Facebook & Harassment

Google+

As Facebook did not provide a Facebook group site block option, I reported a Facebook group site for harassment and received the reply today below from Facebook. I would have preferred a block site option.

Reporting the site was the reasonable option provided to me by Facebook and I then blocked the individual profiles of those within the group I reasoned were responsible as Administrators.

Cited:

‘Thanks for your feedback 

Thank you for taking the time to report something that you feel may violate our Community Standards.

Reports like yours are an important part of making Facebook a safe and welcoming environment. We reviewed the group you reported for harassment and found it doesn't violate our Community Standards. Please let us know if you see anything else that concerns you. 

If you want us to look at something specific in a group, be sure to report the content (ex: photo), not the entire group. 

We want to keep Facebook safe and welcoming for everyone.’

End Citation:

Thank you, Facebook, for the reply.

This should be a concern to Facebook, however.

A Facebook friend request was made to me. Soon, I could see from the profile that this person was Islamic.

Fair enough, I am Christian and have a Religious Studies and Philosophy PhD; I am willing to be friends with those of other worldviews and one may wish discuss worldview issues with me at some time because of my education, understandably.

This person may be one of the site Administrators, from the reported site in question. But I was then without permission added to this Islamic Facebook group in question and I soon quit the group (that I never willingly joined).

It became clear I was in this group when in the middle of the night, while I was in bed, my mobile phone had alerted me audibly with messages posted from the group in Arabic. I was then soon added again without permission, and quit the group once again. So, I then blocked both persons that appeared to be site Administrators and filed this complaint and report with Facebook.

I would prefer to talk things out with a person or persons when there are disputes on Facebook and online, but I am not going to be persuaded of religious or philosophical views by being forced or coerced onto a website.

Warmest Regards

Russ Murray

Facebook Loosely Defined Acquaintances?

Facebook Loosely Defined Acquaintances?

The new URL for my other blog, my original blog. The URL now more closely matched to blog title.

Blogger offers no redirect function, sadly.

drrnm.blogspot.com

Business Insider January 28 2016

Cited

'In the early '90s, anthropologist Robin Dunbar proposed that a human being has the capacity to have up to 150 meaningful relationships. Recently, Dunbar did a study of human interaction on Facebook and found that number to be much lower. We only have 4 real friends, and 14 that care at all. 

Produced by Joe Avella'

End Citations

Philosophically, I have viewed online work and contacts as a means to an end and not an end.

My various Blogger, Google+ and Facebook sites exist primarily for career, ministry and personal reasons, but if I was to make a significant contact online, there would be a significant mutual interest to possibly have offline contact if circumstances allowed.

In other words, hypothetically at least, someone online would be worth potentially contacting offline.

Online social networking for the sake of online social networking in itself has very limited value for myself.

I, of course use online blogging as a media to publicly present my academic work, which includes the potential of public critique.

Social networking sites also provide entertainment and have some educational value.

Via one of my You Tube subscriptions, I was recently watching a very professional online female relationship coach from Europe that stated (paraphrased) home-produced 'selfie' profile photos made a man look like he sits at home all the time with no social life.

She noted that it was better to use a profile photo from a social setting.

On one hand, I can see this reasonable psychology.

My Conwy, Castle photograph with my English friend, Simon, is a very good profile photo for me to use on Facebook, as even though it is a few years old it shows me in a social setting.

And I basically look pretty much the same...thankfully. Slightly older with a little more muscle mass.

On the other hand, frankly, as I have stated in different articles on this site, I am not interested in sharing my social life online in great detail.

I have been to a combination of Europe and the British Isles approximately eight times, including living in England for almost two years, but I have chosen to share very few of my actual photographs.

I have visited the United States several times.

Instead, I share professional photos from sites such as Facebook, Google+ and Trekearth.

Many of these are of Europe.

Intellectually, it should not be concluded I have no interest in visiting Europe or that I have no interest in world travel because I do not share many of my own photos.

In the same way, it should not be concluded that I do not like to attend parties because I do not share many party photos online.

Should I use social events to promote myself for 'loosely defined acquaintances' that are on the fence on whether to contact me in faith, and perhaps get to know me better?

