholic, and Lutheran services. My impression of the teachings in these churches has always been Goal 2. They usually say that everybody is a sinner, nobody "deserves" heaven, and God gives salvation freely to anybody who asks for it.
Okay, so now that I've shown that both of these concepts seem to be expressed in Christian apologetics--and even both in this same book by Copan--which is really God's goal? Both possible goals seem rather problematic, which I shall attempt to show by the following scenario. Say some man spends his entire life as an atheist. He goes to the doctor, and is told that he has cancer and has about six months to live. He reevaluates his life, and converts to Christianity. I suppose I must first ask, is this scenario even possible? Had this man died the day he went to the doctor, he would have gone to hell. And if the saved and unsaved are intrinsically different from each other, how could he have changed? So it would seem that if there are intrinsic differences between the saved and unsaved, this scenario should be impossible. But I think Christians believe this kind of event happens all the time, and that those who use such an event to choose God are fortunate indeed.
Therefore, this scenario illustrates two points. One, this seems to rule out the possibility that people who go to hell are intrinsically different than those who go to heaven (Goal 1 seems ruled out.) But it also seems to add an important corollary to Goal 2. People who chose to be on "God's side" may well have made the opposite choice had their life experiences been somewhat different, or vice-versa--as in my example of the guy who gets cancer and is given six months to live. So Goal 2 looks very random; your soul's eternal destination is ultimately decided by random events in your life. So I'm saying that God's potential Goal 2 includes what I'm calling Corollary A: who is saved and who is unsaved is random.
I know a Christian would challenge the claim that your soul's eternal destination is ultimately decided by random events. They would say that, no, it is the choices you make, based on the random events in your life, that determine your fate. But in my example of the guy who reevaluates his life when told that he has cancer, it is the exact same guy who was an atheist before. But one random path leads him to make the choice for God, and another random path doesn't. The point being, I think that the choices we make really are very heavily dependent on the events in our life. Can any Christian honestly say that had events in their life been different, there is no chance that today they would be atheist? So I stand by my claim that if God's plan is Goal 2, then Corollary A, that who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is random, must also be true.
I believe it is the fundamental problems inherent in each possible goal that causes Christians to have to switch back and forth between them. When speaking of heaven, Christians seem to gravitate towards Goal 2, saying that those who go to heaven merely made the choice to be with God. But when speaking of hell, they gravitate towards Goal 1, saying that there is something about those who go to hell, and that "something" will last for eternity.
Now, let's return to Copan's idea of "transworld depravity." First off, as I noted above, Christian churches that I have attended have all said that everybody is a sinner, and that nobody is "better" than anybody else. Everybody is depraved, and everybody should have transworld depravity as I understand Christian teachings. But, okay, say that these churches that I have attended are incorrect, and that transworld depravity does exist for some people but not for everybody. If somebody is "depraved" in all possible worlds, where could the source of this depravity be except God Himself, who creates everything? If God created me, and I'm depraved, then God created me depraved, did He not? And regardless, why would He create me anyway, if I'm so depraved that I'd be depraved in all possible worlds? What's the point? Bottom line is, if some people suffer from transworld depravity, God must want transworld depravity or he wouldn't create such people.
I concede that I should read some of Plantinga's works to learn more about his concept of "transworld depravity." But, as far as I can tell from what Copan says, the idea seems to be rather untenable.
Chapter 9: If God Predestines Some to Be Saved, What Choice Do I Really Have?
Here, Copan agues against classical predestination, or Calvinism. He does agree that many intelligent people have argued forcefully for Calvinism. And he agrees that there is scripture that can be used to support such a position. Frankly, I'm not interested in debating that issue. But Copan's admission that good arguments in favor of Calvinism can be made begs the question, why is the Bible so difficult to understand that not even God's own followers can come to a consensus on what it means? One would think that God would want His own followers to know what He means, wouldn't you? In general, it seems that Christians can't seem to come to a consensus on just about any issue. The Secular Web has an interesting article on this issue. See: "Christian Salvation?"
The only other point I want to make here is, if God knows who will be saved and who won't for all time, why did He bother creating those who wouldn't? If I made some proverbial widgets, and I knew that some widgets wouldn't meet my needs, and I made them anyway, wouldn't I be a fool? So in a sense, despite Copan's arguing against predestination, he still affirms it in one sense. That seems to mean that, whether Copan agrees or not, some people are created to go to hell. God knew for all eternity who would reject Him, and yet He created them anyway. Why?
Here Copan gives the usual Christian argument that God wanted to give people free will, and an unfortunate result is that some people use their free will to do evil. But he also says that among God's long-term goals is "the establishment of the new heavens and new Earth--evil will be completely overcome." This, of course, begs the question, can God completely overcome evil or not? If He can, then all of Copan's arguments as to why evil is an unfortunate result of free will seems to be a complete waste of time, and completely erroneous.
Copan also gives a common argument that if we simply recognize the existence of evil, then we must be recognizing some standard of good. And the only source of such a standard could be God. I'm not convinced that this is true. I believe that my understanding of pain and suffering is completely understandable from an evolutionary perspective. Pain hurts, so I try to avoid it. Also, I have the ability to recognize pain and suffering in other people. And I can reason that, if I was the other person, I would not like it. So it doesn't seem that I need a God to understand that unnecessary pain and suffering is undesirable.
Copan says that some atheists deny the existence of evil. Well, I do deny it as being some form of a force. With apologies to George Lucas, the "Dark Side of the Force" is just fiction. I also deny some sort of entity like Satan being the personification of evil. Satan and Darth Vader are fictional characters. But as far as "evil" as defined as unnecessary pain and suffering, I don't deny it.
Copan also spends some time discussing what God can and cannot do. For example, he says that God cannot do the logically impossible, like make square circles. But then he also says that perhaps some things are logically possible, but still not feasible. God creating a world with free will, but no evil, might be logically possible, but still not feasible. I never knew omnipotence could be so limited! Seriously, the concept of omnipotence seems like it should include the ability to do anything that is logically possible. If not, what the heck does omnipotence mean? If omnipotence is limited by the unfeasible, heck, I'm omnipotent! Why can't I flap my arms and fly to Pluto? Well, because it just isn't "feasible" for me to do so, silly. Copan seems to have reduced the concept of omnipotence to a completely meaningless term!
Chapter 11: Why Would a Good God Send People to Hell?
Copan argues that the fires of hell in the Bible are figurative; there is no burning or torturing in hell. Rather, the punishment of hell is simply being separated from God. Copan quotes C. S. Lewis, saying that the proverbial gates of hell are locked on the inside. He implies that the people in hell are there because they would rather be there than with God.
I'd like to revisit the analogy I raised in the discussion of Chapter 8, about the man who, diagnosed with cancer, reevaluates his life and becomes a Christian. If this scenario is possible, it shows that people can change their minds. But in Copan and Lewis' minds, they seem to believe that people would never change their mind about God for all eternity. I'm sorry, but this strikes me as, well, asinine. In any other human endeavor, the possibility of changing one's mind is always considered possible. Yet Copan and Lewis believe people will--for all eternity--prefer to be in hell than with God. I find this just preposterous.
Copan notes that some critics and skeptics say that God is unfair for making us choose between heaven and hell while we don't fully understand the ramifications of such a choice. He disagrees, and says that it can be compared to marriage. People, when they first get married, rarely fully understand the ramifications of a life-long commitment. Yet, people do make such commitments and are still bound to honor them. Okay, let's explore the similarity to marriage. Is Copan saying--as Jesus and the Bible say--that once you are married, you must honor that commitment--period? Yet most churches today, while agreeing that divorce is generally undesirable, still concede that sometimes dissolution of a marriage is best and allow for divorce. Either the Bible is wrong, or the modern allowance of divorce is wrong. I don't know where Copan stands. But I think that any reasonable person who has seen bad marriages dissolve, and good marriages arise afterwards, would have to acknowledge that sometimes people do make mistakes, and that forcing them to live with the consequences does not do anybody any good. In other words, it seems clear to me that the Bible is wrong.
But people have a far better understanding of the commitment that's involved in marriage than they possibly can of heaven and hell. I've seen other people married. I've met my wife. I've never seen heaven or hell. Therefore, I believe that regardless of one's position on divorce, Copan's analogy to marriage is a poor one. In short, I agree with the skeptics that say that God forcing people to make an eternal choice about something they clearly cannot fully understand is just plain cruel.
1. Once you make your decision for or against God, your choice is sealed and God takes away the free will to do evil.
2. God knows who will never sin and only saves those who will never sin.
3. God will make heaven so wonderful that nobody would even consider sinning.
Copan ends his discussion of his alternatives by saying that they are "exploratory and suggestive." He says that these kinds of questions "remind us to be more tentative and suggestive rather than dogmatically definitive." If I explain why the "exploratory" answers are not satisfactory, I fear that Copan would say something like, "Well, don't be dogmatic about it," or, "Heaven's not exactly like that, just kind of like that." In other words, it seems that Copan wants to "plug the hole" of the problem of evil vs. free will in heaven by the "exploratory" answers, without having to deal with the nasty new holes these ideas entail. So, at the risk of being "dogmatic," I'm afraid that I need to detail these nasty new holes.
1. God wants to separate people who are "right" for heaven and those who are "wrong" for heaven. There are intrinsic differences between the two groups of people. These differences are eternal, which is why you spend eternity either in heaven or hell.
