A Test of Faith (Fiction Gems)

---

The fireteam executes its maneuvers, attacks and actions as a cohesive unit, with each person in the unit having pre-assigned and well-drilled responsibilities during each maneuver or action undertaken by the team. When the team breaches a room to engage the targets within, these roles take extra significance and are determined by the tactical approach decided upon by the team leader. As each assaulting team member moves in, he must make a decision about how to turn and which angles of the room to engage.

The team will have painstakingly drilled beforehand on the individual process of room clearing, the priority of target engagement and the positions within the room in which each assaulter will conclude the assault if all goes well. But as the first assaulter enters the room, she must determine which side of the room she will engage; those who follow cue their own engagement strategies off of the person in front of them. This allows for a combination of well-drilled maneuvers and extemporizing to address the realities of actual contact with the enemy. Numerous examples of these techniques can be found on the internet, movies and TV.

An understanding of the techniques and tactics of close-quarters battle will greatly assist in the use of these rules in a way that creates exciting and fast-paced combat encounters that may be resolved in a matter of minutes. If there are more PCs than that, they should likely be divided into two or more fireteams for the purposes of the combat. Enemy fireteams should be of comparable size. The rules for determining the Trait Sets for fireteams are given below.

The core of NPC fireteam dice pools are composed of one die for each combatant in the fireteam. A combatant with no training and no experience likely uses a d4, while a combatant with training but no real combat experience probably uses a d6. A combat veteran would typically add a d8 to the pool, an elite operator a d10 and a top-ten-in-the-world type combatant a d I will likely, in the future, develop some additional systems to address other specific combat scenarios—holding out against overwhelming assault forces, for instance. Trained operators in a CQB fireteam communicate primarily about when to take action, not how to take action—each member of the team is expected to know his role and be able to function effectively without getting in the way of his teammates.

Each teammate in the fireteam contributes his Direct Action die to the dice pool. If the character has the CQB specialization but it is lower than the Direct Action skill, the character may step up his Direct Action die by one the usual maximum of d12 still applies when operating in a fireteam. The highest Stress or Trauma die for any fireteam member who is injured but not out of the conflict is added to the opposing dice pool, per normal combat rules. If a fireteam is using vastly superior technology to its opponents, give the fireteam an Asset that represents the scale of the difference.

No specific guidelines are given for this die so that it is adaptable to particular situations—but this means consistency in its use is paramount. As with any Conflict under Cortex rules, a fireteam with time to prepare may create Assets to assist impending combat. This uses the normal rules for Asset creation and must also make narrative sense. These Assets should typically represent good planning and preparation for a maneuver Covering Fire , Multiple Breach Points , Overwatch or bringing special equipment to bear Breaching Charges and Flashbangs. It may be assumed that a fireteam equipped with particular equipment will be using it per standard operating procedures even when Assets are not in play, so Assets should represent especially-effective applications of those tools and equipment.

The most common goal of an engagement is to stop the enemy, whether by pacifying them, driving them off, or inflicting sufficient injury that they can no longer fight back. In general, fireteam combat operates like combat between individuals with Effect Dice as damage , but the following changes are necessary to bring the system into greater focus.

When a fireteam containing one or more PCs takes damage, we need to know which operator has taken the specific hit. Doing this is relatively simple. Each member of the fireteam is assigned the numbers , for simplicity sake, you may just assign the numbers arbitrarily, making sure to assign a number to each member of the fireteam before assigning additional numbers to any other member of the fireteam.

The numbers should be as evenly distributed as possible, i. When an Effect Die is selected, apply it to the character corresponding to the number shown on the die. Each injury die assigned to a character in the fireteam is added to enemy fireteam dice pools. Most NPCs in fireteams will be nameless combatants. Therefore, it is not as important to keep specific track of injuries for individual members of a fireteam.

If the fireteam has members of mixed Quality Dice, I recommend removing the lower-quality combatants first. Note that this simplified damage system is not based necessarily on killing enemy combatants, but rather, rendering them combat ineffective. That could certainly mean that they have been killed, but it could also mean that they have fled, surrendered, been too injured to continue fighting or that some other circumstance has intervened to prevent them from fighting further—this is intentionally left to narrative freedom.