Since most of our online contacts are 'loosely defined acquaintances' there is very little commitment to being a Facebook 'Friend' or Google+ "Friend'.

If someone wants to find out more about me, there are many social media options available as opposed to making deductions about me from the sort of profile photos presented!

I think what can be deduced from social media and my profile photos is that I work a lot and share the occasional 'selfie' taken while I am online.

I listen to sermons from SearchLight Ministries and Pastor Jon Courson, online, and a true thing he states (paraphrased) is that social media sites such as Facebook do not present reality but often show people trying to make their lives look better and more exciting than they are in reality.

They are as phoney as my bodybuilder friend Bobby Buff in the 1990s, as he denied at the time he was showing off his muscles to the women at Columbia Bible College, wearing his angelic white muscle shirts.

Only to finally admit that this was the truth, decades later.

As I have noted theologically, persons are finite and sinful (Ephesians, Romans as examples).

Placing too much trust in limited knowledge, social deductions from social media is a danger of the present times.

Within modern psychology in the context of career job facilitators and corporate headhunters, they stress the need to make personal offline social contacts in all areas of life.

It is acceptable that these offline contacts originate as online ones.

I heard it stated recently (paraphrased) that no matter how good your intellectual arguments are you will not convince someone until you get to their emotions.

There is much truth to that in many cases (although in an academic context less so) and that is a reason for in-person intellectual and emotional, offline contacts in the contexts of career, ministry and personal.

Google+/Facebook

Christian Cologne?

Cologne Cathedral:Walldotalphacodersdotcom

Cited

'Published on Jul 25, 2012 10 Dating Tips For The Christian Man was based off of some tips online from the 60s, modified for our purposes.'

End Cited

I will preface my statements by writing that I am not on the attack against anyone in this article.

Not my style on my sites.

Rather, I am attempting to examine this issue reasonably, but it will not be exhaustive.

---

I will admit I have mixed views on the video and that it was enjoyable as a work of satirical art. I found it amusing at points. I viewed it more than once in order to reasonably understand it.

I enjoy these documentary type videos from the 1960s as an art form and it was well-done by the producer, although modified.

Is the video mocking Christianity?

The producer of the video may or may not have a good, reasonable, intellectual understanding of Christianity and Christian worldview within an academic Religious Studies and Philosophy context.

I would deduce the producer has significant knowledge of Christian culture.

Some conservative and very conservative Christians may find the video offensive.

Some in these groups may find it offensive that a moderate conservative Christian such as myself would enjoy the video as an art form and find some of it amusing.

But, I find the Christian, conservative, 'humour police', sometimes just are not very realistic when it comes to humour and art.

I do not think a forced type of 'Puritan' approach to humour is very intellectually honest.

This video is obviously satirical.

And perhaps mocking Christianity, in the romantic, dating context.

However, intellectually and philosophically, there is room to consider negative critiques.

The Christian cologne example does portray how Christian culture/Evangelical Christian culture can 'Christianize' things where there is no need for that to take place.

It could be concluded from the video that Christians should not be socially inept with culture.

To reach the world, yet not be part of the world system, requires a reasonably good social understanding of the world and not social ineptness.

In regard to praying before a date, I reason it is not an action worthy of satire...

1 Thessalonians 5:16-18

English Standard Version (ESV)

16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

From a Biblical, Christian perspective, anything important is worth praying about, consistently.

I grew up in a primarily secular household in secular Canada and as well earned four degrees in Religious Studies and Philosophy; in Christian and secular contexts, North American and British/European contexts.

I will once again state on my site (s) that the secular Western world with its predominant lack of Biblical, Religious Studies and Philosophical education and knowledge, has a majority of citizens that are in no reasonable intellectual position to significantly opine on or judge the Christian worldview, any religious worldview, or any philosophical worldview, period.

Most persons in the Western world do not have a significant intellectual grasp of any worldview.

There are some professors, including secular ones and some within the intellectual elite that do have a reasonable, significant understanding of Religious Studies, Christianity, Philosophy and worldviews, but they are a minority in society.

The majority in Western society, and any society are largely following cultural and social norms, without significant education in Religious Studies and Philosophy.

The statement:

'People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'...comes to mind.