2. God wants people to freely choose Him. There is no intrinsic difference between those who do so and those who don't. Just some people do, and some people don't. Those who choose God go to heaven, and those who don't, go to hell.
When I discussed these ideas before, I noted that both goals seem problematic. But, say that there is some explanation, and that one of those two possibilities is, in fact, God's goal for salvation. Therefore, I want to discuss Copan's "exploratory" answers as to how the issue of free will and evil is resolved in heaven, in light of these possible goals. To keep my terminology straight, I have termed my two possibilities for God's plan as Goal 1 and Goal 2. Copan's exploratory answers are termed Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. I will now explore how Copan's alternatives might fulfill God's possible goals.
Copan's Alternative 1 says that once you make your decision for or against God, your choice is "sealed" and the free will to do evil is taken away. Alternative 1 does to some degree work if God is working towards Goal 2. You make your choice, and then you live with that choice for all eternity. On the other hand, Alternative 1 seems to not be consistent with Goal 1. If there are intrinsic differences between those in heaven and hell, then God presumably wouldn't need to take away free will. So, here I conclude that Alternative 1 is only compatible with Goal 2. But remember that Goal 2 means that who is saved and who isn't is random. So this seems to make life a spiritual game of musical chairs, and if, at the moment you die, you are deemed on God's side, then you go to heaven--otherwise you go to hell. So what was God's purpose in making people make a choice, other than simply wanting to catch some people out of His favor?
Copan's Alternative 2 says that God knows who will eventually sin, and who won't, and the saved are those who won't. This alternative seems to be completely inconsistent with God's Goal 2. If there are no intrinsic differences between those who are saved and not saved, there seems to be no reason to believe that the saved would never sin. Now Alternative 2 does seem to be consistent if God's plan is Goal 1--that is, if there are intrinsic differences between the saved and the unsaved, then maybe they would never sin for all eternity. But if God knows who will sin and who won't, then why did He bother to create those who will sin? Doesn't it seem like He must have wanted to create sinful people just so that he could send them to hell? And wait a minute…isn't everybody a sinner, even the saved? Don't even the saved occasionally succumb to temptation? Yet in this alternative, Copan has the saved never sinning for all eternity. How could this be possible?
Copan's Alternative 3 says that God makes heaven so great that nobody would even want to sin; avoiding sin would be a "no-brainer." My first question is, wouldn't Eden have been like this? How could Adam and Eve have sinned? Secondly, if God is capable of making an environment--any environment--where avoiding sin is a "no-brainer," why would He have ever created any environment where sinning is possible? The only conclusion that you can come to here is that if God is capable of creating an environment where nobody would want to sin, but He chose to create environments where people might want to sin, then God must want sin! God seems to have intentionally created Earth to be a place where sinning might happen, for the singular purpose of tripping some people up so that they could be sent to hell! Alternative 3 seems to be so problematic that it couldn't possibly fulfill either Goal 1 or Goal 2.
Thus, I concede that Alternative 1 at least slightly works in the framework of Goal 2, and that Alternative 2 at least slightly works in the framework of Goal 1. But only slightly. In all three alternatives, and in the context of either salvation goal, God always looks like a villain who just wants to send some people to hell. I'm afraid I must conclude that Copan's "exploratory" answers are unsatisfactory in answering the question raised: how does God allow free will in heaven without allowing sin in heaven? But I suppose some readers may still not be convinced by my arguments so far. Say you still feel that one of these alternatives, or perhaps an unknown alternative, explains how God handles the question of evil vs. free will in heaven. But what about Satan and his fallen angels? If God has any method at all to avoid sin in heaven, then Satan and his dark angels couldn't have fallen, could they? Doesn't this prove that God has no method at all of preventing evil in heaven? Aren't we fully back to square one on the question of evil vs. free will in heaven?
Copan presents a lot of the same ideas that Dr. Moreland does in his defense of hell in Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith. Therefore, I encourage readers here to also read my critique of Moreland. Please follow this link.
Following the previous chapter--that in my opinion was one of Copan's worst--is this chapter, which I think was one of his best. (Hey, I do try to be fair, believe it or not...) Even so, I have some disagreements with some of what he says here.
Copan notes that many skeptics claim that religion exists because "people desire some security or hope in an unstable and frightening world." Copan responds, "Is there really anything wrong with desiring security and hope? As an analogy, is there anything wrong with desiring food because it nourishes us?" I agree that this is a fair point.
Copan quotes from C. S. Lewis, who makes some similar claims. He claims that God (perhaps) designed us with a need for God. Therefore, the skeptic can be--in a way--correct; people do need the security of God. The general problem I have with this type of theology is that if God did design us with such a need, then His being so elusive seems cruel. It's like God is holding a bag of candy just out of reach of a child's hands. If He really wants us to want a relationship with Him, then His elusiveness doesn't seem to make sense.
Also, if God made us with a desire to have a relationship with Him, why are there so many religions? Copan briefly mentions this, but says he answers the question in his other book, True for You, but Not for Me. I have not yet read his other book, but I must confess skepticism that he could have answered this question adequately. If the One True God is the Judeo-Christian God, how could someone who was taught, say, Greek mythology, have had a relationship with Him? God created us with a need for Him, and yet most of the people who have ever lived never heard of Him? How does this make any sense?
Copan also notes that even if the reasons people believe in God are fallacious, that, by itself, does not disprove God. Strictly speaking, this is correct. On the other hand, if the reasons people believe in God don't have an evidential, testable basis, then they aren't much good in validating His existence. People believing in God for fallacious arguments may not disprove God, but fallacious arguments aren't much good for proving He does exist.
Copan says that some skeptics argue that belief in God is rooted in some psychological need for a father figure. Copan says that doesn't make sense considering that most religions don't even have a "father-figure" type of deity. Okay, this may be true. But then, doesn't his argument here add strength to my claim that most people couldn't possibly have a "relationship" with God, if they don't even know who the One True God is? God created us with a need for Him, and then most religions teach about deities completely different than Him? How does this make any sense?
Chapter 13: How Can God be Three and One?
Chapter 14: Isn't the Idea of God Becoming a Man Incoherent?
In these chapters, Copan defends the concept of the Trinity, and the possibility of God becoming man. I don't have any conceptual disagreement with the idea of God, if He exists, having multiple presentations or natures. That's not to say that I actually believe it, I'm just saying that I don't have any conceptual disagreement. Therefore, I don't have anything else to say in response to these topics.
Chapter 15: If Jesus Is God, How Could He Really Be Tempted?
I found this chapter rather humorous. Copan says that because Jesus was God, it is true that He could not sin and could not fall to temptation. But, because Jesus voluntarily put aside his divinity to become man, he did not know that he could not fall to temptation. And therefore the temptation was real. This idea reminded me of the movie Liar, Liar, starring Jim Carey. The character he plays has a spell placed upon him that prevents him from lying, but he does not know or understand that he can't lie. He is frustrated when he finds out that he cannot lie. There is a scene when he simply wants to tell a very small lie; he wants to say that a blue pen is some color other than blue. With typical Carey-style antics, he struggles and fights and just can't say that the pen is anything but blue. So, when I read Copan's theory that Jesus simply didn't know that he couldn't sin, I imagined Jesus attempting to "sin" by saying that a blue pen is red, but just not being able to do it. Hilarious.
Besides, even if Jesus couldn't physically sin, isn't even thinking about sin a sin? I'm referring to the scripture about lusting being the same as committing adultery in your heart. So, if Jesus even thought about sinning, he sinned, right? So doesn't this flatly dispute Copan's theory here?
I'm not sure why this was a separate chapter from 16; it covers basically the same ground. However, this chapter does seem to more strongly assert an old-Earth view. Even so, he again falls short of saying for certain. He concludes, "Recent-Earth Creationism may be one permissible reading of Genesis, but it is not the only one." In other words, he still avoids saying for certain. Where's your "objective reality," Mr. Copan?
Another major problem is that the ordering of the events of Genesis does not even agree with the pronouncements of modern science, with which day-age theorists are so eager to harmonize. To answer this difficulty, Ross appeals to overlapping days. For instance, the creation of plants was on the third day, before the creation of animals on days five and six. But the plants that are specifically mentioned as being created on day three are flowering plants, plants that according to most scientists appeared very recently. This would seem to place these plants during day six when creeping things were created. Ross explains this by claiming that it is the first appearance of plants that is important, hence their mention so early on day three. On the other hand, Ross claims that birds and fish are mentioned on day five, despite the fact that this makes no sense in terms of the usual order that modern science claims. Does Ross reject modern science on this? No, he argues that day five overlaps partly with days three and four, and probably six as well. It is interesting that the details of Ross's teaching on this are not found in references 2-5. His latest book contains some details, but the greatest details are found in his audio tapes and pamphlets, which enjoy far less circulation and publicity than his books.
The point of my quoting from AIG is to show that reconciling Genesis with an old Earth is, indeed, problematic. Of course, Copan doesn't bother to tell his reader of some of these little "detail" problems with Ross' arguments.
Here Copan gives many of the standard arguments. He says that those people that God commanded to be killed were really bad people. My first question is, what did God do to help the Canaanites become a better society? The Bible seems to show God actively working to help the Israelites, but just ignoring everybody else until He is sufficiently pissed off at them that He decides to wipe them out. If this isn't an accurate portrayal, why didn't God tell us all the great things He did to try to help the Canaanites?
The next question is, why is an Almighty God so limited that He can't think of better solutions than genocide? One wouldn't think omnipotence would be so limited. How about a one-way force field in the Promised Land, that keeps out anybody God doesn't like, but doesn't impede his precious Israelites?
