So I'm starting my new job tonight. I'm going to be an HR Advisor at one of the worlds largest shipping hubs. I'm going to see a LOT of interesting things, and I'm going to gain experience fast. I'm hitting the ground with both feet and I'm going to work as hard as I can to move up (and to days.)
Priest NonSequitur OCC Consular
Priest NonSequitur OCC Consular
This is a Database to support the Star Wars RPG that is going on in the forum. Please post your Character Sheets here and any technical specs of ships that you wish to control. I'll be providing links for online resources as we go that can be used to create customized ships. I will have to approve anything that comes into game, though.
Priest NonSequitur OCC Consular
So back in the early 2000's I was a poor college student living in a dorm room passing the time online at TheForce.net. One of the message boards on that site was an RPG forum. We began WOTG (War of the Galaxy) a turn based prose role playing game where 30 some odd of us interacted in the GFFA (Galaxy Far Far Away.) This game lasted for years and I STILL have text files with all sorts of notes and snippets of ideas. I played for a while until I assumed a role as one of three Game Masters. These Game Masters represented each of the warring factions and would monitor the game and prevent God Modding and would rule in the event that the players began to fight over the outcomes of the skirmishes.
So...how did this work?
Well, it was nowhere as organized as a DD campaign, that's for sure. We never rolled dice, we never used math, and there wasn't really any 'chance' to it. Instead, we used words. Each player would write their actions out, adding narrative color, thoughts and emotion of their characters, and once they were done, they would [Tag] the other players that were in the particular scenario. The other player would then react to these actions. They needed to be fair: if the previous move would have been able to break their defensive line they would have to address it and self-report the damage. If it wasn't 'fair' enough, the GM would step in and modify it after consulting with the other GM's for a consensus. This would go back and forth, taking characters through story arcs across the galaxy, through space battles, land battles, imprisonment and very rarely...death. (while it was in rules to kill each other's characters, we didn't always pursue that course of action...unless the person was super annoying and argued with the GM using the following logic as to why he shouldn't have died: "I hada field." Good ol Anakin Doboski.
I'd like to try something like this here, and start out small. I am going to setup a small scenario for two players. While you don't have to really flesh out a character, it does sort of help, so think about it.
1. Play happens in a turn by turn basis. play is first come, first serve.
2. This is prose based and you should think about this more like writing a novel and not playing a video game.
3. While you don't get points for in-depth characterization, it makes it more fun for people to read. During your turn, please be as detailed as possible in the actions that your character takes.
4. Avoid posting major actions of your opponent. They are responsible for detailing the results that happen to them
5. When your opponent attacks...be realistic on the damage.
6. You can only react using the knowledge your character has in game. No Godmodding, and no supernatural knowledge.
7. If there is a complicated action, it is OKAY for both sides to get together and hash out the action and post it as one post (with GM approval) in order to move the story forward to the next scene.
8. The GM reserves the right to step in and modify anything that may be outside the perimeters of the game.
1. Use [Brackets] to indicate Side, Force, Character, Location are writing at the start of your turn. Ex: [Rebellion, 1st Fleet, Admiral Priest, Yavin 4]
2. Tag your opponent when you're finished.
3. Avoid any 'chatter' in this thread. If you're going to talk across the board, use OOC: (out of character/context)
4. Tag the GM with any questions (that is me at this point.)
If it isn't contained here, I have supplemental resources below.
Priest NonSequitur OCC Consular
I've been hesitant to open a topic like this in the background. This is one of the conversations that I truly want pushed to the front of the house, as I think we all need to be confronted with the opposing viewpoints that exist on these topics. I didn't want to closet this discussion. These topics are the most important things that no one is talking about.
At this point you may say "no one is talking about? It's all I hear about!!"
That's true. There is little discussion happening in these topics. Most of the time, it's lecturing from both sides. So I want to try something here. This thread will have a few more 'rules' than other OCC threads that I hope we can get Site admins help on.
1. Absolutely no ad hominems or sarcasm. No trolling or mocking.
2. Be courteous. Understand that not everyone is at the same level as you. Some people may need a little grace; don't rake them over the coals.
3. No off topic discussion at all.
4. This thread is for serious conversations only. If you're coming here to crack a joke...don't.
1. Be explicit in your position and expect explicit responses; do not imply that you are advocating for a position and don't infer that someone else holds to a position.
