The Rantings Of A Christian Conservative Gamer

The Right Spin

Body Armor Works!
Taken from Jack Army:

Via email: "The video tape was taken from captured terrorist scum in Iraq - you've got to watch it. The footage was recorded by a terrorist sniper team (who were later captured by coalition forces, hence, we have the tape). It just came out of a briefing in Iraq in the last few days. In it, a Soldier takes a hit from a sniper square the chest - it knocks him right on his back, but the guy gets right back up again, aiming his rifle. It's amazing how fast he is back up on his feet; looking for a target. The best part is to hear the terrorists' voices in the clip. It's such a riot to listen to them chanting "Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar!" and then when the kid gets back up again, they're like '...huh? WTF just happened?!'"

You can view the footage by following the link above or clicking here.
Jack Army also has an update on this story here. What's really wonderful is this bit:

As Tschiderer secured the terrorist with a pair of handcuffs, he gave medical aid to the wounded terrorist—the same one who’d tried to take his life.

As terrorists tend to behead innocent civilians I sincerely doubt we can expect the same graciousness and professionalism in return.
Anti-Terror Rally In Iraq
Man, am I ever later catching the boat! Apparently on July 5th there was an anti-terror rally in Iraq. I never heard about it until now. I'm sure if it was an anti-America rally it would have been plastered all over the mainstream news. Sadly, this wasn't and it should have been for every reason an anti-American rally would have been. Do you think you saw anything like this during the Saddam regime? Oh, sure, there were rallies but I wouldn't call them especially meaningful if you're forced to attend at gun point.

Anyway, this is wonderful to see! People who know what's really going on are well aware of the fact that the Iraqi people are thrilled to have us there. And those same people know that the "insurgents" the mainstream media does keep harping about are not Iraqi grown.
Stupidest headline of the day
Unborn babies carry pollutants, study finds. Via CNN (or, as we righties call it, Communist News Network).

Yep, that's it. What pollutants?

Unborn U.S. babies are soaking in a stew of chemicals, including mercury, gasoline byproducts and pesticides...

Well, this is bad. I wonder what effect these toxins are having on the poor children?

...the effects on the babies are not clear...

Oh. The was underwhelming. But guess what! By golly we need more government oversight!

...the survey prompted several members of Congress to press for legislation that would strengthen controls on chemicals in the environment.

So, we need the government to spend money regulating chemicals that have no known effect on the unborn? Hmmm... I know working gives me headaches, a testable condition, perhaps the government should step in and ensure that I never come into contact with work again?

Mary asks and answers:

But is there anything wrong with them? Are they sick? As far as I can tell, the answer is no. As far as I can tell, the lifespan of these polluted babies will probably be about average for polluted Americans, living in our polluted industrial society with its polluted medical and pharmaceutical industries - a girl born now can expect to live to age 79- a boy to age 73.

Contrast this against:

[the] non-polluted lifespan of a farmer in the early 20th century - about 47 years. Of course, that bucolic lifestyle also included the early death of some or most of the farmer's children.

However, Mary, and myself, feel:

...that we should [not] let PCBs and mercury flow freely through our drinking water. Industry needs to be regulated but boneheaded fearmongering like this is more annoying than convincing.

Also:

The same group analyzed the breast milk of mothers across the United States in 2003 and found varying levels of chemicals, including flame retardants known as PBDEs. This latest analysis also found PBDEs in cord blood.

If they're in unborn babies I'd expect to find them in mothers and fathers as well. However, I'm not overly concerned. New York Rep. Louise Slaughter:

had similar tests done on her own blood... "I have auto exhaust fumes, flame retardant chemicals, and in all, some 271 harmful substances pulsing through my veins. That's hardly the picture of health I had hoped for, but I've been living in an industrial society for over 70 years."

That's right. A whopping 271 harmful chemicals in her veins and she's been annoying everyone for over 70 years. Using my own brand of fuzzy math I conclude it seems logical that if we were to double the amount of "harmful substances" in her body I believe we can expect Rep. Slaughter to spread her alarmism until the ripe age of 140.

Mary concludes:

Yes, Slaughter has been alive, swimming in industrial-society pollutants for 70 years. If she wasn't living in an industrial society, she probably wouldn't be here right now. She wouldn't be here to harangue us. Hmm...

