 |
| 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... |
@ BIG O TIRE...funny talk of $1350 and $1500 burnouts...
ReplyDeleteI am now on the Focus on the Family mail list, from Colorado.
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of what I have read and heard but not all.
In regard to dating and marriage, there is the usual North American assumed ageism which is also very prevalent in the Church.
I was listening to some 'FOF' dating advice and it is assumed one must pursue someone his/her own age.
There was no Biblical support offered. Simply cultural assumption.
It was never even a consideration that mutual interest might be more important than age, which to me should have been raised as at least a possible important proposition in some cases. Not every case, I will state, to avoid accident fallacy. Generally people like to date and marry someone of the same age and are more comfortable with that, not having interest in other. I have no argument with that in general.
Note, a secular relationship coach that claimed to have vast people experience, including working for intelligence agencies, told me fundamentalist Christians, I take it he meant Biblical Christians and by that, the younger women (18-29), would not date older men 35+ because these Christian women were inexperienced and naive in relationships. Immature, I think he stated.
He stated I would need to look outside the Church. Although I did not agree with his assertion I was merely a divinity student, which I never was, I was a Christian Theologian and Philosopher of Religion, he did make a good point...
So, how much of this evangelical objection is nature and how much is culture?
A red flag arose during one FOF show as a young woman emailed that she had rejected a guy a couple of years ago and that she wondered if she did right, because although she did not like him, he may have liked her and now he moved away. She wondered if she missed on God's will.
The counsellors assumed that if she did not like the man, that her theology must be bad for even considering what she was considering.
They assumed God would not allow her to be confused about attraction...
But my red flag is, why is she still thinking of this man if she did not have some feelings for him?
I know, that when I have rejected women, I never wondered if I did wrong, when I had no feelings for them. I may question how I treated them as in how good was I to them, but I have never wondered if I should date or marry someone I am not attracted to.
So, the red flag leads to the trillion dollar question.
Was she really not attracted to this man at all?
Or was she rather more so not supposed to be attracted to him due to cultural and church social pressures?
Or other men were more attractive, but not available?
I am not stating, that she would likely reject her dream man, but I wonder if there is some legitimate doubt on the Godliness of her rejection which the two female councillors quickly dismissed. Is the person of our dreams, even God's perfect will?
Again, why think so much about and seek advice about a man with whom you had no attraction?
Perhaps the rejection was done in an naive and immature way?
A friend of mine stated maybe she was in a state of desperation, so she thinks she might have made a mistake by not taking the opportunity. That is reasonable as well.
Overall this example, may and I state may, be confused reasoning and repressed attraction which the counsellors should have recognized and considered.
I can see why there would be problems in US evangelical culture with this type of limited advice.
So, to go on, let us break this subject down somewhat...
ReplyDeleteBy my deduction and reasoning, a typical US Evangelical, FOF psychologist would state in regard to someone younger dating someone 35+, let us state in my context younger female & older male; the problem was 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 that 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 FOF professionals, due to pre-set bias and views and countered with...
Anyone, 35+ that does not have significant relationship experience must be significantly flawed.
(This may be alluded to and not clearly stated.)
They need 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 outsiders that do.)
Therefore, the relationship should not be considered.
But I would counter, that 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 in significantly limited.
People 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.
Therefore, generally a relationship should not be considered.
However, there are exceptions and these should be handled in Christ, in truth and not merely be pre-set approaches not willing to consider other propositions.
I actually emailed two different female counsellors at FOF on this issue and both declined to email with me, it appears. It was instead pushed to the Canadian office which replied and did not deal with my theological and philosophical queries, instead signing me up for the site and stating the Canadian site offered Master's degree level counselling.
So, there were three opportunities to deal with my issues. All ducked.
To me, this is yet another sign that many in the evangelical church are unwilling to seriously deal with difficult issues if it MAY require significant worldview changes.
If unable to deal with serious internal issues how can the Church seriously witness to the World (Matthew 28) in many cases?
