Coco does not suppose the second part of the slogan carries the same meaning(s) in Chinese as it does in English, but if it does then for a comedian to suggest that that is what dogs do is not true, is it? Dogs do not forge anything, whether it is for the positive or the negative meaning. Dogs behave as dogs behave without any pretence, except perhaps if they feign in their hunting (ask any caninologist) in the manner of a boxer, whereas people may forge in both senses of the word.
As much a bad choice of slogan as the naming of the Roller Silver Mist when for sale in Prussia.
Coco had wondered whether given the reference to the forge in the smithy perhaps ‘Fight to win, smite exemplary conduct’ may have been a better choice of translation, given that ‘to smite’ does not carry the same negative connotation. On second thoughts…
Li Haoshi, a stand-up comedian, was both fined and arrested after saying ‘Other dogs you see would make you think they are adorable. These two dogs only reminded me of… ‘ alluding both to the chasing of a squirrel by his dogs and to the aforementioned slogan.
When I saw the headline I thought this might be a political comment, for if typically you tried to make a political statement at a sporting event you would quickly find that sport is apolitical. Whilst the joining together of the indefinite article and the adjectival noun is intended to express that politics is not permitted to enter sport, that is patently untrue. It is a mere pretence to cover up some other motive. Politics does have a part to play. So, the strap line of the BBC article which gave the impression that a particular performer was not only permitted to make a political statement but that that statement was an integral part of the performance aroused some interest. Even where apolitical is abused in sport, to go that far is hardly permitted.
A careful reading of the article however suggests that superficially at least there is no political statement at all in what is said or done. It is a matter of interpretation in a particular context. In a different ages and places different interpretations may be placed upon the words expressed in a particular language, as it is for the words ‘Lead kindly light’. However, there was something of greater interest and concern, but as one who has used similar techniques I have to be careful how I criticise.
Imagine what it would be like if you turn up at the cup final and on the field you do not see twenty three men, but one man and twenty-two androids. Would you not feel somewhat cheated? ‘Oh no, the reply would come. Don’t worry each android would behave exactly as you would expect the individual upon whom it has been modelled to behave. It will be just like watching the real thing. Each android has been programmed with AI to imitate its model. It will do even better. It will avoid all of the mistakes that the star performer would make or could make. The game will be far better’. Is the placement of artificial turf a preparation for such a change? Imagine being able to watch Pele, Hurst and Beckenbauer again even if only in avatar.
Or, if having spent months writing the dissertation for your finals, you find that everyone else wrote theirs just the day before using ChatGPT; and that the examiners were quite happy about that. Or again, you hear that Menuhin shall perform the Beethoven in the RAH, but when you arrive there is an empty dais and the compiled sounds of a Deutsche Grammophon recording* booming out of the speakers.
It was the words ‘The technical complexity of Eurovision means that all songs are sung to a backing track’ that caught my attention. I had always thought that the performances were live, though of course very well rehearsed and flawlessly performed, just as in every other music competition throughout the country. What would you think if the Black Dyke Band turned up and simply mimed to their own playing, which was a compilation of several different ‘performances’ from which all of the faults had been ironed out. In Leeds the whole orchestra turns out to play live for the pianists. So why, in the light of so called technical complexity, is a band not permitted to play its own music in front of the audience. Do they think that in some way a wholly live performance will devalue the ‘competition’? Do they fear that the quality of the acts may not be as good as the organisers want you to think they are. It becomes a sham of a competition when you are permitted to iron out the defects in the backing track. Might as well project holographs of the group as mime.
In any event, what is this reference to a backing track? Has someone lost sight of what the music is. Is not the backing track an intrinsic part of the musical presentation? Erlkönig would not be as fearful as it is without its ‘backing track’. Or do they actually not care about the music at all, it is really simply about physical gyration? Nothing else matters.
How disappointing! But then that is what this world loves. It loves the appearance, but not the reality. The splendid buildings which rise up contrary to the building regulations, but collapse at a shifting of the ground beneath them. The war games fascinate and captivate many in their games’ rooms and virtual reality worlds, but place the same in the reality of Bakhmut, Dresden or Saigon; what then?
It is the same with godliness, men love the appearance of it, but ask them to change their way of life to live godly lives and they turn away. They are very happy with a religion which says: ‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ all of which concern things which do not endure. These are but the commandments and doctrines of men. They are regulations. ‘If we keep them we shall live’ is what they think. Well, these things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed religion, but it is a false humility and are of no value against the indulgence of the body. (Colossians 2:20-23) Ask them however to become lovers of God rather than pleasure, and they turn away. They want the benefits of religion, but do not want its power to change the way in which they live. We love ourselves, we love money, we love pleasure. This will all pass away, and then what? ‘What good will it do for a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?’ the Lord Jesus Christ asked us.