Or, if God really wanted the Canaanites dead, why didn't He do the dirty work Himself--have them all fall over dead? Here, we seem to have God--instead of helping the Canaanites--just leaving them to their own devices. And He leaves the situation like this until He is just too pissed off. Then, rather than solve His own problem, He has to order the Israelites to do His own dirty work of exterminating His own mistakes! Surely some of God's precious Israelites must have been killed in battle. If He's so enamored with them, why risk their lives?
I have many questions about the "age of accountability" doctrine. First of all, when exactly does one reach the age of accountability? I've never heard a very satisfactory answer to this. The only answers I've heard say something like, "It differs for every individual and God knows when you are old enough to decide your fate." Let's take an average 18-year-old. Has the average 18-year-old passed the age of accountability? When I was in high school, I can remember knowing a lot of people who had strong religious conviction. I knew some strong Christians. I knew some strong atheists. Therefore, I think that probably Christians would say, yes, an average 18-year-old has passed the age of accountability. But now, for readers who are in their 30's or 40's or later, think back to when you were 18. Did you do some things that today you realize were just boneheaded? Were you really mature enough to make decisions that were to apply for all eternity? Does the day that one can say, "I am completely mature," ever really come? Isn't maturation a gradual, lifelong process? Isn't this entire concept of people one day being too immature and the next day--shazam!--being all grown up, ready to decide their eternal fate, anachronistic?
And, if killing a child can, in any circumstance, be better than letting the child live, what does that say about the value of life on Earth? Christians frequently claim that atheism degrades the value of human life. But isn't this theology doing exactly that? Isn't it saying that the children were better off having no life on Earth because they will have a better life in heaven? And if so, wouldn't this be true of everybody--wouldn't everybody be better off having no life on Earth and just having a life in heaven? So is it not true that Christianity in fact devalues life on Earth?
I was glad to see Strobel ask, "If ultimately it was best for those children to die before the age of accountability because they would go to heaven, why can't the same be said about unborn children who are aborted today?" I was very happy to see the question asked, as I've asked it myself many times. Geisler's response is, "First, God doesn't command anyone today to have an abortion; in fact, it's contrary to the teachings of the bible. Remember, he's the only one who can decide to take a life, because he's the ultimate author of life. Second, today we don't have a culture that's as thoroughly corrupt as the Amalekite society. In that society, there was no hope; today, there is hope."
I do not find Geisler's response satisfactory. Regardless of whether or not God commands abortion, according to Geisler's stated theology, aborted children do go to heaven. Period. Then how could it possibly be a "bad" thing for an abortion doctor to send children to heaven? If an abortion doctor could stand before God and say, "Everybody I aborted is in heaven, right? And if I didn't do it, some of them would be in hell, right? So, now explain to me exactly what it is that I did wrong?" How could God answer this doctor?
And I have to ask one more question. Presumably, X percent of people go to heaven, and Y percent go to hell, where both X and Y are greater than 0 and less than 100. As long as Y is greater than 0, the moment a person reaches the age of accountability, they have just lost Y percent chance of going to heaven. Of what possible value is living beyond the age of accountability? Of what use is life on Earth, if all it means is just a possible chance to throw away salvation? In my own personal case, as can be seen, I find it impossible to have faith in a God who chooses such a bizarre method of choosing who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. But if it turns out, in fact, that these are God's rules--whether I like it or not--and God decides to send me to hell for not liking His rules, then clearly I would have been better off dying before I had the chance to conclude that His rules are inane.
I'd like to bring up another example that is similar to the abortion issue. I happen to live in Houston, and grew up just two blocks from Andrea Yates, the Houston mother who drowned her five children. Her explanation for her actions was that she wanted to ensure that her children would go to heaven. Presumably, she wanted to kill them before they reached the age of accountability. I believe that she even said that she was willing to go to hell for her actions, that it was a price she was willing to pay. I'm reminded of the sacrifice of Jesus, who went to hell to save mankind from hell. So I ask Christians, did Ms. Yates send her children to heaven? And if so, why was what she did wrong?
Several Christians have responded to my challenge in the previous paragraph by saying that the reason that what abortion doctors and Ms. Yates have done is wrong is because only God is allowed to take a life. Geisler also expressed a similar sentiment. He said, "People assume that what's wrong for us, is wrong for God [...] God is sovereign over all of life, and he has the right to take it if he wishes. In fact, we tend to forget that God takes the life of every human being. It's called death. The only question is when, and how, which we have to leave up to him." To this, I would repeat my earlier question: why can't God take out the bad guys Himself? Why does He have to order slaughter?
In conclusion, I find the arguments in this chapter to be woefully inadequate to answer the questions raised.
Chapter 19: Doesn't the Bible Condone Slavery?
Here, Copan says that the slavery practiced at the time was not anywhere near the horrific practice in the U.S. South. For example, he claims that slaves had some level of rights, etc. Also, he says that since slavery was so widely practiced at the time, instantly eliminating it wasn't practical. I guess the only question I have here is, where was God when the practice of slavery was growing? Why didn't He do something to stop it then?
Copan seems to not believe in Biblical Inerrancy. He says, "The Christian believes that the Bible, though divinely inspired, was also written by humans." And he also says, "Even if the New Testament writers actually contradict one another regarding secondary historical details, this does not undermine their general historical reliability." My first complaint would be that he seems to speak as if he is talking for all Christians, when, clearly, he is not. There are Christians who believe that the Bible is completely without error, by God's will. So I feel that it is erroneous of Copan to speak as if he is speaking for all Christians.
The next point is, if the Gospels are simply works written by men, and, therefore, might not be completely accurate, why is it so terrible of a skeptic to doubt that some of the events, like being raised from the dead, are true? The Bible shows that even people who were there, like Doubting Thomas, had doubts that Jesus was really raised from the dead. Yet there is something "wrong" with me for thinking, "Hey, if these works were written by men, maybe they aren't completely accurate?" This is absurd.
I'm not really qualified to rigorously defend Earl Doherty's theory that the Gospels were possibly originally intended as merely allegorical stories. But I can say that his theory makes sense to me, and seems to fit quite nicely with the ideas Copan expresses here. For example, Copan notes that each of the Gospel writers had different audiences, and, therefore, they may have taken some liberties with the exact wordings of Jesus in order to best address Jesus' ideas to their audience. Well, were they writing a history or a story? People writing histories shouldn't take liberties, should they? If you are writing a story, then, of course, you can take liberties. Copan seems to be doing a nice job of defending Doherty without my help.
Also, if you don't assume that the Gospels are supposed to be true, don't they sound like allegorical stories, like a C. S. Lewis story? The Gospels are told without a perspective. There is no indication of what witnesses saw what. Nor who was interviewed in the process of piecing together the events that were being reported. There is nothing along the lines of, "John was near Jesus and heard him say…" And, some of the events, such as what Jesus prayed when he was alone, should have had no witnesses at all. It really seems to me that if you look at the Gospels without assuming that they were intended to be taken factually, they do, indeed, seem to look more like fictional writings.
Some people have responded to my claims here about the style of writing in the Gospels by saying that I'm imposing modern ideas of historical presentation on them. They then claim that the people of the time didn't have the same kind of formality in historical presentations as we do today. So, the people of the time didn't have the same formal standards of history as we do today--but, I still have to believe that the Gospels are, in fact, historically accurate in the major points, such as Jesus being raised from the dead, or I'm some bad guy deserving to go to hell? I'm sorry, but that is just preposterous. It is just double-talk to make excuses for divergence of the Gospels, while insisting that they are to be taken as proof of supernatural events!
This chapter seems to be more-or-less a continuation of the previous chapter, continuing on with more double-talk. Copan says--in not quite so many words--but essentially says, "When things look like they are taken out of context, don't worry about it, that's just the way scripture was interpreted back then." Oh, that explains it. But it is still factual, and if I don't believe it I'm a bad guy?
I found it interesting that Copan notes that there were several modes of interpretation of Old Testament scriptures in use at the time: literal, midrash, pesher, and allegorical. I found this of interest because I first heard of the term "midrash" from Earl Doherty's book, The Jesus Puzzle. However, Doherty uses a different definition of midrash than Copan. Doherty defines midrash as being very similar to allegorical, taking themes from the Old Testament and casting them into what was for them a modern setting.
Again, I'm not an expert, but it seems that Copan inadvertently argues in favor of Doherty's theory. Doherty argues that the Gospels are likely midrash, simply stories written to bring OT themes to a new audience.
I'm no expert on the era--so I have to admit that I am not in a position to be able to rigorously defend Doherty's theories. All I can say is, at least to me, Copan's writings in these last two chapters seem to make much more sense in Doherty's framework than in Copan's own. I'm not willing to personally state certainty for or against Doherty's theory, but it sure seems to makes sense.
My conclusion is short and simple: Copan's book had a few interesting points here and there, but, for the most part, it was not too impressive—and sometimes it was downright abysmal.
Footnote: I have had some e-mail discussions with Mr. Copan. He was cordial in his e-mails. He indicates that while he agrees with Ross on some subjects (such as Ross' basic claim that Genesis shouldn't be taken as meaning literal 24-hour days), he also disagrees with Ross's theology as articulated in his book Beyond the Cosmos (for a sample critique, see http://www.ldolphin.org/craig/). Where Answers in Genesis might disagree with Ross about his theology, Copan might also disagree. Even so, I feel it worth using the AiG information to help show that the Bible really does teach a young Earth, as AiG claims, and Ross and Copan deny.