2. You do not have to agree with everyone, but you are accountable for your position.
3. State clearly who you are responding to and on what point. Do not be ambiguous.
4. Fully read the ENTIRE post you are responding to. Do not skim. Also, do not just wait to post your response without reading and contemplating what the other side has argued.
5. It's okay to ask clarifying questions. If you don't understand what someone is saying, ask them.
6. No Logical Fallacy Jujitsu here. There are far too many people who try to discount points by leaning on formalized rhetorical theory. Don't do that, this is not a debate club and you aren't earning points. Ask clarifying questions to probe any fallacy.
7. Don't just rely on asking for a 'source' as a way of elevating your position over another. It's okay to ask if a claim is made (like 80% of all babies are dumb) but if you are both circling around subjective claims, asking for a source is ultimately pointless.
8. You may post sources to back up your argument...but don't let your sources do your arguing for you. State your claim, don't just link them.
At the end of the day, I want to foster positive discussion on really difficult topics. We may not change each other's minds, but we will have HEARD each other out, instead of just shouting at each other in a tone deaf nature.
3 weeks agoPriest NonSequitur OCC Consular
I have a love/hate relationship with the term 'thoughts and prayers.' On one hand, it is the easy go-to phrase for "I don't know what to say, I want to provide sympathy but I don't know how to go about saying it so here..." It's standard boiler-plate in the modern American Lexicon. When most people say it, they don't mean it in the sense that they are legitimately thinking and praying...or if they do it is a 'moment of silence' sort of thing that really is just enough to satisfy the need of the person who is taking that moment. In this context, I understand the outrage towards people who, when seeing children die, resort to saying "thoughts and prayers" as some sort of incantation to wave away bad thoughts and evil deeds. I understand how woefully inadequate the phrase is: it is the "God Bless You" after a sneeze. It is the "Dammit" or "Oh God." It is a meaningless epithet.
Mostly. But what is it to a person who truly believes it?
There was a man by the name of George Muller. George was a Christian Evangelist from the early 1800's until the late 1800's when...of course...he died. The man spent a lifetime in England working on proselytizing and ministering, and taking care of orphans. While I could unpack his lifetime of work, what I want to focus on is his belief in prayer. George Muller believed that prayers were answered. Not only did he believe it, he expected it to happen to the point that he jotted down each prayer, and when it would be answered. He spent hours a day in prayer and reading his Bible. Some prayers took more than 50 years to be answered...several even after he had already died.
For a man like this, prayer is more than just a 'good thought' or 'speaking to the air.' Muller believed (as I do) that he was speaking to God.There are things that happen that it seems like there is no real answer. Sure, we can destroy all guns and we'll be safe for a while. But then there are bombs. Then there are trucks running through crowds of people. Then there are planes hitting buildings. Sure, we can mitigate some of the damage, but at the end of the day, evil still exists, and that is something that cannot be legislated or educated against. For a person who truly believes in prayer, prayer is the seeking to find the source of the issue and address it. People shoot other people because they come to the point where they believe that taking others lives will acheive a goal. Prayer seeks to intervene in the source. I believe it works.
So, if you've followed through all of this, I want to offer something to you. You may not believe in prayer. You may think I'm nuts, but there might be something in your life that you don't know how to deal with. There may be something that is holding you down. You may not believe in prayer...but I do. Send me a PM, tell me specifically what you want me to pray for (you don't have to go into great detail) and I will. I will pray for you, and for whatever circumstance you see yourself in. The only thing I ask is that once you get on the other side of it...let me know.
1 month agoPriest NonSequitur OCC Consular
Has anyone had an incredibly satisfying poo before? Something so incredibly satisfying that you fell like you have found your spring in your step, and the song in your whistle? So deeply satisfying that you just have to tell the internet about it?
Not me...totally didn't just happen.
Priest NonSequitur OCC Consular
This is a thread to discuss the plethora of unsolved mysteries, true crime stories and...what the hell...late night conspiracy theories. Everyone get your bowler hats (or tin-foil) and let's get started.
Serial- Adnan....Did he kill Hae Min?
