Tattooed Microwave Glass Tray

Mission, British Columbia

Turkies

Regardless of one's views in regards to the West being involved outside of the West...this is sad.

The Greece @ Turkey friendly match, was none to friendly to victims of the recent France terrorist attacks.

Along with booing, whistling and other verbal messages from the Turkish crowd, "Allahu Akbar," was heard, meaning God is great, or God is greater from the Arabic to the English.

My moderate conservative position, religiously and politically is cautious of Western involvement is non-Western affairs. I personally favour a very strong Western military alliance, such as NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), but more so for defensive purposes and defensive war.

When non-Western nations are interfered with as in via Western military, a rational response from the masses such as democracy is better than different types of dictatorships, therefore, Western influence is good and appreciated, to mould a dictatorship toward democracy, should not necessarily be expected from the masses.

This Western approach although somewhat rational, seems to me to overlook the human and national pride aspect of non-Western peoples.

This corrupted within sinful human nature. (Romans 1-6 in general terms).

Many in the masses will non-rationally,  support THEIR tyrant or like, over a Western foreigner.

That being stated, I reason there is no excuse or good rational and ethical reason to support terrorism in any form.

Shame on the Turkies...

(Note: November 21 via Facebook an article was linked to me and by second hand knowledge it was stated that the crowd may have not been supporting the terrorist act, but were in disagreement with the terrorists and/or Western foreign policy. I found some other articles with other views and this is a questionable position. Some may have been making noises for other reasons but this is still disrespectful. And that is only some, please see comments section).

As noted in a recent post on my other blog, even in a state of War, I view killing civilians and non-combatants as immoral and unethical.

As well, even though I have a Biblical Christian worldview and not a secular one,  I strongly support the Western objective (Romans 13) to protect itself, its nations, as in maintaining law and order.

As well, I of course do not believe in the Islamic God, which to me is a cultural creation hundreds of years after Christianity and in disagreement with central Christian theology, such as the Nature of God, The Trinity, The Deity of Christ, The Atonement of Christ and Salvation By Grace through Faith Alone. That being unto good works (Ephesians 2) and not in any way, by good works.

The events at the match also makes me ponder...

I can accept that many Western Muslims do not support radical Islam and terrorism.

However, what about the Turkish population?

A member of NATO.

Should the European Union (for which I am an overseas citizen) allow Turkish membership?

Over Turkey: Travel+Leisure/Facebook

WOTT: Waste Of Time Theory

Facebook

Boundless

Cited

'Host: Lisa Anderson

GUESTS: Candice Watters

[3:22] - He's much older than she. He keeps asking her to do things with his friends. She's not interested, but doesn't want to hurt his feelings. Is there a way to let him down kindly, but once and for all? Candice Watters offers advice.'

End Citations

I am not looking for conflict here, I am reviewing in an academic context and seeking truth, not in perfect objectivity but seeking objectivity.

After emailing Focus on the Family, I was placed on their email list and it links to this interesting site and program. As well, I have emailed both the host and guest counsellor separately on this issue in general terms.

I admit, I reason I can learn from the site and program.

As with other books and audio I have commented on there is agreement and disagreement.

I very much agree with the host and guest counsellor that a person not interested in a relationship, a relationship of any kind, should not be further pursued.

In the story presented, the man should back off permanently.

I also agree with the host that women should not show mixed signals to men that have showed interest in them.

A rejection, if necessary, should be final and one should not dabble with the person rejected in thought and action.

Even if in secret.

If in Christ, a rejection was made in haste and there is rejection remorse still months and years later, then a prayerful reconsideration of the rejection may need to take place

Perhaps repentance.

All Christians, including myself need to repent at times.

It should be no surprise that some in Christ need to repent in the area of romantic interest, at times, in light of the inner and external spiritual darkness associated with romantic love.

No surprise at all...

The Boundless guest counsellor was very annoyed that men twenty years older would even show interest in younger women.

(By the way, in contrast, in all the Christian counselling I took at Columbia Bible College, I was taught that the counsellor should remain rather objective and non-emotional when counselling.)

It can be deduced this would be the case in every instance with the guest counsellor's view, not just the case discussed where the man seemingly was not accepting rejection.

The guest counsellor stated this incident placed her almost over the edge.

The guest counsellor stated the act by the man was creepy.

Many readers from a Western context would connect the act with the man and view him also as creepy.

A creep.

Is a single man twenty years older necessarily committing a creepy act by pursuing someone younger that is a legal adult and of child-bearing age? (1 Corinthians 7, Matthew 5).

Is he a creep?

Where is the evidence?

(She just assumes--ass u me, as was taught to me by my trainer with my first insurance job.)

Where does the Scripture state this view?

Or is this more an American, North American and Western philosophical and cultural construct?

The guest counsellor view seemed at least to some degree:

Unbiblical
Unbalanced
An overreaction

The pre-set bias of at least some of the Focus On the Family counsellors and psychologists is demonstrated here.

By my deduction and reasoning, a typical American Evangelical perhaps fundamentalistic, Focus psychologist would state in regard to a younger woman in a potential relationship to a man 10+ years older, the problem would be a lack of similar relationship experience, interests and life goals.