In the same way that I am intellectually average in many areas such as fashion and landscaping and my critiques of those involved would not hold much intellectual weight!

Crimes That Get One Executed In Saudi Arabia

Arabian Desert from the Daily Galaxy

Vocativ: June 18, 2015 by James King

Source

Cornell Law School: Death Penalty Worldwide

Vocativ Cited

'At least 16 “crimes” can result in a death sentence in Saudi Arabia—and more than a third wouldn’t even get you jail time in the U.S. On that list: sorcery and witchcraft. Of the 100 people executed this year, 47 were convicted of non-violent drug crimes, according to Human Rights Watch. Only 57 were Saudi citizens.'

Cited continued

'In many countries, there are established minimum and maximum sentences for different crimes—or a penal code. In Saudi Arabia, that is virtually non-existent. Only a handful of crimes, including murder, adultery and “consensual sexual relations between adults of the same sex,” carry specific punishments, and in each of those cases, it’s death, according to Death Penalty Worldwide.

Critics say this lack of a penal code gives judges broad discretion over the sentences they hand down, which allows them to impose death sentences, typically carried out by beheading, somewhat arbitrarily.'

Vocativ

The Wikipedia article on Saudi Arabia calls it a ‘Unitary, Islamic, Absolute, Monarchy’.

It may be considered by some observers, a theocracy.

The subject of debate.

As I noted on previous posts, I am personally philosophically opposed to a theocracy, or religious rule.

I would be opposed to theonomy, at least when corporately controlled, in this present realm. It is one thing to be self-directed by religious rule within a religious community, such as a church and the Church, it is another to be forced to follow religious rules by the State.

I do not hold to Islam as a worldview, but follow a Biblical Christian faith, philosophy and theology.

Theocracy

N.H.G Robinson states that just as democracy signifies a type of government ruled by the people by elected representatives, theocracy represents government rule by God and his representatives. Ancient Israel is a primary example. Robinson (1999: 564).

M.J. Wyngaarden explains that word is derived from the Greek words for God, theos, and from kratein to rule. This represents the rule of God. and is traced back to the Old Testament concept and may have been coined by Josephus. Wyngaarden (1996: 1083).

All human beings are presently sinful, by nature and significant free choice, not being forced or coerced to commit thoughts and actions for which they are significantly morally accountable. If one is forced or coerced to commit thoughts or actions, he or she is not morally accountable, in my view,

I do not support any primarily human attempt at establishing theocracy. Or religious rule.

I do not assume divine origins as sanctioning attempts at theocracy or religious rule.

A primarily human attempt at theocracy or religious rule does not guarantee Biblically based rule through the guidance of the true God.

Serious religious error can develop within a theocracy as political power can influence theology. 

Persons with views differing from the theocratic rule can be persecuted and even killed, as people committing treason.

Human rights and freedoms can be violated.

Therefore, In the present age, I favour democracy over theocracy.

Even as democracy is of course too tainted by sin.

God and Christ are stated in Revelation, Chapters 21-22 to eventually establish the supernaturally culminated Kingdom of God.

Human beings that are at all involved in ruling will be resurrected and sinless. (1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation).

True divine rule will feature the infinite goodness and knowledge of God and the ability to reasonably and fairly rule as a theocracy. Although Christ will be King, there will likely exist some democracy, as in human beings having some self-rule in Christ.

Theonomy

N.H.G. Robinson and D.W.D. Shaw note that theonomy is an interpretation of a person’s life when ultimate ethical authority is found in the divine will. Autonomy would be self-imposed authority. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567).

They reference Paul Tillich and note that he states that theonomy is a law or principle which brings together the law of people with the ground and source of all being. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567).

For some autonomy and theonomy may be understood as the immanent and transcendent aspects of the ethics of theism. Robinson and Shaw. (1999: 567).

These seem like reasonable definitions, although Tillich’s does not read as particularly Christian. God would be more than the ground and source of all being, but a personal God that has revealed himself and laws that reflect his nature and will for humanity.

ROBINSON, N.H.G (1999) 'Theocracy' in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ROBINSON, N.H.G. AND SHAW D.W.D. (1999) ‘Theonomy’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

WYNGAARDEN, M.J. (1996) ‘Theocracy’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.