Videogame Violence And My VentSo did you hear the one about the kid who shot his parents 'because they took away his copy of Halo 3'? I anticipate the Jack Thompsons of this world to start speaking again any day now, so before that happens (or as it does), I have this to say to them: screw you.The headlines keep saying that Daniel Petric killed his parents because they took his copy of Halo 3, as if they grabbed it and he pulled a gun on them. But if you read up on it, you actually find that they took his copy of the game, and about a month later he kills them. But because he ran off with his copy of the game, Halo 3 is all over the news. I don't know the Petric's, but here's what I know from my experience with homeschoolers (bare in mind that I think homeschooling is a good thing). Many, I might even go so far as to say the majority, of the homeschoolers I've known are kooks or borderline kooks or control freaks or all of the above. Daniel was nearly seventeen and his parents would not allow him to play Halo, claiming it is 'too violent and sexually explicit.' Anyone who has played the game has scratched their head wondering why the heck it garnered the 'M' rating. The language is relatively mild by comparison. The violence is just standard shooting, and in campaign it's always aimed at non-humans. The gore is a little animated blood upon injury. There has been worse content placed in 'T' rated games. And the sexuality that rev. Petrics claims... it's non-existent. How the boy's father, a church of god pastor, derives that from Halo is beyond anyone's guess. The idea that some kid who could quote extensive biblical passages and never showed any signs of being violent, would just up and shoot his parents one day over a videogame (or any house rule) is ludicrous. Something more was obviously going on in that house even if it wasn't illegal. Here's an interesting fact... Apparently Daniel knew about his father's gun, as he shot it with his father routinely. Apparently he knew where the key was to the lock box that housed it and the game, but for some reason it took him a month to get the game back? The game was locked up with the gun. If he did it over the game, it would make more sense that it would've been done sooner while he still had a hot head. However if he did it for some ongoing reason, it's plausible that he just took the game while he was at it. It was in the same lock box with the gun after all. I blame Daniel for pulling the trigger. Guns don't kill people; videogames don't kill people; people do kill people. And like I said, 'I don't know them,' but I still have little doubt that there was some ongoing motivation for what he did. I find it ironic that he apparently played very little Halo, but he was apparently drowning in christianity. But no one seems to be re-examining the teaching the boy received. If it was sound, why would he suddenly pull the trigger? Yeah, I'm implying that 'christians' are simply some of the most infuriating people in the world. I've grown up in church. I have a very firm belief in God, and his son who willingly died for the sake of the world. In fact, I would go so far as to say that while I may not be his strongest follower, though I try, what faith I do have is unshakable. But it has gotten to the point where, though I sometimes still go to church, I'm not sure I want to be affiliated with the 'church' anymore. It's never what it was suppose to be, and just because we don't go to any church regularly, everyone thinks we should go to theirs, as if out of all 5,782 churches in Arab, Alabama theirs is best. What really makes me sick is that they will not say this to my face. They say it to Elizabeth's. What your about to see is an actual vent. Not a rant, not an amature editorial. This is a vent of all the stupidity I've seen just within the last week. A baptist pastor spoke to Elizabeth about going to his church, and she tried to shrug him off gracefully at a public event. She told him about the fact that she and I went to a PCA Presbyterian church and preferred it, but he claimed that the PCA was not run correctly and was incredibly wrong in their belief because they have sprinkle baptisms (ours would immerse as well), as if that is some horrible thing for them to do. If it is faith that saves us, then baptism is just a symbol, and if that is the case, I honestly don't believe the method is a big deal. The baptist church is run by so called deacons. Deacon was a title appointed to one who made sure that the needy were taken care of. They were never meant to be a governing body and were never spoken of by Jesus. Now they aren't even a governing body so much as they are an obnoxious political brick wall that sits on their fat___'s and disapprove everything, effectively stalling anything truly productive and renduring the church no more than a club for whatever group of people happens to be in the area at the time. My most recent experience with the baptist church was that of the warm fuzzy crowd. It's the weirdest thing to get together with a lot of people who want to watch someone scream and holler for an hour or more every Sunday morning just so they can affirm him with their 'amens' and 'glories.' And he really did just scream and holler. He made people feel like they were listening to something that needed to be heard; when he was just the squeaky door that got the oil. And it's ironic that people get their warm fuzzies from it. Deacons in the PCA church do not make decisions, they really do just make sure that needs are met for food, housing, clothing, etc... Elders make choices for the PCA, which how it was in the early church and among the Hebrews before Jesus even came. The southern baptist as an association is a heretical movement requiring their pastors to never exercise tongues even if so led by God to do so in their private prayer time. While this would not be a problem for me, it does directly contradict scripture. On the surface this is not a big deal, but the principle of it (the fact that it contradicts and |
|
|