text:
Old Keris Carubuk with Pamor Wos Wutah: 'The Mystical Dapur of Sunan Kalijaga'
by	Mas Rodin Saturday, February 8, 2014
The Carubuk (or 'Crubuk') dapur keris model is a one of kind. Legend has it, that the design of this particular dapur is created by the renown empu Supa Anom (also called 'Jaka Supa' or 'Ki Nom Supa'), who lived during the Majapahit era (1292–1500 CE). However, it is said that the Carubuk dapur was in fact a custom order made for Sunan Kalijaga, one of the nine Islamic saints ('wali songo') in Java. Thus, it seems more likely that the Carubuk dapur was created by empu Supa Anom's grandson Ki Supo Anom II, who lived in the Mataram era (1588–1681 CE).
According to the traditional Javanese story, one day Sunan Kalijaga went to the besalen (workshop) of empu Supa Anom (II) to order a keris. Sunan Kalijaga brought with him only a tiny piece of meteorite for the empu to create the pamor motif for his keris. Kalijaga did not have any special wishes in regard to the dapur of the keris, as long as it was an entirely new dapur that was never been made before. With so very few and vague instructions the empu got confused, since he had no idea how he could ever forge a decent pamor pattern with the little piece of meteorite he had been given for the purpose.
The great Islamic saint then told the empu to banish his doubts and increase his faith and belief in God. Sunan Kalijaga also said to the empu, that if he would put his trust in the Lord, he would surely receive clear guidance on how to forge the keris. Thus the Carubuk dapur was created; a waved blade with seven luks, a tiny kembang kacang, a single lambe gajah, and a sraweyan and greneng.
The keris Carubuk is inextricably linked with traditional forms of religious and spiritual practice in Indonesia. Indeed, this particular dapur is widely praised for the powerful mystical properties and magical qualities. When we take a closer look at the Wos Wutah pamor motif at the base of the blade, it looks as though a mysterious creature with a skull has manifested itself in the pamor pattern. It thus becomes clear why the keris Carubuk is believed to be so very useful for mystics, occultists, and spiritual practitioners.
Anti Black Magic, Charisma & Leadership, Islamic Magic, Keris, Luck' Fate & Fortune, Luk 7, Mataram, Mercy & Justice, Pusaka, Sepuh, Tosan Aji, Wos Wutah
Magical Sales Boosting Locket for Business Managers and Entrepreneurs
Blessed Lipstick for Influential Speech in order to Persuade and Seduce People

