The Voice New Testament

I didn't really have time to do my usual Sunday Bible Discussion, and it's going to get harder and harder as we get closer to the holidays. Anyway, there's a new translation of the New Testament that I am liking very much.

It's called The Voice New Testament: The Liberating King and His Church, and so far I am enjoying it a great deal.

One might say it is from an Emerging Church perspective, with contributors like Brian McLaren. What they do is they do not 'clean it up," so that it sounds as if one person wrote everything. They carefully maintain the stylistic differences that are apparent in the original Greek manuscripts, to give the reader a real feel for the voice of the authors. Nice job.

I feel it is highly worth checking out :)

I'll post something using that translation later tonight if I can find the time.

Finally, Some Real Journalism!

For the first time in this entire campaign, we have been treated to some real journalism:
Predictably, the Messiah was extremely offended by the way the interviewer handled Darth Plagiarus, and has canceled all future appearances of either candidate. Detailed here.

Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

McGinnis said the Biden cancellation was "a result of her husband's experience yesterday during the satellite interview with Barbara West."
WFTV news director Bob Jordan said, "When you get a shot to ask these candidates, you want to make the most of it. They usually give you five minutes."

Jordan said political campaigns in general pick and choose the stations they like. And stations often pose softball questions during the satellite interviews.

"Mr. Biden didn't like the questions," Jordan said. "We choose not to ask softball questions."

Jordan added, "I'm crying foul on this one."

Let the message be heard: Question the Anointed One or his chosen disciples, and be cut off!

Diddy Blog #26: Barack Obama Could Lose the Election

Diddy Blog # 25: State of Emergency! Attention Young America Time is Running Out

Been busy with other things, so I've missed two good ones from my favorite video blogger. Here's the first, and older one, but a good one:

Best Ad of the Campaign

By far this is the best ad in a campaign with a lot of crap:

But What About Star Wars Galaxies?

Many people are wondering what will happen to Star Wars Galaxies now that SWTOR has been announced. It seems, at least according to this very informative Gamespot article; that Lucas Arts feel there is no reason to shut it down:

The Fate of Galaxies
The amount of energy, resources, and enthusiasm being thrown at The Old Republic raises one obvious question: What about Galaxies? LucasArts was emphatic about the fact that there's enough room for two viable Star Wars MMORPGs to co-exist.

The ol' Sith standby Force Choke will be back.

"We're looking to continue to support Galaxies with high-quality updates on into the future," said Jake Neri, producer for LucasArts' online division. "We're focused on a chapter release around Hoth, where we're re-creating the battle at Echo Base. We'll allow players to get in groups and jump in and just participate in a very high-quality battle. We've just released a trading card game inside of Galaxies, and fans are eating it up. Looking into next year, we're going to revamp our droid system with something called droid commander." Neri also said that SOE Austin was working in conjunction with LucasArts on further additions to Galaxies for years to come, with no end to the game in sight.

We shall see. From what is being said about the new MMO, SWG may still be the more sandbox of the two, will still be the only one with non-combat classes, and will still have the more in depth crafting systems, and with it, player economy.

Always in motion is the future.

Birth of Freedom Shorts #8: How Did Christian Slave Owners Justify Slavery

Another good little piece from the folks at the Acton Institute:

Star Wars: The Old Republic -- The Video Intro

If they can pull this off, this just might be a great game:

Star Wars: The Old Republic official press release

here it is, as pulled from the new Official Site:

LUCASARTS AND BIOWARE
REVEAL STAR WARS: THE OLD REPUBLIC

OCTOBER 21, SAN FRANCISCO – LucasArts and BioWare™, a division of Electronic Arts Inc. (NASDAQ: ERTS), today announced the development of Star Wars®: The Old Republic™, a story-driven massively multiplayer online PC game set in the timeframe of the Star Wars®: Knights of the Old Republic™ franchise. Star Wars: The Old Republic, being developed and published by BioWare and LucasArts, represents an innovative approach to interactive entertainment, featuring immersive storytelling, dynamic combat and intelligent companion characters.

In Star Wars: The Old Republic, players will explore an age thousands of years before the rise of Darth Vader when war between the Old Republic and the Sith Empire divides the galaxy. Players can choose to play as Jedi, Sith, or a variety of other classic Star Wars roles, defining their personal story and determining their path down the light or dark side of the Force. Along the way, players will befriend courageous companions who will fight at their side or possibly betray them, based on the players’ actions. Players can also choose to team up with friends to battle enemies and overcome incredible challenges using dynamic Star Wars combat.

"Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic is the most critically acclaimed Star Wars game in LucasArts history and a preeminent example of our company’s interactive storytelling heritage," said Darrell Rodriguez, President of LucasArts. "For a long time, we’ve long wanted to return to the franchise in a grand way, and we felt that the best setting for it was an online world that would allow millions of people to participate in the experience together. We knew that the developer capable of working with us to deliver an engrossing story with a fully-realized online world was BioWare."

"Traditionally, massively multiplayer online games have been about three basic gameplay pillars - combat, exploration and character progression," said Dr. Ray Muzyka, Co-Founder and General Manager/CEO of BioWare and General Manager/Vice President of Electronic Arts Inc., "In Star Wars: The Old Republic, we’re fusing BioWare’s heritage of critically-acclaimed storytelling with the amazing pedigree of Lucasfilm and LucasArts, and adding a brand-new fourth pillar to the equation – story. At the same time, we will still deliver all the fun features and activities that fans have come to expect in a AAA massively multiplayer online game. To top it all off, Star Wars: The Old Republic is set in a very exciting, dynamic period in the Star Wars universe."

Added Dr. Greg Zeschuk, Co-Founder and Vice President Development Operations, BioWare and Vice President, Electronic Arts Inc., "Star Wars: The Old Republic is set roughly 300 years after the events of Knights of the Old Republic, a timeframe that is completely unexplored in the lore. BioWare has been able to add to the Star Wars history in developing the game’s story and has created an overarching narrative that players can enjoy, regardless of their play style. Our goal is to offer players an emotionally rewarding experience that combines the traditional elements of MMO gameplay with innovations in story and character development."

Additional details on Star Wars: The Old Republic features, gameplay and release date will be announced at a later time. For more information about Star Wars: The Old Republic and to sign up for future product updates, please visit www.StarWarsTheOldRepublic.com.

A Few Words on Iraq

This is a cross-post from a thread I was discussing some current issues with over at MMORPG.com. yeah, politics on a gamers forum -- go figure. Anyway the guy was saying how he was against the Iraq war, and that Saddam Hussein didn't harbor terrorists there. This led me to make this post, which I thought was worth saving here:

Actually, Abu Nidal lived in Iraq. Saddam certainly harbored terrorists, just not Al Qaeda. He also backed terrorists in Palestine. Militant, or Political Islam is not one big monolith -- there are many rivals for the same prize -- a caliphate over the Muslim world. Some are more secular than others, Saddam Hussein and Momar Qaddafi come to mind; and others are more religious -- the mullahs of Iran and Osama bin Laden are fine examples.

All are, to a greater or lesser extent -- part of the Jihad. They may hate one another, but they hate us more. hate is mostly what they do, so if they are just mildly disgusted, that is akin to being friends in the West.

On 9/11, Palestinians hit the streets and cheered -- they didn't have anything to do with it, but we can see where their sympathies lie. sadam had a mural of it painted and celebrated it. In the last years of his reign he rediscovered his faith and got more religious, because he saw the tide turning.

Now, I feel you have it backwards. Bin ladin's biggest enemy (other than us, of course) is Saudi Arabia. By encouraging tyranny in any part of the Muslim world, we help him. By encouraging liberty, we harm him.

The old realpolitik is a failure. Desiring stable discatorships (there really is no such thing, but whatever) serves HIM. The Bush doctrine, while horribly applied and admittedly even more poorly sold by perhaps the worst communicator to ever sit in the White House, is sound. We need to encourage liberal democracy in that part of the world, since that is the only way to defat political islam.

That requires strength, patience, and deliberate action. Bin laden himself said, the people will follow a strong horse. He is right on that. Does this mean we go attacking dictatorships willy nilly without regard to prudence? No. Does it mean we bite off more than we can chew? No to that as well.

Should we rely more on trade and friendship to get this done? Of course.

Back to Iraq. Iraq was a convenient place to start this for several reasons: one, he was already in violation of the terms of surrender; two, he was a particularly nasty piece of work, and three, Israel needs a free fly zone if they are going to hit Iran down the road.

It served multiple purposes and what did it do as well? We defeated them, and only lost a few thousand men. Any loss of life is bad, but think how that looks to the world of the Jihad -- how many of THEM will have to die vs us?

That alone, had the press not been against the war and the Democrats openly seeking to undermine it, could have demoralized them. It did, at first, until the media and the left erased all that. Bush, had he been an effective communicator like a Ronald Reagan could have gone to the people and turned that around. Bush...well blech.

Anyway Iraq may not have been the wisest place to start this -- maybe Iran would have been better. But then, people would make the argument that Iran was Shiite instead of Sunni...and a bad place for that reason -- once again not looking at the big picture.

This is a generational war that we did not start. In fact this is a millennial war that has been going on since the 600s. We better get used to it, and stop dividing over it. It is true, them being divided helps US -- but US being divided helps them much, much more.