Palms Out, Everyone
ReplyDeleteWhat should we do with the bread left over from the Lord’s Supper? I was in a high-church wedding once, up on the platform. After the marriage ceremony came the Supper, and then the man in charge looked hard at us up there and said, this must all be consumed (because it had been “consecrated” I think). So that high-class wedding had its grand finale with a bunch of guys in robes pigging out. My own tradition features John Murray walking around right after the Amen with a basket full for the starving kids.
We low-church types believe in priests though, even more so--since we know we all are! We give Martin Luther credit for “the priesthood of all believers,” but it comes from I Peter 2:4-5, As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteJesus the Anointed is our high priest forever, as we come to the Lord only through him. This is the best part of the Westminster Confession for me, the conclusion to Christ the Mediator, 8:8 To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.
ReplyDeleteJesus does that best, because of who he is, especially since he’s been tempted in every way we are, and knows how to pray for us. But we do that too, if we take the trouble to get to know each other and find out where we all are. It’s like a sermon, if it’s going to amount to anything it has to be specific, zeroing in on what the preacher knows where we are.
ReplyDeleteThere’s joy in a general blessing for each other too. At the end of worship many of us hold up our hands palms up, to “receive” the Lord’s blessing, while the leader up front does his hands palms out to “give” it. What if we desire someone to enjoy God’s blessing, may we pray for that while she’s right there with us? Shouldn’t we all build that into our prayer lives? Palms out too?
ReplyDeletePeter said that when we pray for each other, what we’re doing is offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Jesus does so much for us all the time, cleaning up our hearts to make them acceptable to God! That would make a good opening prayer wouldn’t it, O Lord in the name of Jesus and only for his glory, I call on you to accept my feeble prayers for my brothers and sisters. Then the palms out would really make sense, wouldn’t it?
ReplyDeleteWe’re OK when the priest upfront wears his collar backwards. (I get nervous when he turns his back on me at the Table and mixes up something, but I’m getting over that). He’s a priest, fine, so are all of us, join the party. I’ve been interested in “the role of women” in the church of Jesus, and I’m glad my PCA has a committee working on that. But in the meantime, how about being joyful about “the role of all of us,” priests that we are? Oh, since only the high priest could come into the Lord’s holy presence, and that’s what we do all that time, I should have said, “high priests that we are.” Palms out!
ReplyDelete“To make Routine a Stimulus
ReplyDeleteRemember it can cease —
Capacity to Terminate
Is a Specific Grace —.”
-Emily Dickinson, “To make Routine a Stimulus,” 1196
A Retired Person's Perspective
ReplyDelete1. I'm not saying, "Let's go kill all the stupid people." I'm just saying, Let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem work itself out.
2. I changed my car horn to gunshot sounds. People move out the way much faster now.
ReplyDelete3. You can tell a lot about a woman's mood just by her hands. If they are holding a gun, she's probably very angry.
ReplyDelete4. Gone are the days when girls cooked like their mothers. Now they drink like their fathers.
ReplyDelete5. You know that tingly little feeling you get when you really like someone you've just met? That's common sense leaving your body.
ReplyDelete6. I don't like making plans for the day ... Because then the word "premeditated" gets thrown around in the courtroom.
ReplyDelete7. I didn't make it to the gym today. That makes 1,508 days in a row.
ReplyDelete8. I decided to change calling the bathroom "the John" and renamed it "the Jim". I feel so much better saying, "I went to the Jim this morning."
ReplyDelete9. Dear paranoid people who check behind shower curtains for murderers: If you find one, what's your plan?
ReplyDelete10. Politicians should have two terms ~ one in office and one in prison.
ReplyDelete11. Just remember, there is a major difference between intelligence and stupidity: intelligence has its limits.
ReplyDeleteCo-worker Frank grabs our security purple with pink umbrella on this stormy day and states:
ReplyDelete"So who is the most gay of us security officers'?
Not I, I stated with no contradiction from Frank.