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Scrollbar does not scroll to the top in tabpage I have a strange behavior with my tabPage. First of all - when initializing the Form I use following code:
 tabPage3.VerticalScroll.Value = 0;

However it looks like this:
scrollbar position
The white line in the image is a toolstrip, so the scrollbar just scrolls up to the bottom of the toolstrip.
Now when I put the line of code into the Paint event of the tabPage it works (the scrollbar is at the very top of my tabPage). However, I then can't move the scrollbar down anymore - it jumps back to the top each time I want to move it. I tried different conditions like setting a value when entering the tabpage or at the scroll event of the page to use the code just once in the paint event but then it results in the behavior like shown in the image.
How can I solve this?
Thanks in advance!

A: Instead of using the onPaint event of your tabPage, you could use the Selectedindexchanged event of your tabControl. There you can set Scrollbarvalue to 0 each time TabPage 3 is shown. You Code would look something like that.
private void TabControl1_SelectedIndexChanged(Object sender, EventArgs e)
{
  if(tabControl1.SelectedTab = tabPage3)
  {
    tabPage3.VerticalScroll.Value = 0;
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Package has a Recommends on ttf-liberation which is in Section oldlibs on arm64.
Package has a Recommends on ttf-liberation which is in Section oldlibs on mips.
Package has a Recommends on ttf-liberation which is in Section oldlibs on mipsel.
Package has a Recommends on ttf-liberation which is in Section oldlibs on amd64.
Package has a Recommends on ttf-liberation which is in Section oldlibs on armel.
Package has a Recommends on ttf-liberation which is in Section oldlibs on s390x.
Package has a Recommends on ttf-liberation which is in Section oldlibs on ppc64el.
Package has a Recommends on ttf-liberation which is in Section oldlibs on armhf.
Package has a Recommends on ttf-liberation which is in Section oldlibs on i386.
Package has a Recommends on ttf-liberation which is in Section oldlibs on mips64el.


text:
package citrus;

import citrus.scheme.Base;
import citrus.type.*;

import java.lang.StringBuilder;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.Reader;

public class Main {
    private static int BUFFER_SIZE = 1024;

    private static String readInput(Reader reader) throws IOException {
        char[] buffer = new char[BUFFER_SIZE];
        StringBuilder strBuilder = new StringBuilder();
        int numRead = 0;
        do {
            numRead = reader.read(buffer, 0, BUFFER_SIZE);
            strBuilder.append(buffer, 0, numRead);
        } while(numRead == BUFFER_SIZE);

        return strBuilder.toString();
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
        Interpreter interpreter = new Interpreter();

        Environment env = new Environment();
        Library lib = new Base();
        SchemeInputReader reader = new SchemeInputReader(System.in);
        lib.importLib(env);
        int resultCount = 1;
        while(true) {
            System.out.print("> ");
            String input = readInput(reader);
            SchemeObject obj = interpreter.read(input);
            SchemeObject result = interpreter.eval(obj, env);
            if(!(result instanceof Unspecified)) {
                env.define(new Symbol("$" + resultCount), result);
                System.out.println("$" + resultCount + " = " + result);
                resultCount++;
            }
            reader.reset();
        }
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
define({
  "map": {
    "error": "Tidak dapat membuat peta",
    "licenseError": {
      "message": "Akun Anda tidak dilisensikan untuk menggunakan Aplikasi yang Dapat Dikonfigurasi yang bukan bersifat publik. Harap minta administrator organisasi Anda untuk menetapkan Anda jenis pengguna yang menyertakan lisensi Essential App atau add-on Essential App.",
      "title": "Tidak Dilisensikan"
    }
  },
  "viewer": {
    "content_title": "Filter",
    "button_text": "Terapkan",
    "filterInstructions": "Filter lapisan dengan menentukan nilainya.",
    "filterOr": "Di antara ekspresi berikut harus ada yang benar.",
    "filterAnd": "Semua ekspresi berikut harus benar.",
    "filterNo": "Web map ini tidak berisi filter interaktif apa pun. Untuk mengaktifkan ekspresi filter interaktif, centang 'Minta nilai' di dialog filter web map.

 Untuk bantuan selengkapnya, lihat topik bantuan ${link} untuk rincian mengenai cara membuat ekspresi filter interaktif di web map Anda.",
    "filterLink": "http://doc.arcgis.com/en/arcgis-online/use-maps/apply-filters.htm",
    "errors": {
      "message": "Ada masalah saat membuat aplikasi filter"
    }
  },
  "tools": {
    "toggle": "Tombol panel",
    "clear": "Bersihkan",
    "zoom": "Zoom"
  },
  "legend": {
    "title": "Legenda"
  }
});


text:
Charles Babcock
Google Compute Engine Ignores VMware, Microsoft Users
Google's new cloud infrastructure service is geared to Linux workloads running in KVM. What does that mean for VMware, Microsoft, and Citrix users?
Google I/O: 10 Awesome Visions
(click image for larger view and for slideshow)
Google's Compute Engine represents a potentially a high value infrastructure service, particularly for users of Linux and KVM open source code. All of the cloud workloads hosted by Google's new service will run in KVM virtual machines.
But that may leave VMware, Microsoft, and Citrix users feeling left out. KVM is an efficient hypervisor incorporated into the Linux kernel, but it still represents the smallest installed base of existing virtualization users.
Windows users might feel doubly slighted. Not only is there's no provision for Microsoft's Hyper-V hypervisor in Compute Engine, but Windows workloads themselves are not welcome. That would seem to be an oversight, since Windows and Linux now occupy 80-90% of the enterprise data center, by some estimates.
Even Google's Linux acceptance is limited at this stage. Google infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) will take jobs running on CentOS and Ubuntu. Red Hat helped Google architect its cloud to make efficient use of KVM, according to Joe Beda, lead software engineer for Compute Engine, in a talk at the Google I/O developer conference Thursday in San Francisco. Maybe support for Red Hat Enterprise Linux will come later.
Google, with its search engine data center expertise, has the smarts to offer competitive infrastructure. Executives at Amazon Web Services are no doubt warily eying what Google is up to, but AWS's EC2 is not in any immediate danger. Amazon has years of experience in running both Windows and Linux workloads.
[ Want to see how difficult it can be to weigh the value of different cloud service providers? See Why Cloud Pricing Comparisons Are So Hard. ]
One important differentiator did emerge. Google Compute Engine automatically encrypts communications between virtual machines and will let all of a customer's virtual machines talk to each other in a secure fashion, even when they're located in separate data centers.
That's because Compute Engine's three data centers are connected by private communications lines, not the public Internet. Those data centers span three locations: the "central U.S." and two unnamed, but geographically separate, locations on the East Coast, said Beda. Google customers will be able to commission backup copies of virtual machines or disaster recovery systems with some ease because of the secure links in place between them. "If packets come in from an IP address that's your virtual machine, we will guarantee they came from there," said Beda during his talk. Google will charge $0.01 per GB of bandwidth consumed.
Similar arrangements can be made through other service providers, but they may require invoking higher priced private cloud services from the provider and the customer contracting for private line service between locations from network providers.
Google is charging less than Amazon or Microsoft for comparable servers, but it appears to be offering a slightly heftier resource package. For example, its base unit, referred to as n1-standard-1-d, includes 3.75 GB of RAM and 420 GB of local disk for a charge of $0.145 an hour. Amazon's "medium" Linux server is nearest in price at $0.16 per hour, and it includes 3.7 GB of RAM and 410 GB of storage. Microsoft charges $0.24 per hour for a medium-sized Windows server with 3.5 GB of RAM and 490 GB of storage.
divasngr,
re: Google Compute Engine Ignores VMware, Microsoft Users
Actually that is untrue. The Red Hat Certified Cloud Provider Program offers cloud providers flexible pricing structures for hourly, monthly and annual subscription models. Red Hat's program also insures that all certified providers offer consistent images of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and other Red Hat offerings, using an in-place update infrastructure.
AS71,
7/3/2012 | 3:52:46 AM
I don't think Google uses any VMware or Microsoft in their entire IT environment. It is all Linux, KVM/Xen. This doesn't surprise me at all.
Embedded SW Dev,
I don't understand the criticism about the lack of Hyper-V or Citrix. The hypervisor should have little difference to the running image. No one complains that Amazon isn't running Hyper-V. Windows does run on KVM.
My guess on the choice of operating systems is that Google hasn't made arrangements for pay-for-instance OS licensing yet, so they are only offering images for which they don't need a license. Arranging for hourly pricing for OS instances from Red Hat and Windows is probably not part of the standard offering from either company, and likely requires some auditing to make sure proper fees are paid.
slangshack,
The article quotes someone from Invite Media telling us how they moved to GCE and got better performance at a lower cost. What the article doesn't say is that Invite Media was acquired by Google in 2010 and is now part of DoubleClick. So this is just Google talking about Google, not quite as compelling, don't you think?