2 months agoPriest NonSequitur OCC Consular
I wanted to touch base on something that has been in the news over the past few weeks, and something that is close to me as I know some of the players. I want to talk about Andy Savage. If you haven't seen an article on it, Andy Savage is a Pastor at HighPoint here in Memphis who has been accused of sexual misconduct for an incident 20 years ago. He was 23, she was 17 and she performed oral sex on him one time. He said it was consensual, and she has recently come out and said that for her, she felt like she had no other choice based on the fact that he held authority or power over her. While I would love to have a conversation on consent and the fundamental problem with how discussing consent in how it is discussed today is creating an environment where the past is fluid, that's not where I'm going with this. So the rest of the story is that she voiced regret after the act, he freaked out and begged her not to say anything. They talked with the Church and things were "handled in a Biblical matter" which I'm not sure of. We'll get there. The point is that 20 years ago, Savage thought this was taken care of; that the issue was dealt with and done.
A few weeks ago the girl wrote a blog and bringing everything to light. He never denied it, but pointed back to the time, 20 years ago, that he had made it right and he was confused as to why this was all coming out now and now there is a whole rigmarole surrounding this. I want to touch on a few points.
1. While both parties and the Church 'handled' the situation, they did not handle it correctly. While I don't completely buy the idea that the girl was not consensual in the action (she has taken complete control of that narrative after the fact and as such, it's a he said she said thing) the Church itself did not handle it properly. While the senior pastor informed the parents of the girl, apparently the narrative that was given was that of a 'kiss.' This was not the case. The Church also allowed him to resume his duties after committing and act that goes against even the most liberal evangelical theology.
Here's a point on Christiandom that I want to address: Repentance and forgiveness do not mean consequence avoidance. She did the right thing by talking to the pastor. He did the right thing by admitting it. But there was a lack of communication on the severity of the act, something that they both had a responsibility to correct and didn't, and there was a failure of accountability by the Church to follow through.
2. There are TWO issues that need to be discussed separately, but are being lumped together. First, the idea of the statutory nature of the action in relation to the law; second, whether the power of his position of the church is a credible factor in consent. The first. He was 23, she was 17. While we on paper all say "he was an adult, he should know better" if we are being honest, we know that these relationships happen all the time and are consensual. Heck, if we are all going to be in trouble for a relationship that spans that 17+ range...I'm in trouble too. I was 20, dated a 17 year old. I know that isn't the issue per se, but we need to discuss the situation as a whole and deconstruct all of it. We have to ask ourselves, how is this different than the other relationships like this? And the answer comes with the second part about consent and power.
Does Savage's position as a pastor bare any impact on the situation. From the Christian perspective, it should. The relationship where sexual conduct outside of marriage most likely makes him ineligible for pastoral ministry. While we believe that people should be forgiven, and that God can forgive any sin if the person is repentant, still...there is a greater discipline requirement given to pastors. Pastors do have a position of power over people in the Church, and while these ministers are JUST SINNERS THEMSELVES, they need to be aware of the power they wield. I didn't feel like I had any power as a young college student leading music in a Church, but you have no idea how many girls wanted to hook up with me. It is hard to resist that. It's hard to resist the text with a woman showing her cleavage and asking, "do you want more?" There are other examples, but I'll just leave it there. I had AMPLE opportunity to do whatever I wanted with these girls, and here's the thing: I wanted to. I was in my early twenties and it was my drug of choice. I wrote a really personal journal about some of this. While I never had sex with anyone...there were times when I had some really heavy 'petting' sessions and after each one of these an immense amount of regret was felt.
The reason I mention this is that it deals with consent. Before and during the acts, everything feels so perfect, including the danger...especially the danger. That feeling of doing something 'wrong' is an aphrodisiac of biblical proportions for me in my 20's. But after the fact, the feelings of self-hate, regret, isolation, resent are all present, I could see how a person who consented could suddenly be overcome with regret to the point where they believe honestly they didn't consent. The regret and shame...especially in the context of a church relationship is extremely potent, and Christian guilt is a real thing. The problem we have, as an institution, I believe, is that we spend so much time warning people of sin and avoiding sin, that we burden them to the point that they think if they mess up or do something wrong they are irredeemable...which is exactly the opposite of what the Bible teaches. No, you shouldn't have sex before marriage...but if God can forgive me for the tons of shit I've done...God can forgive that one night stand.