When a subsequent Effect Die is applied to the fireteam, if the steps of the second Effect Die added to the Complication Die would meet or exceed one of the Quality Dice in the group, remove both a Quality Die for the eliminated combatant and the Complication die. Each Effect Die assigned may injure or eliminate only one enemy combatant at a time—dice steps over the threshold to eliminate a combatant are lost.

As these rules are currently written, multiple PC injuries will quickly put a PC fireteam in extreme danger. The rationale for the current system is to make combat difficult for characters and to make them focus on good preparation and execution to avoid stumbling into massacres. After playing with these rules some, I may change to one of the alternatives. If you happen to try out these rules for yourself, your input and criticisms are appreciated. One of the goals of this system is to provide a simplified combat system for larger-scale combats as a supplement to individual-based combat, which may be more dramatically appropriate in certain cases.

I also intend to allow a Plot point to be paid to allow one additional Effect Die to the result. Both options assume that an Effect Die is available to be used. When Complications are invoked against the PCs in this CQB ruleset, the easiest application is to apply the Complication as Stress to one of the characters—representing that character taking a hit stopped by body armor but painful, scary and distracting nonetheless , being lightly injured in a hand-to-hand scuffle, or suffering an environmental injury while maneuvering.

One complicating factor here is the determination of which character should suffer the Complication. This system is, as mentioned, currently theoretical and without playtesting.

Additionally, it is not yet complete. Instead, I mean the feel of the combat and thus the game. The nuances of combat are many and, while they make excellent details for the narration of firearms combat, typically only to stall progress and make a fight boring when it should be exciting if incorporated into the mechanics of the system employed. The need for such limitations are etched upon human history, both in the criminal justice and psychiatric fields. They have to choose that for themselves.

In response to my arguments, K asked the ultimate question: But the answer as a whole needs more exploration. One final note, though: I am by no means advocating in this post that we should not oppose or stop those who are hurting others in some way. We are, unfortunately, called to prioritize loving some people over others because one are more people are actively and purposefully inflicting great harm. Psychological Problem—Separating Sin and Sinner in our Minds The Psychological Problem is related to the Existential Problem just as the Existential Problem is related to the Epistemological Problem I apologize to those of you who just heard a tune following those words.

According to my admittedly incomplete understanding of psychology, there are aspects of our conscious and subconscious mind that interact in ways that we cannot often easily detect. The point of psychotherapy, in part, is to uncover the subconcious so that it can be worked upon by the conscious. But how many of us are fully aware of all of the mental and emotional activities that go on when we love or hate?

The Psychological Problem is an acknowledgment of the intrusion of emotion into our actual practice of morality in the real world. If we are trying to focus efforts on parsing out people into the parts we can love and the parts we should hate, how do we know that aspects of one part are not bleeding inadvertantly into the other? How do we discover and mitigate inadvertant psychological activity that threatens our wholeheartedly loving our neighbor? Here, K would caution me that the argument is about the people we can love and their actions that we can hate and argue that we are capable of such division.

But, it does, I think, bring my point about the various problems above into perspective: The Scriptural Problems need no further explanation and militate against categorical determinations of sin to begin with. The Epistemological Problem asserts itself to argue that if we must consider context—the intent of the person in whom and how they love or the circumstances in which they engage in sexual activity is not fully knowable by us and we ought to resort to demonstrating grace to be safe—morally speaking.

The Existential Problem reminds us of a distinction often overlooked, I think. For conservatives, homosexuality is neatly divided into the existential and the phenomenal. But there is a more pressing existential concern here even than the attempt to use such artificial dichotomy to maintain such a tenuous position. And, again, this flows into the Psychological Problem. In most cases but certainly not all , the difference is blatant—at least to all but the actor. We can never dispel all doubt about the conclusion at which we arrive. If, as I have argued elsewhere, the morality of a particular action is highly dependent upon both intent and context, misunderstanding either causes us to misjudge the morality of the action altogether.

The likelihood for this is, in some cases, so high, that we are better off not judging at all—and this is what Jesus warns us of. This is, in some cases, a very strong argument. As with all arguments based on epistemological skepticism, there comes a point at which, to meaningfully interact with existence, we must accept and overlook some philosophical uncertainty of our knowledge. There are a few points at which I must push back against this argument however. If I am the creator of the hypothetical, then for all intents and purposes I control the reality of the hypothetical.