text:
Home Civil Rights in America Marriage, Already Redefined
Marriage, Already Redefined
It's too late!
As the debate over same-sex marriage has proceeded, one of the arguments you hear most often from those opposed to marriage equality is that there is this thing called "traditional marriage" that has been exactly the same for thousands of years, and if we "change the definition of marriage" to include gay people, well then things are really going to get crazy. There'll be no more rationale for keeping siblings from marrying, or keeping a guy from marrying his dog, or keeping a fish from marrying a toaster. What I don't often hear liberals say in response is: Yes, we are changing the definition of marriage. And that's OK.
I think it's because advocates of marriage equality understand that change can often be scary, so the impulse is to say, don't worry, this really isn't any big deal unless you're gay. There's no reason why your extremely, adamantly heterosexual marriage will be affected one way or another if your gay neighbors tie the knot. That happens to be true, and one of the things that distinguishes this particular redefinition of marriage is that it doesn't have any practical impact, real or potential, on most of the participants in the institution. That makes it unlike many of the previous redefinitions. For instance, when we changed the definition of marriage so that it no longer meant that a woman went from being her father's property to being her husband's property, every marriage was implicated. And that's just one of the many redefinitions marriage has undergone even in relatively recent history. So it's good to remember just how radically marriage has already changed.
As historian Stephanie Coontz explains in a helpful piece at the Daily Beast, same-sex marriage may be the inevitable result of all these redefinitions, since they all have been moving in the same direction, what she calls the "equality revolution." When you give individuals, particularly those who were previously without power, more autonomy within marriage, the institution just keeps opening up:
The collapse of rigid gender expectations and norms has fostered the expectation that marriage should be an individually negotiated relationship between equals, replacing the older notion of marriage as a prefabricated institution where traditional roles and rules must be obeyed.
The result is a paradox. Marriage is now more optional than in the past, and people are far less willing to remain in a marriage that doesn't feel fair, loving, and mutually respectful. On the other hand, as a result of these changes, many marriages have become more fulfilling and mutually beneficial than ever before.
Domestic violence rates have plummeted over the past 30 years, dropping by 50 percent since 1980. The divorce rate, which rose sharply in the 1960s and 1970s, has been falling since its peak in 1981, and it has fallen the most for educated couples, who are the most likely to mix and match traditional gender behaviors.
The growing acceptance of same-sex marriage is the result of these profound changes in heterosexual marriage. It's not just the president's views on marriage that have evolved. Marriage itself has evolved in ways that make it harder to justify excluding same-sex couples from its benefits and obligations.
So even if conservatives are wrong that the institution of marriage has been the same for thousands of years, they're right in their belief that the institution as they understand it is under threat. The fact is that today, marriage is less bound by strict rules and traditions-in other words, less institutional-than ever before. I'd bet this is the case even for many of the conservatives who argue publicly that the institution's traditions need to be maintained (this is hardly a new irony; I was always puzzled by the picture of an ambitious, powerful career woman like Phyllis Schlafly barnstorming the country to convince people that women should stay in the home). Even if some of the male ones have a wife who doesn't work outside the home, I promise you their marriages are much more relationships between equals than they would have been 50 years ago, not to mention what they would have been 100 years ago.
Conservatives may hold off marriage equality for a while, at least in many places. But marriages are already more equal, and there's nothing they can do about that, even if they wanted to. Which I doubt they do.
Paul Waldman Politics Gender & Sexuality


text:
Skeleton of man with Gloucester links identified 16 years after discovery in a Lancashire field
Darren Carley went missing from Swindon in 2002 and a fresh murder investigation has been launched
Phil NorrisBreaking News Editor
Detectives investigating the discovery of a man's skeleton in Lancashire have identified him more than 16 years after he was found – thanks to advances in DNA
The body was that of Darren Carley, who had links to Gloucester, who went missing from his home in Swindon in January 2002, aged 24.
The human bones were discovered on farmland in Charnock Richard, near Chorley on July 26, 2002.
The find kick-started a major murder investigation to try to establish the identity of the dead man and that of his potential killer or killers but who he was has remained a mystery, until now.
A post mortem examination revealed the cause of death to be blunt force trauma to the head.
A fresh murder inquiry has been launched by Lancashire Police to try to establish how Darren sustained his fatal injuries and who is responsible.
Cold case murder investigation in Gloucestershire
Did phone records provide key clue?
'We feared a neighbour had been killed'
Skeleton of man discovered
What we know so far
Detective Chief Inspector Geoff Hurst, from Lancashire Constabulary's Force Major Investigation Team, said: "First and foremost my thoughts are with Darren's family.
For 16 years they have been left desperately searching for answers following his disappearance and I hope that the fact that he has now finally been identified and returned to them will offer them some peace.
"While this investigation has never been closed, we now have a renewed focus on finding who killed Darren and piecing together exactly what happened to him after he went missing and how his body came to be in Lancashire.
Top Gloucestershire news stories today
How Gloucester is battling flooding
Meet the super-saver family
How you can help beat the climate crisis
How rising sea levels affect you
Woman sets up new food bank
Restaurant boss hits back at diner
Inside damp city house
Best bars and pubs revealed
"Hopefully we will be able to provide some further answers and some justice for his family.
"We will not let the passage of time be a barrier to our investigation and we have a dedicated team of detectives working on this, pursuing a number of lines of enquiry.
"While I appreciate Darren went missing some time ago I would ask the public to cast their minds back to 2002– the year when Manchester hosted the Commonwealth Games.
"Did you see or meet Darren at this time? Do you have any information which could help with our investigation or piecing together his final movements?
"We have a six month gap between him being reported missing and his body being found and we're appealing for anyone who had contact with him between January and July 2002 to come forward. Any information, no matter how small, could prove to be significant."
Darren was reported missing to Wiltshire Police in January 2002. He was 24 at the time.
His last reported sighting was in Swindon shortly after midnight on 25th January 2002. He was believed to be wearing white tracksuit bottoms with black stripes, a burnt orange fleece and white trainers at the time.
He had links to the West Midlands and Gloucester
Darren's skeleton was found in Charnock Richard, near Chorley – nearly 200 miles from his home – on 26th July 2002.
Mr Carley's body was buried at Chorley Cemetery but he has now been exhumed and returned to his family in Wiltshire.
The original police investigation led detectives to consult forensic archaeologists and odontologists. A computer-generated image of the man's face was also created as well as a clay head model.
Other scientific experts were consulted which led detectives to believe that the victim may have lived a large part of his life in the West Midlands.
Police also travelled to India after some experts suggested he could have been from the sub-continent.
Want to read more of this kind of story?
If you want to read more about incidents of, and issues around, crime, we have a dedicated Facebook group for it.
We regularly post court reports, ongoing trials, reports of criminal behaviour, and you can contribute to the discussion there too.
To join the group, click here and you will shortly be approved to become a member.
Alternatively, you can visit our crime and court channels on this website, where these stories appear when published.
Detective Chief Inspector Geoff Hurst added: "Reaching this point is the result of advances in DNA but there are a huge number of officers and staff who have worked on this enquiry in the last 16 years and I thank them for their efforts."
Anyone with information should contact police on 101, ask for Lancashire Police and quote log number 456 of October 4 or independent charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.