Even if there was mutual spiritual, intellectual and romantic attraction.

Therefore, the relationship should not be considered. 

However, if I could object with the counter...

My relationship experience is limited and therefore similar to someone much younger, and I may have similar interests and life goals as someone younger.

For example, I still want to be married with a family in a Biblical model. God willing.

Therefore, the relationship should be considered, where there is mutual spiritual, intellectual and romantic attraction.

I reason this would be largely ignored by Focus professionals, due to pre-set bias and views and could be countered with...

Anyone, 35 years of age+ that does not have significant relationship experience must be significantly psychological, perhaps spiritually, flawed.

(This may be alluded to and not clearly stated.)

The person under review needs counselling.

(By the way, I have friends in counselling and psychology and no one that knows me well has seriously criticized my views.)

(It is only some rare outsiders that do.)

Therefore, the relationship should not be considered.

But I would counter...

This a mere assumption.

The post-Christian era is among us.

Christianity and the Church in decline.

Numbers of Christians low, especially in BC and Canada.

The Evangelical church has lost its ways theologically in many cases.

The number of available committed, theological Christians of any age is significantly limited.

Biblical Christians should consider more reasonable, Biblical options.

Therefore, the relationship should not be rejected as a possibility due to lack of relationship experience of the older man.

Now, I do not want to use an accident fallacy.

Generally most younger women will not be attracted to older men.

I hold to:

'WOTT'

Waste Of Time Theory

In other words, I do not believe in wasting my time pursuing any kind of relationship where the other does not show significant mutual interest.

Interestingly, I just connected again with a Christian friend I had not seen since 1986 and so I also reason that situations can change over time.

Business Insider October 23 2015

Cited

'9 ways to start a conversation with absolutely anyone'

Cited

'Ask a hypothetical question. These can be great conversation starters, but try to tie them into something happening at the event or in current events to avoid seeming too random. You might say something like, "I just saw this movie where all the laws were revoked for one day. What would you do if there were no laws for a day?"'

Seriously?

A philosophical question in regard to law and ethics?

We might as well just do the tie in to the free will and determinism debate as icebreaker...

Canada v America On Freedom

From documented article

US News and World Report

Cited

'This Is the Freest Country in the World Sorry, America.'

'By Lauren Boyer Nov. 3, 2015 | 10:54 a.m. EST'

America is the Western democracy with the world's largest and most powerful military.

America having the largest and most powerful military within Western democracy does not necessarily equate to being the most free country.

Canada v America: It is interesting that the United States had an armed revolution against the United Kingdom to achieve its type of freedom, whereas Canada remained under British control to achieve its type of freedom.

Therefore, was armed revolution, which seems to read as unBiblical from Romans 13, necessary to obtain Western democracy?

The United States is perhaps the greatest (quantitative) country ever to exist and it is also a propaganda machine.

As a professor of mine at Columbia Bible College once told me, all nations have mythology and therefore I would deduce, propaganda.

Ironically, that institution also had its own form of Mennonite non-resistance mythology and propaganda, but I digress.

Cited

'America may call itself the "Land of the Free," but it's hardly the freest nation in the world, according to a new report from the Legatum Institute, a London-based think tank.'

I am not stating that any of these reports can dogmatically and certainly document which country is the most free. I would reason that some categories are chosen for review and some are not and this effects results, statistics and conclusions.

This becomes a complex endeavour and ranking nations is questionable and not certain.

America may be the most free country according to some results, statistics and conclusions.

When I completed questionnaires and statistics at MPhil and PhD research theses level, I certainly with United Kingdom/European academic standards had to aim for as high level of objectivity as possible, but still some questions were asked and some were not.

But, I find it interesting that the United States of America is now behind Canada for the third time in recent articles I have posted on my sites.

However, as an outsider I am not going to make truth claims in regard to these reports, but they offer research to consider.

Humen Freedom Index

In regard to freedom, as I noted previously, I ponder if the large military and intelligence structure in the United States, which admittedly within NATO protects not only America, but also the Western world and other, can also work against the freedoms of Americans.

Because of its 'world policeman' status, perhaps the freedoms of those in other countries are also effected at times.

Increased surveillance of citizens, due to potential Islamic terrorist threats is one hypothetical example that I list that may limit freedoms.

My second country and birthplace of my Father, the United Kingdom, is ranked at twelve.

Cited

'The group's annual prosperity index, which ranks the prosperity of 142 countries, has ranked Canada the best country in the world for "personal freedom."

According to the study, Canada is the most tolerant of people from other countries, with 92 percent of Canadians thinking the country is a good place for immigrants. In addition, about 94 percent of Canadians believe that they have the freedom to choose the course of their own lives, the study says.' 

Cited

'America, on the other hand, ranks 15th for frezedom, just behind Costa Rica and the Netherlands. The best countries for personal freedom are: 1. Canada 2. New Zealand 3. Norway 4. Luxembourg 5. Iceland 6. Ireland 7. Sweden 8. Denmark 9. Australia 10. Uruguay



Crazy drummer; he is a like a real life 'Animal'.

Columbia: One of my best entertainment purchases...