Hmm, indeed.

Face facts: This terrible industrial society we seem punished with has virtually doubled the lifespan of most of its citizens and has created an environment where people need worry very little about war, famine and pestilence. Our living conditions are infinitely better than most and our standard of living is far more comfortable than most. Hell, our homeless have it better than their brethren in any place I can think of!

Additionally, this "sterilize everything" mentality we have is harming us more than most realize. Moms Lysol every surface they can find while doctors inject patients with antibiotic super-cocktails for the common cold. We are over medicated and under-exposed to bacteria and viruses. Our bodies have an amazing capacity to cure itself but when we don't allow ourselves to become exposed to potentially harmful biological agents we don't allow our immune system to do its job - thus weakening it. So, to compensate for that weakening, we must sterilize everything and inject ourselves full of drugs. It's ludicrous. Let our bodies do what they're designed to do and only use medicine and household chemicals to support, not supplant, it.
Justice League Unlimited
A certian liberal friend of mine introduced me to a show on Cartoon Network, Justice League Unlimited. To be honest, I've always been a larger Marvel fan than DC (though I haven't read a Marvel title in years). When it came to the DC universe I defaulted to either Batman or Superman. The classics are always dependable.Rogue While in comics over all Rouge is my absolute favorite. The Rouge of the '90's. Not what they've turned her into. Jim Lee's Rouge. That's my girl!

So, Lusipher had me watch 4 episodes of JLU and it was badass. It's TV 7 but I have no idea how any kid could comprehend half the stuff going on! It's some really deep, dark stuff. Like, how would the U.S. react should a group of superheroes, answerable to no one and untouchable by anyone, lived in a orbiting superlaser pointed down at Earth? Should we simply take their word that they won't use it against us? Also, what right do these superheroes have to interfere with official government proceedings? If the government does something legal within it's own borders, but certian superheroes disagree with the morality of the action, how should the government react when those same superheroes intervien?

Anyway, watching JLU and wouldn't you frickin' know it, I got me a new favorite DC character: Black Canary.Black Canary I've not seen much of her but what I have is completely sweet! For this I must thank, Lusipher. So, thanks dude. I've not been this geeked about a comic book character in a long time. Thank you for giving me someone to get excited about. When I thought comics DC and Marvel had about shriveled up and died here comes something fresh (though that's relative as she first appeared in 1947).

First, The Boss now Black Canary... Lusipher knows his damn cool characters who would instantly appeal to me.
Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater
Recently I finished Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater and it was a frickin' blast. Set in the U.S.S.R. in 1964 it's the height of the Cold War. The Cuban Missile Crisis is still fresh on everyone's mind and JFK has recently been assassinated. Khrushchev, having lost his most powerful ally in the West, is now on the verge of losing control of his country to the military. Fearful of a coup he is blind to the threat posed by a small special forces-style group within the Soviet military: GRU.

But this is of little interest to the United States just now. What we are interested in is a Soviet weapons scientist, Sokolov, wishing to return to the U.S. He defected a number of years hence but one of the conditions for Soviet withdrawal from Cuba was the return of this scientist. The Kennedy Administration complied. Now the mission is to get him back and the protagonist of the story, Snake, is the man to do so.It's a loooong way down!

Upon near completion of his mission, Snake, encounters his old mentor, over a bridge high above a fast flowing river, deep within Soviet territory: The Boss. She's a legend known around the world in political and military circles. If her history became unclassified we'd know her as one of the key figures bringing victory to the Allies in World War 2. Together she and Snake developed a deadly and highly effective style of combat known as CQC. She, being a master of it, quickly disarms Snake and informs him that Sokolov is coming with her. And she, and her hand selected team of mercenaries known as The Cobras, are joining up with GRU. As a sign of her loyalty to GRU she presents its leader, Volgin, with a gift: a small nuclear rocket and launcher. Since Snake has seen Volgin he cannot be allowed to live. Volgin is about to take matters into his own hands when the Boss intercedes. Snake was her student and she'll deal with him. She subdues him with little effort and throws him over the side of the bridge. Badly injured Snake washes upon on shore. Meanwhile, Volgin, flanked by helicopters, uses his gift. He destroys the facility Snake rescued Sokolov from in a brilliant nuclear explosion. Snake is rescued and brought back to the U.S. as a criminal.The Boss

The Kremlin is up in arms and demands answers from the United States. President Johnson convinces Khrushchev to allow an American agent to enter the U.S.S.R. to apprehend the Boss and bring her to justice. Khrushchev agrees but a clock is ticking. His military advisors are demanding a retaliatory strike and he cannot hold them off forever. Now, Snake, to clear his name, must assassinate his old mentor to avert a nuclear exchange between the world's two superpowers.