There is nothing wrong with this for the examination of moral principles to approach objective standards which we might strive to achieve or determine need refinement. But a tendency exists to transfer this artificial omniscience to the examination of actual people and events. This mistake ignores the epistemological problem altogether, to our detriment. But when it comes to determining our own moral behavior i. Existential Problem—Sinfulness and Sins I follow the epistemological problem with an existential problem, because it is partly epistemological as well.

Existential thought is grounded in epistemological skepticism you see, becuase it accepts as true what all experiences indicates—that our perception of what exists and what actually exists are not always the same. To make matters worse, sometimes they are the same, or at least might be, but then how are we to recognize that moment of transcendent clarity for what it is? In my post, Is Sin Phenomenal or Existential? That being the case, how are we to separate the one from the other?

What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?

But until then, if we are hating something that is, like it or not, a part of us, how do we properly compartmentalize those things? How do we separate the love from the hate and keep them in proper balance? For the first post in this series, click here.

Easily Read Documents Online

The closest Biblical parallel is from Jude 1: The book was one of the more highly-disputed entries into the Canon, in part becuase of its reference to works that were rejected from Canon the Book of Enoch in particular—if you want some B-movie fanfic of the Bible, go read the Book of Enoch. This alone does not mean its content is necessarily theologically unsound this would be an ad hominem attack, after all but it does caution some extra care in interpretation.

While there is some consensus that 2 Peter and Jude are related, there is debate about which came first and exactly how they are related. But, again, none of this background information is determinative on how we should interpret Jude. But the intent, I think, is not clear. The larger context of the passage is warning the believer to show mercy to others while guarding himself from sin. The inward focus of the warning comports with the preceding verses Jude 1: This warning, to guard oneself against outside corruption, to check oneself for sin that may be purged, is an oft-repeated warning in the Bible.

It goes like this Matthew 7: For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Given the absolute commandment not to judge that precedes the statements about wood and eyeballs, the parable strongly implies that we are not in this life ever going to be capable of properly viewing sin in others. As a note, this section does not appear in the earliest manuscripts of John available to us. But such an interpretation both ignores the rest of the passage and the special position of Jesus in making such a statement.

And let us not forget that Jesus is God—the One who has the power to judge and convict of sin. God is therefore positioned to tell a person about their sin in a way that we are not. As a note before I begin, I had an excellent conversation with K last night on this topic, and she provided some strong counterpoints to some of my ideas. If you know her and want to know her views, please take that up with her and do not let me put words in her mouth that seem to commit her to a position that might not reliably represent her actual belief.

At the same time, we more frequently use the words to represent emotions towards others people or things. There is no clarity. This allows four possibilities: I think that only 2 above is a defensible usage. The emotional use has no bearing on morality and therefore cannot be employed as a recommendation for or justification of righteous action.

Both 3 and 4 are too logically confused to be sensible. A sidenote of thanks to K for convincing me of the possibility of 2 being proper—though I ultimately believe that it is not. As smart as I am, it helps to have an equally-smart person remind me where I could be wrong! Our emotions certainly often do interact with our moral choices. At the best of times, our emotions are indicators of morality—this would be in line with what C. But just as often, emotions push us away from moral action—how we feel about a particular person influences the likelihood of us taking moral action with regard to that person.

Action is moral or immoral based upon objective standards, not the subjective pull of emotion.

A Test of Faith (Fiction Gems)

The practical difficulty of separating emotion from moral choice does not change the fact that morality is not based on emotion at all. There are heroes and villians, drama and plot twists, the exciting and unexpected. The academic historical approach concerns itself not with the strength of the narrative, necessarily, but with the determination of questions like: These are great questions, and an understanding of historiography is a significant boon to the worldbuilder in her craft.

At times, the truth is even stranger than fiction—what delight when we stumble upon such usurpations of our expectations! But let us set both historian and worldbuilder aside for this post, shall we? Stories that come from history, yes, but which are not beholden to the determination of historical fact. Some of the most enduring fiction takes the seeds of history—even if only for context—and waters them to blossom into something apart from, and often more existentially significant, than the history that spawned it. White and Disney, for that matter , the story has morphed and grown as a contemplation of these ideas quite apart from any historical basis.