Let them have their backing tracks if they will, but let us, without hypocrisy, love the Lord our God, who gave himself to save our souls, with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength.
But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! * Coco is not aware of any such recording
Today is an important day for many reasons. We have crowned a man who is king, who in that crowning made certain clear commitments. We do not have to be monarchists to recognise the benefits of those commitments, and I would suggest that of whatever form of government you want if you do not require of the governor those same commitments then you do both yourself and your fellow countrymen a great disservice. There are only two, or perhaps three, on which comment shall be made here.
Firstly, a commitment is made to protect his people both from external troubles and from those within the kingdom who would exploit them. Now we cannot argue against that. A king, or any governor, who exploits his people, leaves them defenceless or makes war against them is a not one any of you would want, but we do see such elsewhere in this world. We are called upon to pray for kings, rulers and all in authority, for why? Two reasons are given, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life (1 Tim 2:1). I shall come to the other later. This is an important commitment.
Secondly, a commitment is made to defend the Christian religion. The Scriptures provide the foundation upon which our treatment of each other rests. If we have any other foundation then we shall conclude that some are second or even third or lower class, or that the death of a man is no more significant that the death of a fly on the wall, it being merely a rearrangement of the chemicals of which he is made. We are told: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’ (Genesis 1)
I am not arguing here that we have been obedient to that instruction, the king whom we have just crowned has long spoken about many of the ways in which we have overstepped the authority that we have, but where else do we such a clear testimony to the value of a human life. We are made in the image of God; what could be a more beautiful image than that? Even more so, what this means is that we cannot relegate one of our kind to a lower position, or consider them to be soulless, for every one of us carried that image with him. It is this, and this alone, that gives us value not any other trappings that we may carry with us. Secondly, God declares: ‘Male and female he created them’. Men and women are not the same, otherwise we would have the same noun to describe us, but we are both made in the image of God, If not the same then, what are we? We are both made in the image of God, but made complementary to each other as we read later: And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.’ And Adam declares: ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.’ I do not claim that my etymology is correct, but superficially the English words used here do show a similar connection as the Hebrew: she shall be called ishah, because she was taken out of ish. Jigsaw pieces could not all be the same for the jigsaw to fit together (except in certain special cases of which I am sure mathematically minded individuals would be delighted to point out), the pieces must be complementary to each other (the complementarity of the special cases is what makes the same special cases work as jigsaws). And so it is for us, men and women are complementary to each other.
What a great, glorious, enlightening and liberating teaching this is! No-one is second class; no-one is of less worth than any other.
Depart from the Christian faith and we shall descend into the abyss of superstition, idolatry, paganism, false religion and oppression, for it is only the Christian faith that demands that we love one another, even those who show themselves to be our enemies, and treat others, not as they treat us, but as we would want to be treated ourselves. As the king said on his arrival today: In [the name of Jesus Christ] and after his example I come not to be served but to serve. The example of Jesus Christ was to love his enemies, those who would hand him over to be crucified. Many of them later received mercy from the one whom they had, by means of the Roman nails and spear, pierced.
Thirdly, we are reminded of the importance of kingship. There is one true king, the true man, the perfect man Jesus. He is the only one who has fulfilled the law of God and the only one therefore who is fit to be king. The Scripture says of him ‘You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your companions.’ (Psalm 45:7) But each earthly king is to be like him, and to exemplify him before us. Some do it better than others. Many fail in many ways, as we may read in the books of the kings, and in our own history books, but their failings do not invalidate the value of a king. Rather let them learn what a true king is and learn to be like him. Even the wicked king Manasseh towards his end understood how badly he had failed and repented of his wickedness (2 Chr 33:13).
You see, we do not appoint a king, nor do we elect one, we acknowledge the one who is king. This one, some would say, is king by an accident of nature. So let it be. An accident of nature is certainly no less likely to choose the right man as the vicissitudes of an electorate choosing from a group of power hungry men, and probably more likely to do so. But I cannot say it in that way. It is God who raises up rulers among men, and he has appointed one to rule over us: Yet I have set my king on my holy hill of Zion, (Psalm 2:6) and later warns the kings of the earth to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling, to kiss the Son (the king) as our Prince did his father today. That we do not choose our king reminds us of this, pointing both us and our king to the King of kings in whose name he was welcomed to the coronation today.