Whew! That's a lot! And that's only the first 20 minutes or so of the game. Things get really twisted from here.

What's so great about this game is that it's set during the Cold War. The feeling of paranoia and imminent destruction is great to return to in a storytelling setting. While we know the outcome of the Cold War the tension is still there. Now, I'll warn you, the story does get really... out there. Either people seem to love it or hate it. I'm in the former crowd. That it gets so unbelievable is incredible. There are numerous, "What the f---!?" moments as the story twists and turns. You think you know what's going on? You don't. You don't get the full picture until after the credits end. What's more, if you know anything about the previous Metal Gear games it casts so much in a different light. People you thought were villains you sympathize with and organizations you once though you understood a revealed to be nothing you could have imagined. Great game. Great story. Awesome music.

My only complaint is the camera angle. It's one of the main reasons I couldn't play Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. The camera angle is top-down, that is, you're looking directly down upon Snake from above and the camera is so close to him you're often forced to go into first-person view so you don't stumble into anything stupid. Never mind the fact that you cannot walk in first person, only view, aim and crouch. "So," you may be asking yourself, "If you hated the camera, and this kept you from MGS 2, why did you put up with it for MGS 3?" Two words: The Boss. From the moment I saw her on that bridge I was hooked. I loved everything about her and I wanted to know everything I could about her as well.

Luckily, Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence is going to correct this by offering the game in full third-person. It'll also add some other goodies that'll get me to check it out.

Anyway, if you own a PS2, and you can put up with an annoying camera, you need to look at this title. It's been out for awhile so you should be able to get it relatively cheap. I got it for $26 used.
A Story
This is a story I wrote for an outfit member in a game I played called Planetside. It is suppose to be his character's backstory. It runs about nine pages.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Stories Part Duex
  2. A Story
Progressive Christianity And A Return To The Real Gospel
What does this mean? What is a "progressive Christian?" There once was a site called The Right Christians that labeled themselves this. The site no longer appears to exist. Aside from the fact they didn't want Christians like myself commenting on anything other than specific posts (while those who agreed with their stances could comment on anything) they were a fairly interesting group. Interesting in that I had no idea where they got their theology from yet they professed to be true Christians. The few times I commented there I tried to get them to explain their rationale for accepting gay marriage, abortion and things of the like but I never got anything more than, "Jesus said to love everyone." While all well and good I'm pretty sure He said a few more things on top of that. He wasn't crucified because He wanted everyone to hug. He said things that angered people to the point where they wanted to kill Him. They hated Him so much they even lied about what He had done to do so. If we are to be like Him should Christians inspire the same kind of hatred in some people as well?

Those who didn't agree with Jesus hated Him. That needs to be repeated. Those who didn't agree with Jesus hated Him. Think about that. Why did they hate Him so? If all Jesus was preaching was "love thy neighbor" why did so many want to see Him dead?

Simply, Jesus taught love and mercy and repentance. People seem to leave out that bit. John 8:10-11 tells us:

Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

There we see the love and mercy so many "progressive" Christians talk about but we also see a command. He did not accept her adultery as an acceptable alternate lifestyle. He judged her, forgave her and then commanded her to leave that life behind. Jesus judged sin, forgave it and then commanded the sinner to repent. While Christians cannot forgive sin, only God can, we are to confront it and counsel the sinner away from it. However, how can we do this when "progressives" in our midst attempt to cripple us by turning Scripture into catch phrases, completely removing them from context, and we buy it? "Thou shalt not judge" is not a commandment to avoid moral judgment. It's a commandment to avoid hypocrisy. The men who accused the woman we not incorrect in doing so. If they were Jesus would have called them on it. No, He chastised them for being hypocrites. They were so concerned with another's sin they ignored their own. Being saved Christians are in the singularly unique position of being able to make moral judgments because we recognize our sinful nature, sought forgiveness, came to repent and seek to bring others into the grace of God. How can we present the Gospel to those in need if we cannot decide that they need it? Additionally, are not Christians called to stand against evil and sin? How are we to do this if we cannot call sin what it is?