I believe that everyone is so worried about victim shaming that no one is going to explore the fact that while Savage completley admits to the act, he states it was completely consensual. Why should that automatically be discarded? I'm not discounting her narrative; but merely suggesting that they had different perspectives. I am worried that we are heading down a path where anyone can revoke consent after the fact on things, and no one will ever say anything because no one wants to be labeled a victim shamer.
3. The news coverage of this issue has misrepresented nearly everything about it. Everyone loves a scandal, and one of the biggest headlines of this entire event is "Tenn. pastor admits to 'sexual incident' with teen, recieves standing ovation from congregation." What a headline! Does anyone know the context of those applause?
I do. I know people who were there.
The headline, if you don't care to read deeper into the actual story, tend to imply that the church is supporting Savage in spite of the issue at hand. It sounds like they are encouraging him to stay the course. That's not what was happening. There is a huge importance placed in evangelical thought of repentance of sin. That is what happend here. This man stood infront of the congregation, laid his sin out, and repented of it. That was what the applause were for. They weren't applause to forget the past, or to shelter him from consequences...they were applause because a person did the hard thing and admitted to the sin and asked forgiveness. It's unclear if any interpersonal communication is going between him and Jules...that should be happening; but again, the applause was not for what everyone outside of the Church has been saying it was for. Everything has been reported out of context.
There you have it, and may I point out that a year ago Pence was getting crap about his rule. Had Andy Savage followed the rule of never being alone with a person with which you have any type of authority over, then this would not have happened.
5 months agoPriest NonSequitur OCC Consular
I have been thinking a lot about the state of the World and its relation with the Church. I want to start by saying that I believe that the Church should absolutely not conform to the values of the World. But I also think that we use this idea to assert a 'culture' by which we view our faith. We wrap truth inside values and traditions that we bring to the table. This isn't inherently bad, and I will go so far as to say that it is impossible to not look at our faith through some lense of conformative culture. That's why Baptists drink grape juice, even though Jesus used wine during the Last Supper. If we would follow in the example that Jesus set, we would explicitly "Do This" we' use wine, but we are satisfied with the symbolic gesture so we don't muddy ourselves in other theological worries. There are many other Heaven-bound Christians who aren't so encumbered by this (They don't transate certain passages the same way we Baptists do.) My point is not to discuss alcohol and it's prohibition, but rather to point out that there are things that we bring FIRST to the table, and that preconception informs how we approach our faith.
I was reading an article by John Piper today on his thoughts of Lecrae, and how Lecrae is separating himself from 'white evangelicals.' Throughout the article I believe that Piper is exceeingly fair to Lecrae, and affords a great amount of grace to him. If you don't know, prior to the past few years, Lecrae has been celebrated by many as the (as the Washington Post say) an "evangelical mascot." He is a person of color with deep faith that has reached across the racial aisle and embraced the culture. He said all the things we wanted said, and he did all the things we wanted done.
Then in 2014 Michael Brown was shot.
We all then took to social media (myself included) and began to debate endlessly on whether or not the shooting of this kid was justified. We drew lines in the sand and we all took sides. While I don't want to put words in his mouth, I don't have space to go through every thing that he said on the subject, but effectively he started by wondering how on earth we can be so empathetic about things happening across the world, and yet not have enough empathy for the people in our back yard. He said that "I see a Jesus empathize with the MOST undeserving people ever. He offers a thief on the cross a home in Paradise. He dies for a rioting mob of angry killers. He looks upon a sinful world with compassion,"... "And here we stand saying we believe that and all the while unfazed at the pain of a community."
For the first time, he is saying things that are putting him at odds with the folks who feel like justice was served. Michael Brown charged a police officer. Michael Brown was stealing from a store. He was a 'thug.'
I believe he was. But Jesus loved him.
Lecrae points to the lack of empathy and the smug responses from white Christians as "salt in the wound." It was as this time that Lecrae began to move to speaking more on the social justice front, feeling that to really have a voice, he would have to part with people whom he feels would be disappointed in his words. John Piper spells much of this out in his article, and takes a position of "I have hope because he isn't leaving Jesus behind." That's true, but as I think about it...it's really sort of empty.