I mentioned that there were two reasons why we should pray for kings and all in authority. The second points us again to the king of kings, it is that it is good to do so in the sight of God our Saviour who desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth through the one mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ.
So, only three comments:
The king is our nation’s protector, just as Jesus, the king of kings is our protector.
The king is the defender of the Christian faith, from which we learn that our worth is that we are made in the image of God.
The king is appointed not by us, reminding us that we are to serve the one whom God has appointed, Jesus the king of Kings.
And this Jesus has been anointed by God, not men, so that the Spirit of the Lord God is upon him to preach good tidings to the poor; to heal the broken hearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives; and the opening of the prison to those who are bound. (Isaiah 61:1)
We have a king, who lives to serve his people not to be served by us, which points us to the King Jesus, who came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many. (Matt 20:28)
All remain standing. Samuel Strachan, Child of His Majesty’s Chapel Royal, addresses The King Your Majesty, as children of the kingdom of God we welcome you in the name of the King of kings. The King replies In his name and after his example I come not to be served but to serve.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you. And with thy spirit.
Alleluia. Christ is risen.
He is risen indeed. Alleluia.
Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?
Give the king your judgements, O God, and your righteousness to the son of a king. Then shall he judge your people righteously and your poor with justice.
Alleluia. May he defend the poor among the people, deliver the children of the needy and crush the oppressor.
During the chant the Lord President of the Council exchanges the Sword of State for the Jewelled Sword of Offering, and delivers it to the Archbishop, who says: Hear our prayers, O Lord, we beseech thee, and so direct and support thy servant King Charles, that he may not bear the sword in vain; but may use it as the minister of God to resist evil and defend the good, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The Jewelled Sword of Offering is placed into the king’s right hand. The archbishop says: Receive this kingly sword: may it be to you and to all who witness these things, a sign and symbol not of judgement, but of justice; not of might, but of mercy. The king rises. The sword is put upon the king, and he sits. The archbishop says: With this sword do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy Church of God and all people of goodwill, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order: that doing these things you may be glorious in all virtue; and so faithfully serve our Lord Jesus Christ in this life, that you may reign for ever with him in the life which is to come. Amen. The king stands and offers the sword at the altar, where it is received by the dean. The king returns to the coronation chair. The sword is redeemed and is returned to the Lord President of the Council.
It is very meet, right and our bounden duty that we should at all times and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God, through Jesus Christ thine only Son our Lord. Who hast at this time consecrated thy servant Charles to be our King, that by the anointing of thy grace, he may be the Defender of thy Faith and the Protector of thy people; that, with him, we may learn the ways of service, compassion, and love; and that the good work thou hast begun in him this day may be brought to completion in the day of Jesus Christ. Therefore with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious name; evermore praising thee, and saying:
There are parts with which Coco may disagree! The Church of England is not fully reformed, and elements derived from paganism through romish errors have been retained. Notwithstanding this, though there is error as Paul said of those in Rome who spoke supposing to harm him: Christ is proclaimed. There was a clear proclamation at the start that he had been raised from the dead; the reading from Colossians spoke of his pre-eminence, creative and redemptive power; and the words of the communion the purpose of his death on a Roman cross.
Logic is very important, and if you code or are a mathematician then sometimes you will not be surprised to find that even machines are defiant, recalcitrant and incorrigible, just like human beings. Take this very simple case, you have a two cylinder lock. In order to undo the lock you need a key which has cuts to match both cylinders (not being a locksmith I do not know the technical term for the cut, please enlighten me). So, if we call the cylinders A and B, then then we can say for any key C that if it is TRUE that the A cut matches the A cylinder AND it is TRUE the B cut matches the B cylinder that the key is a TRUE key that will open the lock.
Do you see? Both A and B must be TRUE to give us a TRUE key. If only A or only B matched you would say it is a FALSE key (it doesn’t fit). You would not be happy if only the A or the B cuts matched and it was still true that the key opened the lock. You might just as well have a single cylinder lock and wait for the intruder to walk in.
Well, we have many more cylinders in our locks these days to prevent that sort of picking and for four five, six or seven cylinder locks we expected the key to match every one for it to be a TRUE key. But in another context I found that for the equivalent of a four cylinder lock in Excel using AND() function that it gave me TRUE when only two of the four cylinders were TRUE. The other two were FALSE as you can see here….the correct answer is FALSE. This key should not be able to open the lock.
So whether you excel or not, please do not use Excel for your security system.
Ready and willing to be corrected, for I am sure that someone will spot the flaw (otherwise known as a falseness, which is not a village in Shetland) in this demonstration.