However, with all that said I will point out a woeful failing of many Christians. We often point out the sin but offer no grace to the sinner. Jesus, when rejected by the Jews, took His message to the Gentiles. Now, who were the Gentiles? Anyone who wasn't a Jew. That Jesus would do this quite important for a number of reasons if you know anything of Jew/Gentile relations. In short, most Jews' dislike of Gentile bordered on (if not crossed over into) racism. When the Holy Spirit commanded Peter to eat with a Gentile he did everything he could to avoid it. The early church, consisting primarily of Jews, had to be dragged by the Holy Spirit into bringing the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Gentiles were well aware of this dislike having to have to deal with Jewish businessmen on issues of commerce and dealing with the average Jew in their everyday life.

So, here you have this Jew, Jesus, taking His message to these people most Jews would rather spit on than look at. Jesus knew this distrust was well rooted but He had something vitally important to tell them. So, it was with love first that He came to them. With love and humility He disarmed them and made it so they could accept what He had to tell them.

Jesus' message is an uncompromising one. It is a hard message. It is a message counter to what the world tells us how things are. Scripture tells us that the Gospel will confound the wise and powerful. The sum of our worldly life experience tells us that the Gospel is incorrect. That the core of the Gospel is repentance is a difficult pill to swallow. As G.K. Chesterton said:

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.

The question isn't "Why is Christianity so bad when it claims to be so good?" but rather "Why are all human things so bad when they claim to be so good?" This is what the Bible is trying to tell us. We aren't good people. If we are then why is the world so messed up? This isn't an easy message to send or receive. It's a brick but it has to be delivered. So, how do we do this? How did Jesus do this? Jesus covered the brick in velvet. He wrapped His brick of repentance in the velvet of love and mercy. All parts play a key role in accepting the message and becoming a changed individual. However, so well-meaning Christians leave the velvet at home. While others (progressives) leave the brick behind. The former will be accepted by no one and only build resentment against the message and the latter will save no one and give them false hope.

Christians need to practice delivering that velvet covered brick otherwise the message will be lost upon those who would otherwise accept it. Christians need to be like Jesus when He came to the Gentiles. He exuded love and humility while never deviating from delivering His message of repentance. It was because He loved them that He did this thing. Do you love your gay neighbor? Adulterious co-worker? Or the pregnant teenager scared because she knows she cannot raise her child on her own? Do you love these people as Jesus does? Then come to them out of love, wrapped in humility, and give them what they need. Not just the Gospel but someone they can depend upon.
Stories
I fancy myself a writer. I was wondering: Who'd be interested in reading some of my fiction from time-to-time? I'd post it here and you could leave some feedback on it! If anyone is game I'll proceed ASAP.
The Problem Of Pleasure
So, I'm reading Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton and I start with the introduction written by Philip Yancey. It's got be excited to dive into the classic of Christian apologetics and he poses a question posed by Chesterton.

Christians are often forced to answer the "problem of pain" by athiests for obvious reasons. Simply, "How could a good and loving God allow pain to exist?" It's simple and stunningly complex at the same time and every Christian worth his salt needs to have wrestled with this issue. I have and I believe I've come to a conclusion on the issue.

With that said athiests themselves have a question to ponder as well. The "problem of pleasure." Simply, "In the meaningless and random evolutionary process why did pleasure become necessary?" You don't need to feel pleasure to survive on any level. You don't need pleasure for reproduction or injesting sustinance. We derive pleasure from color yet we don't need to see color for sight to function. And the list goes one and on. So, why is pleasure a necessary step in the evolutionary process?
Women And Conservatism
It seems today that feminism has become the sole property of the left much the the detriment of the movement. Is it really so praiseworthy a victory that women may now kill, on demand, the very thing that is core to their being? The left would tell us "yes". Is this what the founders of the femenist movement were really working toward? To believe it was defies logic.