As I was driving home, I was contemplating on two verses: Matt 25:40 and John 13:1-17. The first comes after two parables that I'm not equipped to break down, so forgive me. The virgins miss out on the marriage feast because they fell asleep and weren't vigilant. The servant missed out on a reward because the Master gave him 2 talents, an he wasted it by burying it for fear of the wrath of the master. Then Jesus says at the Day of the Lord, the Shepard will divide everyone up, the goats on the left and the sheep on the right. He will tell the Sheep that because they fed and clothed him, they were welcome. The Righteous ask how they know it's him, and he responds,
"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,f you did it to me."
My two cents here: Christ has given us a mission to do right by people. We are to love them as Christ loves us...and this doesn't mean a polite "just have good feelings" about them, but we should really form relationships with and LOVE real, specific people Christ brings to us. I think that these parables work together. The foolish virgins were foolish because they knew they were supposed to be somewhere, but didn't stay prepared; the servant was foolish because he knew what his master wanted him to do, but was afraid of losing his masters property so he hid it, and then Jesus wraps it up by telling the disciples that the Shepard invites those who welcome the stranger, clothe the naked, visit those who were sick, or in prison, fed the hungry, and gave water to the thirsty.
I think that we focus on our ourselves too much. I have seen some really ugly, smug, sanctimonious things coming out of the Church recently. We worry about all of the freedoms WE are losing. WE worry about the comforts that we have going away. WE worry about our music, attracting the RIGHT type of people, and making sure that Church panders to us, our likes, our preferences. We think that whomever is upset about Freddie Gray, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Philando Castillo's deaths don't understand that you just "comply with a cop's order, or "Not" be in a gang, or even...don't beat up a rent a cop. I don't disagree, but note something interesting: Jesus makes no qualifier in whom we should have empathy for. Further, I would go so far as to say that since Jesus loves me while I'm in open rebellion with him, he demonstrates a level of self-less love that we have a hard time understanding.
To John: Jesus washes the disciple's feet. Think about that...the Son of God, God himself, stoops and demonstrably takes the lowest job of a servant. The Ordinances of Baptism and The Lord's Supper point to man's relationship with God. I would argue, that while Footwashing doesn't represent how man relates to God (thus why it isn't an ordinance) God did demonstrate it to us in order that we learn how to demonstrate how to love each other. We should be submissive. We should see needs, and put the needs of others over our own position.
This is what I see wrong in the Church. We have pastors all over this nation building graveyards in the pews, encouraging people to hold fast, to not compromise (it doesn't matter 'what'....just don't compromise) and to stay doing what we're doing. We never ask the question if what we are holding fast to is strong, biblical teaching, or if it is that culture thing. We have Churches arguing amongst themselves over complex and irrelevant things while Christ calls us to simplicity: Love God, Love People. We don't need to look to the changing culture to find the cancer that is killing the American Church...It is the fact that we don't love God enought to humble ourselves and deny our own stations, and we don't love each other enough to put their needs over ours.
I am a guy, with a wife, and two kids. I do things for 40 hours a week and get paid for them. I play games in my spare time that many of you like. I sing. I wax philisophic. Talk to me, and be my friend
Republicans/ Conservatives of all nations
Get Geoff back on the podcast!!
Burnie's sandwich club
RT Writing Contests
The Guild of the Henge
Questions answered by Priest
| Asked by: Izayer 6 months ago
Jambalaya (homemade) garlic bread, cake. Now that I'm an adult, I'd like a nice, tall, glass of scotch.
| Asked by: EricHVela 6 months ago
Hmm, do I get to keep the experience I have now? If so, I'd like to go back to 19 and make different health choices, and cherish youth a little more.
| Asked by: Lamkia 1 year ago
Male Lion. I would love to lay against Simba while losing on the Xbone
| Asked by: Ratatoskr 1 year ago
The Earth is Flat. I just want to see what that would look like.
| Asked by: LtTank 1 year ago
Dengar, you can't tell but he's pretty good at telling a joke.
| Asked by: AgentWashingtub008 1 year ago
Hmm. Well, if I were to pick a car that would aesthetically look like a spaceship but not actually be a space ship, I would have to pick the Eagle 5 from Spaceballs
| Asked by: EricHVela 1 year ago
I would help you at no charge bud. BTW, King of the Road is one of my favorite songs. My family has always been musically inclined, and my Dad used to sing Roger Miller during road trips. Obviously quite different than Verdi stylistically, but hey, that's not a problem.