text:
HomeWorld News Ambassador from Russian to Turkey Is Assassinated in Ankara.
Ambassador from Russian to Turkey Is Assassinated in Ankara.
Cloud2 News 19 December
ISTANBUL — Russia's ambassador to Turkey was assassinated at an Ankara art exhibit on Monday evening by a lone Turkish gunman shouting "God is great!" and "don't forget Aleppo, don't forget Syria!" in what Russia called a terrorist attack.
The gunman, who was described by Ankara's mayor as a policeman, also wounded at least three others in the assault, which was captured on Turkish video. Turkish officials said he was killed by other officers in a shootout.
The assassination instantly vaulted relations between Turkey and Russia to a new level of crisis over the protracted Syria conflict on Turkey's southern doorstep. It came after days of protests by Turks angry over Russia's support for Syria's government in the conflict and the Russian role in the killings and destruction in Aleppo, the northern Syrian city.
Andrey Karlov, the Russian ambassador to Turkey, speaking at the gallery in Ankara on Monday, moments before he was shot. Credit Burhan Ozbilici/Associated Press
The envoy, Andrey G. Karlov, was shot from behind and immediately fell to the floor while speaking at an exhibition, according to multiple accounts from the scene, the Contemporary Arts Center in the Cankaya area of Ankara.
The gunman, wearing a dark suit and tie, was seen in video footage of the assault shouting in Arabic: "God is great! Those who pledged allegiance to Muhammad for jihad. God is great!"
Then he switched to Turkish and shouted: "Don't forget Aleppo, don't forget Syria! Step back! Step back! Only death can take me from here."
Turkish officials said that the gunman was killed after a shootout with Turkish Special Forces police. The assailant's identity was not immediately known.
People huddle during the shooting in the art gallery. Credit Burhan Ozbilici/Associated Press
Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, told the Rossiya 24 news channel that Mr. Karlov had died of his wounds in what she described as a terrorist attack.
Russia news agencies said the ambassador's wife fainted and was hospitalized after learning of her husband's death. They also said Russian tourists in Turkey had been advised against leaving their hotel rooms or visiting public places as a precaution.
CNN Turk published images showing several people lying on the floor of the gallery.
Russia's Tass news agency initially quoted witnesses of the attack as saying that there had been an "assassination attempt" against Mr. Karlov, and that he had been shot from behind while finishing his opening remarks at the opening of the exhibition, called "Russia Through Turks' Eyes."
While the Russian and Turkish governments back different sides in the Syria conflict, they had been collaborating in recent days in efforts to evacuate civilians from Aleppo.
The gunman gestures after shooting the Russian ambassador. Credit Burhan Ozbilici/Associated Press
Mr. Karlov, who started his career as a diplomat in 1976, worked extensively in North Korea over two decades, before moving to the region in 2007, according to a biography on the Russian Embassy's website. He became ambassador in July 2013.
The attack was a rare instance of an assassination of any Russian envoy. Historians said it might have been the first since Pyotr Voykov, a Soviet ambassador to Poland, was shot to death in Warsaw in 1927.
For many Russians, the assassination is likely to recall the 19th-century killing in Tehran of Aleksandr Griboyedov, a poet and diplomat who died after a mob stormed the Russian Embassy. That episode is remembered as the most severe insult to Russia's diplomatic corps in the country's history.
More recently, the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah, now allied with Russia in Syria, kidnapped four Soviet diplomats in 1985, killing one and releasing three a month later.
Correction: December 19, 2016
An earlier version of this article misidentified the government that has collaborated with Russia even though it backs a different side in the Syrian conflict. It is Turkey, not Syria.


This year's Mandela Day (Saturday 18 July 2015) saw the SABC1 Mzansi Fo Sho team making a difference by visiting Leamogetswe Safety Home in Saulsville (Pretoria).
Goods and valuables worth R100 000 were donated on the day and the Kids and staff were treated to 5 star cuisine prepared by professional chefs.
The food and drinks were served with warmth and love by our channel icons in attendance including the following: Natasha Thahane (plays the role Enhle on Skeem Saam); JT Medupe (Jonathan on Generations-The Legacy); Kamohelo Bombe (Shift); Andile Gaelesiwe (Khumbulekhaya), Siya Mdlalose (Making Moves); Karabo Bonco (presenter – YOTV Live); Sthe Mhlongo (Gospel Gold); Kaos Matu (Sunday Chillas); Noxolo Mtshali (SABC News) Viwe Gxwala (Identity) and Luthando Shosha (Live Amp).


text:
Funerals Today
WORCESTER Mekjian, Vahe V., 87. Funeral service 11 a.m. Friday, September 28, 2007, Armenian Church of Our Saviour, 87 Salisbury St. Funeral Home: O'Connor Brothers Funeral Home, 592 Park Avenue.
WORCESTER Palmer, Helen A. "Ellie", 100. Funeral service 9:30 a.m. Friday, September 28, 2007, Mass in St. Paul's Cathedral, 15 Chatham St., Worcester. Funeral Home: Athy Memorial Home, 111 Lancaster St., Worcester.
WORCESTER Young, Nathan Andrew Choi, 34. Funeral service 3 p.m. Friday, September 28, 2007, First Congregational Church of Oxford UCC, 355 Main St., Oxford. Funeral Home: Paradis Funeral Home, 357 Main St., Oxford.
AUBURN Simpson, Lorena F. "Jane" (Rau), 88. Funeral service 11 a.m Friday, September 28, 2007, at the funeral home. Funeral Home: Britton-Wallace Funeral Home, 91 Central St.
BROOKFIELD Stiles, Gary L., 56. Funeral service 11 a.m Friday, September 28, 2007, Brookfield Congregational Church in Brookfield. Varnum Funeral Home, Inc., 43 East Main St., West Brookfield.
GILBERTVILLE Gagne, Christine A.. Funeral service 10 a.m Friday, September 28, 2007, St. Aloysius Catholic Church. Funeral Home: Charbonneau Funeral Parlor, Ware, MA.
LEICESTER Fitch, Margaret E. (Kelly), 88. Funeral service 11 a.m. Friday, September 28, 2007, Mass in St. Pius X Church, 1153 Main St., Leicester. Funeral Home: Morin-Morrison Funeral Home, 1131 Main St., Leicester.
MILLBURY Dowd, Theresa B. (Sosnowski), 77. Funeral service 10 a.m. Friday, September 28, 2007, Mass in St. Catherine of Sweden Church, 1 Wiser Ave., Worcester. Funeral Home: Henry - Dirsa Funeral Home, 33 Ward St., Worcester.
NORTHBOROUGH Wilson, Derek Scott James, 28. Funeral service 10 a.m. Friday, September 28, 2007, at the funeral home. Funeral Home: Hays Funeral Home, 56 Main St., Northborough.
RUTLAND Alberts, Herbert "Larry" L. III, 48. Funeral service 11 a.m. Friday, September 28, 2007, Wesley United Methodist Church, 114 Main St., Worcester. Miles Funeral Home, 1158 Main St., Holden.
SUDBURY Ware, Lorraine L. Cosgrove, 43. Funeral service 3:30 p.m Friday, September 28, 2007, Presbyterian Church of Sudbury, 330 Concord Rd. and Rt. 27. Funeral Home: Duckett-J.S. Waterman & Sons Home of Memorial Tribute, 656 Boston Post Rd. (Rt 20) Sudbury.
WEBSTER Pelletier, Ernest J., 88. Funeral service 10 a.m Friday, September 28, 2007, Sacred heart of Jesus Church, 16 East Main St., Webster. Funeral Home: Bartel Funeral Home & Chapel, 33 Schofield Ave., Dudley.
WESTBORO Black, Trudy, 81. Funeral service 11 a.m Friday, September 28, 2007, A memorial service in the Sanctuary of the Original Congregational Church, East St. at Dedham St., Wrentham Center. Funeral Home: RJ Ross Funeral Home, Wrentham Centre.
WESTBOROUGH Lucas, Frank H. "Lucky Luke", 84. Funeral service 10:30 a.m. Friday, September 28, 2007, St. Luke the Evangelist Church, 70 West Main St., Westborough. Rand-Harper-Pickering Westborough Funeral Home, 62 West Main St., Westborough.
© Copyright 2006-2019 GateHouse Media, LLC. All rights reserved • GateHouse Obitview


text:
Britzke History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms
The letters "b" and "p" are pronounced similarly in the German language, and were virtually interchangeable prior to the standardization of spelling in recent centuries. Thus the surname Britzke, can appear with either letter, creating both Breitzke and Pritzke. There are several possible origins for the Britzke surname. There are two towns named Britz in the Brandenburg region. One is a southern suburb of Berlin, the other, a settlement approximately twenty-five miles northeast of Berlin. Either may have inspired the surname. The surname Britzke, can also be patronymic, derived from the father of the original bearer. Britzke would then be based upon a short form of the Slavic personal name Pribislaw. Priczlaus and Prinzel were names found in Breslau around 1300, and Preczlaus Kuschmalcz was an episcopal vassal in Silesia in 1404. The surname may also have originated with a nickname, such as "Britsch" which was used to describe a person who was perceived as "bad-tempered" or "irritable."
Early Origins of the Britzke family
The surname Britzke was first found in Saxony, where the name came from humble beginnings but gained a significant reputation for its contribution to the emerging mediaeval society. It later became more prominent as many branches of the same house acquired distant estates and branches, some in foreign countries, always elevating their social status by their great contributions to society. Jacobus dictus der Britschen lived in Mainz in 1315, as did Jakob zur Britzen in 1338 and Jekeln Peter Britschen in 1356. Hanss Brittsch was a farmer and a weaver in Kempten in 1575. Valtin Pritzman was a resident of Brandenburg in 1597.
Early History of the Britzke family
This web page shows only a small excerpt of our Britzke research. Another 66 words (5 lines of text) covering the years 1776 and 1853 are included under the topic Early Britzke History in all our PDF Extended History products and printed products wherever possible.
Britzke Spelling Variations
Spelling variations of this family name include: Breitkreitz, Britzke, Breitzke, Breitz, Britz, Britzkretz, Breitkreuz, Britzmann, Bretzmann, Brietzke, Britzkow, Pritzke and many more.
Early Notables of the Britzke family (pre 1700)
More information is included under the topic Early Britzke Notables in all our PDF Extended History products and printed products wherever possible.
Britzke migration to the United States +
Some of the first settlers of this family name were:
Britzke Settlers in United States in the 20th Century
Ida Alvina Britzke, who settled in Wisconsin in 1903
Patronymic
Britzke (German)


text:
Q: Does someone falling into a black hole see the outside universe moving faster? Similar questions have been asked twice before, and gotten two completely different answers:

*

*Time dilation when falling into black hole - Answer is a definitive 'no'

*Does someone falling into a black hole see the end of the universe? - The answers are extremely technical and imply that there is some time dilation experienced (if not, the question would be trivial)
So which is it?  If someone is free-falling into a black hole, do they see the outside universe sped up?

A: It depends on what angle they're looking at, their state of motion, and the type of black hole. No, this is not controversial among people who have actually studied the problem carefully and understand relativity.
The effect you're talking about is identical to the Doppler shift. If you see light red-shifted from a certain direction in the sky, you are seeing signals from that direction slowed down. Blue shifts mean you're seeing signals sped up.
Here is a realistic simulation I did of an observer free-falling into a non-rotating black hole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-H-PipYCKc This observer is falling from rest, starting from far away.
What you'll see is that the stars observed in the outward(=backward) direction are red-shifted, while the ones observed at more forward angles are blueshifted.  So stuff behind you is slowed down, while stuff ahead-ish and to the sides appears sped up. This is not actually super surprising, and is qualitatively similar to what you would see simply because of your motion, if there wasn't even a black hole there: blueshifts in the forward direction, redshifts in the backward direction.
Time dilation isn't really the best way to talk about these phenomena. When people talk about time dilation in a gravitational field, what they mean is something that's defined for a stationary observer. There can't be a stationary observer inside the horizon of a black hole.
Not to blow my own horn too much, but I've noticed that there are tons and tons of these "falling into a black hole" videos on youtube, and the popular ones that I sampled had tons of wrong physics, especially about this point that you're asking about.


Through continuous investment in plant and machinery, Frank H Dale Ltd has created a state of the art fabrication facility, geared towards efficiency and safety. Our production facility employs modern computer numerically controlled machinery to enable us to produce fabricated steelwork to the highest standards. With a 6 wheel shotblast plant we are able to shot blast to SA 2.5 standard and our plural component paint system ensures we can achieve a surface finish to the required specification.
The steel is moved through the manufacturing process in erectable lots employing moving bed systems reducing handling and ensuring a smooth flow of production.
Our production personnel are highly skilled and are capable of producing most types of structures and we are able to meet the most demanding of programmes.
With our own transport and trailer fleet we have the flexibility to meet any special delivery requirements and also ensure the steelwork arrives safely on site on time.


It is that time of year again, the next edition of one of the biggest gaming series is here. It is, of course, FIFA 18 and it is available now across all platforms. This year's version looks to build on the success of the previous FIFA titles which have made the game a household name.
One thing that has remained true, with the progression of the series over the years, is EA's commitment to improving the game with each passing edition. This needs to be done to keep the fans coming back to a sports title which looks to give players an immersive and authentic experience into arguably the biggest sport in the world.
FIFA 17 saw the expected upgrades in graphics and gameplay but also saw the start of FIFA's story mode The Journey. In a first for FIFA, The Journey gave players the opportunity to follow the rise of young superstar Alex Hunter. Fueled by the Frostbite engine to add an extra dimension The Journey quickly became the headline-grabbing addition EA was after.
Alex Hunter is back fresh from his FA Cup success of last year, he is now looking to make a real name for himself in the game. The FIFA 18 edition of The Journey picks up where the previous one left off, a trend that will likely continue in future editions, whereby Alex Hunter is now regarded as one of the games brightest talents.
With added cutscenes, including an interview with Rio Ferdinand and an interaction with Cristiano Ronaldo and many others, this year's version offers a better mix of the actual story and events on the pitch.
Without giving too much away, the Alex Hunter story is filled with unexpected twists and turns which will leave players on the edge of the seats. I must admit it still feels as though you are more a part of the audience than actually dictating the direction of Hunter's journey. Nonetheless, the return of Alex Hunter is another great addition to FIFA 18 and I fully expect the evolution of this story mode to continue in future editions.
So let's start off with the graphics. This an aspect of the game which gets continued focus and improvement year on year and FIFA 18 is no different. This, in my opinion, is the best looking football game to date, especially when it comes to the PlayStation 4 Pro version of the game. The players look really close to their real-life counterparts and the same can be said about the stadiums. One aspect that really impressed me about the graphics was the crowd animations, which was something that was lacking in previous editions but which has certainly been rectified in FIFA 18.
The gameplay, as you would expect, has also seen some significant changes. The first change I have picked up is the focus on the timing of the shot, mistime the ball and it will roll harmlessly to the goalkeeper or fly off target, but get the timing right and it is almost a certain goal, no matter the difficulty of the shot. While I appreciate the thought behind this in trying to add realism to the game it does mean that you can now shoot from almost any angle or distance and see the shot fly in.
Another aspect of the gameplay that is apparent in the game is the added focus on individual players attacking abilities. For example, players such as Ronaldo or Messi can pick the ball up dribble past defenders with ease and place their shot beyond the reach of the goalkeeper. While this does happen in real life, it happens on occasion, in the game however it happens frequently making it near on impossible to defend against. This leads to a situation where the attacking traits are given preference over the defending ones, so teams such as Juventus, who are renowned for their defensive strength, are not as effective in relation to those teams with great attacking flair.
One great addition to the gameplay is the introduction of quick substitutions. Players can now make a quick sub, which will be determined by the players both on the field and on the bench, by simply holding the right trigger when the ball goes out of play. This helps keep the speed and flow to the game, unlike previous editions.
Ultimate Team in all its glory is back. It has all the options found on previous editions such as online and offline seasons, where you try to climb the league using you ultimate teams, online and offline FUT Drafts, a mode where you assemble a draft team for one short tournament of 4 games and has seen the addition of Squad Battles.
The introduction of a new mode for Ultimate Team follows on the addition of FIFA 16's FUT Draft. Squad Battles allow players to go up against the Ultimate Team of people within their communities but rather than playing that actual person they will just be playing against the AI in an attempt to build up FIFA coins to improve their own Ultimate Team. This is perfect for people who like the variety of playing against an Ultimate Team but who don't like playing online. It also provides probably one of the most effective ways to build up coins to improve your own team.
One of the longest standing modes in FIFA, Manager Mode, has seen a significant upgrade which has transformed the way transfers are negotiated. Instead of the old model, which saw you submit bids and get email responses, you now interact with the manager of the team which you are attempting to sign a player from. You can now agree on a breakdown of the deal either including a player in a swap deal or adding on a sell on clause through this text driven interaction.
While a very clever addition, it is not without fault. The transfer negotiations have become a lot more tricky and you are often faced with underbidding for a player which draws an overreaction from the opposing teams' manager who subsequently storms out of the room and refuses to negotiate any further, this can get very frustrating. It is something that will need to be looked at for future editions of the game.
I stay true to what I said in the above review, the FIFA series has a clear focus on improving every year and creating the top football game year on year and in FIFA 18 they did not disappoint. Aesthetically it is the best football game at the moment and some welcome additions to the Ultimate Team and the return of Alex Hunter in The Journey story mode will see the game enjoy its usual success even if the changes made to the gameplay have been met with mixed reactions.