The early tales of Robin Hood lack the moral fortitude or noble birth of the hero, having more in common with medieval tales of Reynard the Fox than the Disney fox. The history of Robin Hood tales also demonstrates that the stories took on a life of their own completely independent from any historical basis—and perhaps rightly so, because these stories tell us something about popular ideas of morality versus the law, bad rulership and justice undone.

A crucified Savior will never be content to have a self-pleasing, self-indulging, worldly-minded people! If we will not carry the cross — we shall never wear the crown! An infallible test of our real self.

Were I to define a Christian. He has a window into your heart! Such freaks are more fit for a traveling circus. The back door to hell. The master deception of Satan! The hypocrite's only care. White feathers — but black skin. We are not saved by believing a creed.

Something peculiar, distinct, and different from other people. Christ has a yoke for our necks — as well as a crown for our heads! Something peculiar, distinct, and different. So many truly sincere and religious people. A vulture, a worm eternally gnawing him! All taken up with fashion, amusement, and folly!

When a man's tongue is extensively wrong. A decent, flowery, down-hill way to eternal destruction! So many millions of nominal Christians! The immeasurable riches of His grace. Rotten at the heart! You would not suspect him to be a Christian. Will the gates of pearl be opened to let in dogs and swine? Counterfeit piety — is double iniquity! The gay and foolish multitude. An honest heathen — or a fake Christian? The sins of the godly and the ungodly. Carnal, careless, and covetous.

Embracing Jesus Himself as our personal Redeemer! Reader, is this vile viper lurking in your heart? A very common supposition. I am not the man that I was!

Karen Ball

A man of new principles. How many, O how many. Observe the holy virtues. Ascertain what kind of a Heaven a man desires. The evidence of genuine piety. An insatiable thirst after larger attainments. The expulsive power of a new affection. Painted pageantry to go to hell in! Potsherds of earth covered with silver dross. Orthodox in creed — but heterodox in life! The back door to the pit! Cheap and easy work. Christ knows His people by certain distinguishing marks. Coming up from the wilderness. It kindles in the heart.

Testing Liberty

It is a sense of our pollution and filth! Toil in Satan's slave-house!

It changes the tastes. We do not want them here! He may talk like an angel, and live like a devil. One of the most fatal delusions that ever imperiled the immortal soul! How soon does the verdure wither away! You never knew what real happiness was!

Get A Copy

If I am seeking everything that can delight my senses. O my soul, is this all satisfying treasure yours? A Christ in their heads? She could never take him on in a game of cards. Every cruel thought in her imagination seared right through her sapphire eyes and bored into his, which he struggled to keep impassive. Tony carefully bit down on the inside of his lip to keep himself from laughing at her next words.

He shifted his grip until his fingers encircled her wrist. They overlapped on the thin bones, and this time he did chuckle. In a panic, knowing how long she was taking with this customer, she glanced up and spotted Clarence watching her. Are you willing to test me? With a grin, he reluctantly let her go. Unable to stand the thought of leaving him with the last word, she leaned forward again, barely speaking above a whisper.

With that she moved on down the table, ignoring his chuckle that followed her parting shot. She found it especially challenging to keep a polite smile on her face and make inane chatter with the other patrons as she continued to serve while seething inside. She headed back into the kitchen to get more coffee and Clarence immediately intercepted her. The Jewel Series Book 1: Sapphire Ice Robin's heart is as cold as her deep blue eyes. After a terrifying childhood, she trusts neither God nor men.

With kindness and faith, Tony prays for the opportunity to shatter the wall of ice around her heart. When a frigid phantom from the forgotten past threatens their future, Tony's unshakable confidence and Robin's new-found faith must melt the threatening maelstrom. It can also be purchased in paperback at the following booksellers: Excerpt from Sapphire Ice: Have you ever been to Greece?

He kept his voice as soft as hers. A Melody for James 2.

• Odisea en el Norte (Spanish Edition)
• Spell-Kissed
• Duh-Votions: Words of Wisdom for the Spiritually Challenged
• The Summoning of Old Velt: The Second Descent into the Vein (The World of the Vein Book 2)
• ReViewing Chess: Catalan, Closed, Vol. 23.1