However, reconizing how much the left has twisted an otherwise healthy goal, how have conservatives responded? How have conservative sought to uplift women in a healthy and meaningful way? Dr. Kelly Hollowell has some definate opinions on the issue and I can't help but agree with her.

She notes:

A rear admiral also spoke from the pulpit on "honor, courage and commitment." He said the best displays of these traits were illustrated by his wife as she supported him in his career, primarily raised the children, maintained the home and remained loyal to their relationship.

As these familiar examples illustrate, conservatives frequently extol and focus on a very limited view of women. Despite this tendency, I don't think conservatives regard women as inferior. Rather, it is a liberal spin that has over-capitalized on a rather obvious (although not exclusive) area of appreciation conservatives have for women.

Many conservatives feel that women need to be at home taking care of needs there. This isn't meant to be spiteful or out a desire to oppress female desires to have a career of their own. Rather is springs out of the conservative emphasis on family and home first. Conservative men reconize that with the wife at home the family tends to be more stable and, well, liveable. Stay-at-home moms fill a vital role in the development of their children that families with both parents working simply cannot match. There are countless studies and statistics that support this. However, the left grasps at this as evidence that conservatives seek to enslave women by chaining them to the kitchen with babe hanging off moms teat. It's an easy trick but utterly deceptive and false.

However, that decpetion has taken hold and many women have come to accpt it as true. This only pulls women who might otherwise agree with it from the conservative cause. Conservatives need to address this and soon. While encouraging women to care for home is a worthwhile goal there are many women whom this simply will not work for because of various reasons. These women too should be encouraged and supported.

The good news is that all of this is fixable. First, it would be good for conservatives to give a few more kudos to women called outside the traditional roles and – dare I suggest it – support them along the way. Second, it might help in some cases for the more traditional leaders to take a class on sensitivity training … OK, OK, at least a class in 21st century communication skills. Third, and I have to say it, it would help if the old codgers among us who do hold rather blatantly chauvinistic views stepped into the 21st century and recognized that women can think outside the cake box.

Dr. Hollowell goes on to recite a poem a friend sent her which, I feel, summs up the leftist femenist movement quite well and ends with what a real femenist should embrace. The entire thing should be read but I'll show the last two paragraphs here:

So I took off the rude helmet that I had made for myself. Laid down my armor of irritation; my weapon of anger; took off my breastplate of haughtiness and went to wash in God's river.

The water revealed a woman, soft hair, soft eyes, gentle hands and quiet voice. I stepped out and put on the garments that He quietly laid out for me – a gentle and kind disposition, a tender and obedient spirit, quietness and confidence for strength and I was stunned … the garments fit me perfectly.

A real fenemist, indeed a real woman, is what God designed her to be. Gentle, tender, obedient to God and posessing a quiet strength all should be envious of. There are many, many additional qualities on top of this meager list but it's a good start. The most important being "obedient to God". If any women, or any man for that matter, could master that everything else would fall into place.

She closes quite nicely with:

The point of the article and poem is to delineate a "New Choice" for women in America. That is to overcome the knee-jerk reaction to be offended by the often narrowly focused view of women by conservatives, overcome the liberal spin and reject the distorted interpretation of feminism that has become so prevalent.

The entire article should be read carefully by anyone with an interest in the femenist cause - and that is all of us.
The Hype Of Stem Cells
Jean Swenson writes:

As a quadriplegic who could possibly benefit from stem cell research, I fear many of us are being sold an imaginary garment of hope—a fictitious belief that embryonic stem cells will cure us.

In reality, no such cures exist now or in the near future.

Pretty sobering stuff, huh? I mean, here we have someone who is suppose to be a prime example of who stem cell research can cure and they're saying it's a "fictitious belief". Wait a sec... I was told people who think like this are Bible-thumping cavemen who seek a return to the flat-Earth and the theocracy of old. What gives? Well, science, that's what.

For over twenty years scientists, using animal ES cells, have failed to solve the same roadblocks faced by researchers working on human ES cells. Problems such as tumor formation, tissue rejection, and genetic instability are enormously complex and must be overcome before ES cells can have medical applications.

Now I know I've heard this somewhere else. Where was that?

And the fact that embryonic stem cell research has led to the cure of zero diseases in the 20 years we've been doing it, I think, speaks volumes of its real potential.

Oh, yeah! That was me! Enough tooting my own horn:

The Lancet, a British medical journal that favors ES cell research, calls cure headlines “sensationalist” and “hype.” In fact, this journal reports that “no safe and effective [embryonic] stem cell therapy will be widely available for at least a decade, and possibly longer.”

Meanwhile:

However, embryonic stem (ES) cells have serious problems that currently prevent human use. Adult and cord blood cells do not, and are already being used to treat nearly sixty conditions. (See www.stemcellresearch.org )

The article goes on much further but I think this is enough for now. The bottom line is that embryonic stem cells do nothing and even if they were shown to do something it would be available to the public for a least a decade. Probably longer!

William Haseltine, ES cell research advocate and CEO of Human Genome Sciences said, “The routine utilization of human embryonic stem cells for medicine is 20 to 30 years hence...

Hear that? 20 to 30 years before medicine derived from embryonic stem cells would find routine use. But that after those stem cells produced some kind of cure, which, after 20 years of work, they haven't. So, again, I petition, let's go with what we know works, adult and cord blood cells, and leave the social engineering out of the laboratory.
Another Call To Action
Dean (why aren't you checking out his blog!?) links an article written by the wonderful Irshad Manji in which she tells her fellow Muslims that they face a test with the London bombings.

Assuming we're serious that Islam means peace, we must demand that our Friday khutbas denounce the London terrorist explosions in unambiguous and unqualified terms.

Here's what I predict will happen instead. The preachers will express condolences for the victims and condemnations of the criminals. Then they'll add, "But Britain should have never invited this kind of response by joining America in the invasion of Iraq."

I've heard this very same sentiment in defense of every terrorist incident. It's never the fault of the man who pulled the trigger but, instead, the one who "forced" him to. Never mind that if we do anything to oppose terrorist ends we're somehow guilty of forcing them to resort to terrorism anyway. We're damned if we do, we're damned if we don't. It's kind of like saying so many wouldn't have died in Poland in World War 2 if only the Poles had allowed Hitler invade without resistance. That's the logic fascist apologists want us to swallow. Never mind the fact that Hitler shouldn't have invaded in the first place! But, then, I'm sure the Poles did something to bring it upon themselves.

Newsflash: Terrorists will find any reason for killing to further their goals. It doesn't matter if it happened 1 or 600 years ago. It only goes to show that these supposed reasons, these injustices they've been subjected to, aren't anything more than a rouse to fool the dimwitted and uneducated. A schoolyard bully will punch you just because you dared to be in his presence. The same with thugs like al-Qaeda, Hamas and others. That we dare to be different from them is more than enough reason to call for our death. Ms. Manji states it thusly:

The trouble with this line of reasoning is that terrorists have never needed an Iraq debacle to justify their violent jihads. What exactly was the Iraq of 1993, when Islamic radicals tried to blow up the World Trade Center? Or of 2000, when the USS Cole was attacked? Hell, that assault took place after U.S. military intervention saved thousands of Muslims in Bosnia.

She continues:

If staying out of Iraq protected anyone from terrorism, then why did "insurgents" last year kidnap two journalists from France — the most anti-war, anti-Bush nation in the West? Even overt solidarity with the people of Iraq, demonstrated by CARE's top relief worker in the area, Margaret Hassan, didn't shield her from assassination.

(It needs to be noted that Ms. Manji has come under attack from fellow Muslims for her liberal (some would call enlightened) approach to this problem. She's recieved a number of death threats from upset parties who don't like what she has to say.)

Even if we leave terrorists alone, some might say even give them aid (in the case of the French), that isn't enough! Why won't modern liberals get this through their head? It doesn't matter what we do! They will kill us because we won't adopt their fascist theocracy. It's that simple. Go on and blame flagellate yourself all you want over the, "What have we done" question if you want. Al-Qadea will be more than happy to supply the whip. I, on the other hand, will gladly make myself a target to be annihilated if it means advancing the cause of liberty and freedom in the world. You can hate me all you want once the whip is removed from your back.